I keep reading people refer to their UIM and single or dual hone. All SVT UIM manifolds were single hone, via the same spec, from the factory and flow in the low 170 cfm range. Where did the idea originate that some SVT have dual hone UIM's?
Jeff,
In reply to your post in the GB. You are correct about the Heads being EH more than the 98s. In addition, however, the UIM had a second EH Pass, hence the DH expression.
In addition to the Returnless Style, the Compression was increased in 2000 from 10:1 to 10.25:1
Originally posted by Derk2000:
Originally posted by EvlBill:
Hrm, not quite the numbers I was hoping for.
It has been pointed out to me that while ~13 cfm isn't much of a rate increase for us dual honed folks, we're still getting more volume out of the UIM. This is a good thing. 
I was very interested when the numbers were predicted to be 200+ CFM but at a maximum 193 CFM (13 CFM over stock DH SVT) does not sound like very much in the HP department. How much HP can one expect from only a 7.2% increase in UIM flow on a typicaly modded 2000 SVT...1-2HP, 5-10HP ?
Just not sure if it is really worth the hassle or the money. Maybe DemonSVT or one of the other experts can answer this quickly since we are running out of time.
Sorry for the double post but thim may be better off asked here instead of the GB forum.
Thanks,
Scott
Originally posted by svtjeff:
I keep reading people refer to their UIM and single or dual hone. All SVT UIM manifolds were single hone, via the same spec, from the factory and flow in the low 170 cfm range. Where did the idea originate that some SVT have dual hone UIM's?
I think it came from some oddball website, http://www.svt.ford.com ...
Quote:
The '99 model year meant more horsepower for the SVT Contour, increasing it to an even 200. This was accomplished through more aggressive use of the Extrude Hone Powerflow process. The EEC-V module was also recalibrated for increased torque.
Originally posted by svtjeff:
I keep reading people refer to their UIM and single or dual hone. All SVT UIM manifolds were single hone, via the same spec, from the factory and flow in the low 170 cfm range. Where did the idea originate that some SVT have dual hone UIM's?
Sheesh yet another completely incorrect post from you... 
'nuff said
Originally posted by scottd60:
I was very interested when the numbers were predicted to be 200+ CFM but at a maximum 193 CFM (13 CFM over stock DH SVT) does not sound like very much in the HP department.
How much HP can one expect from only a 7.2% increase in UIM flow on a typicaly modded 2000 SVT...1-2HP, 5-10HP ?
At only 13cfm increase (which I also agree is very low over a DH and backs my statement a DH in the GB likely gets nothing but port matching) it will show about the same gains as a DH over a SH. ~3FWHP & TQ on a moderately modified SVT.
The less modifications and other SVT parts the less the gains. (Just like any other modification!)
Of course any 3L will show "roughly" twice the gains because of the nice increase in port volume to accompany the small overall port increase (7% is under 1mm increase in port size though 
)
Any FI car will show good gains too since a less restrictive UIM will allow more cfm flow at the same boost. (i.e. more efficient and less heat)
If you already have a DH UIM you "probably" do not want in on this group buy. (though honestly ~3/3 at the wheels is not a bad gain at all for the price & the folks that do want in already know it themselves)
Talk to EH directly and see what they can/will do for you. Yes the price will be higher but if they agree to help you the results will be much better. 7% beyond a DH is a long way from the limits of the UIM.
For the other folks getting an UIM 7% better then a DH for this low of a price is unheard of.
Also folks that have little or no mods. DO NOT get pissed when you get in on the GB and you don't "feel" your numbers skyrocket. It takes more then just a good UIM to make power gains. It is all based on your engine's efficiency and current state of modifications.
(Disclaimer after hearing countless folks whine about "feeling" little or no gains from adding just a DH UIM on a mild non-SVT - What a shock! 
)
For instance the first thing everyone in this GB should do is get an RLIM if the don't have one already. It's a waste if you don't!!!
Then 60mm TB for 2.5L and 65mm for 3L.
Then a great exhaust. (really should have this already)
Then... Everyone gets the point I hope...
But Demon don't you want them to learn the hard way???
RLIM?
Sp spa spell that one out for me, would ya?
Originally posted by Derk2000:
RLIM?
Sp spa spell that one out for me, would ya?
Taking a stab here but I'm thinking Return(less) UIM. 
regular, to take the place of yours while it is gone
Originally posted by Derk2000:
RLIM?
Sp spa spell that one out for me, would ya?
Returnless Lower Intake Manifold
RLIM is a standardized Greg acronym for gosh sakes.
Got it. Thanks.
BTW, I agree that it's a must. No point in opening up the upper just to meet a bottleneck bolted right below it.
Standardized acronym like "IMNSHO" right?
i feel dumb now, didnt even pay attention to where it said LIM, was thinking uim, so nevermind
Greg -
Why do you continually need to impress people with your manly attitude. What gives?
Anyway, as my post indicates, the EH Ford spec for the UIM did not change for the factory run of these parts. In fact, talk to Rick Miller at EH. There was never a dual hone UIM factory manifold.
So again, I ask the question of who propagated such inaccurate info - i.e. dual hone UIM's? It just is not true.
Furthermore, your manifold was not taken to the exteme as Rick did not want to blow through it. I just sent two, one he could do what ever he wanted and mine to actually do the final flow. Needless to say, my manifold is at flow levels in excess of your supposed max flow manifold.
In the future, keep the arrogance to yourself. It just is not necessary.
Also, I would prefer to send keep this stuff off the board and get it to you directly. What is your CDSID?
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Anyway, as my post indicates, the EH Ford spec for the UIM did not change for the factory run of these parts. In fact, talk to Rick Miller at EH. There was never a dual hone UIM factory manifold.
Jeff,
If the specs for the manifold did not change, then why is there a different part number, and more importantly, a significant price increase from 98 to 99/00?
The 98 UIM part number is 1S7Z9424FA and lists for $415.68. This ran through 5/2/99*
On 5/3/99 the part number changed to 1S8Z-9424-AA and lists for $804.10.*
If they truly were the same specs, then there would be no need for a part number change, and certainly no need to double the list price.
*(All Prices/Part Numbers from http://www.signaturelm.com/frameset1.asp?LINK=Parts&MAIN=parts_wildcard1)
The tool for the manifold was replaced, hence the bump in part number. I can not say why the price is the way it is, but it is not due to any extra extrude hone. Again, when the tooling changes, so does part cost.
ALL svt manifolds were flowed to the exact same spec - 170 cfm. This never changed. The only way one would have gotten more EH is if it did not meet the spec during the process. Regardless, no stock SVT UIM ever flowed 180 cfm from the factory. Just did not happen.
I can provide the specs, to all the nay sayers, just to prove my point. Furthermore, I am continually surprised to see how many gurus there are on this board.
Originally posted by svtjeff:
The tool for the manifold was replaced, hence the bump in part number. I can not say why the price is the way it is, but it is not due to any extra extrude hone. Again, when the tooling changes, so does part cost.
ALL svt manifolds were flowed to the exact same spec - 170 cfm. This never changed. The only way one would have gotten more EH is if it did not meet the spec during the process. Regardless, no stock SVT UIM ever flowed 180 cfm from the factory. Just did not happen.
I can provide the specs, to all the nay sayers, just to prove my point. Furthermore, I am continually surprised to see how many gurus there are on this board.
Can you post your specs? I'd be interested to see them. Also, where did you get your specs/information? Across both Contour and Cougar boards, it is believed that the UIM was DH in 99/00, so if you have information to suggest otherwise, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Please provide these non-existant specs for two different manifolds that you state are the same.
A few more questions.
Why has Ford themselves in factory literature and magazines stated the 99+ UIM was sent for extra Extrude Honing when "compared" to the earlier UIM's?
Why does a 99+ SVT UIM make 3-4 more FWHP and TQ across the powerband then an earlier UIM since they are "spec'd" exactly the same as you claim? (this alone proves you are wrong since if they were the same flow specs they would have equal power output!)
Why did Duttweiler make specific note that he chose the 99-00 Dual Honed UIM for his project beast engine?
Then there is the really, really simple one.
Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM?
Exactly...
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Please provide these non-existant specs for two different manifolds that you state are the same.
A few more questions.
Why has Ford themselves in factory literature and magazines stated the 99+ UIM was sent for extra Extrude Honing when "compared" to the earlier UIM's? I guess you must believe everything you read. Come on now you are obviously smarter than that.
Why does a 99+ SVT UIM make 3-4 more FWHP and TQ across the powerband then an earlier UIM since they are "spec'd" exactly the same as you claim? (this alone proves you are wrong since if they were the same flow specs they would have equal power output!) Not sure how you are getting the 3-4 hp difference as we all know dyno's are not repeatible. Again, you are smarter than that. The extra honing was done to the cylinder heads - primary and secondary. This is where the extra HP comes from. 
Why did Duttweiler make specific note that he chose the 99-00 Dual Honed UIM for his project beast engine? Do not know this guy, nor where he again came up with this urban legend.
Then there is the really, really simple one.
Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM? Not sure how you are measuring the hole size, but calipers is not the way to get an accurate reading. Lastly, the specs I am referring too are listed on the print - you have one of those too, right? Thought so. In any case, the 98 UIM has EH spec M605, the 99 UIM has EH spec M602, and guess what - for 2000 the EH spec goes back to M605. The only diff in the specs is a n adjustemnt to the dwell time. No dual hone BS here. So them by obvious deduction the 98 and 2000 should be the same in flow - if there is actually any difference. But wait, you seem to think the 99+ is the best. So now what smarty pants.....????? 
Exactly...
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Please provide these non-existant specs for two different manifolds that you state are the same.
A few more questions.
Why has Ford themselves in factory literature and magazines stated the 99+ UIM was sent for extra Extrude Honing when "compared" to the earlier UIM's?
Why does a 99+ SVT UIM make 3-4 more FWHP and TQ across the powerband then an earlier UIM since they are "spec'd" exactly the same as you claim? (this alone proves you are wrong since if they were the same flow specs they would have equal power output!)
Why did Duttweiler make specific note that he chose the 99-00 Dual Honed UIM for his project beast engine?
Then there is the really, really simple one.
Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM?
Exactly...
PM your CDSID and I will send the prints..........
Originally posted by svtjeff:
PM your CDSID and I will send the prints..........
Jeff,
Can you scan and post the prints to those of us without a CDSID?
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Please provide these non-existant specs for two different manifolds that you state are the same.
A few more questions.
Why has Ford themselves in factory literature and magazines stated the 99+ UIM was sent for extra Extrude Honing when "compared" to the earlier UIM's?
Why does a 99+ SVT UIM make 3-4 more FWHP and TQ across the powerband then an earlier UIM since they are "spec'd" exactly the same as you claim? (this alone proves you are wrong since if they were the same flow specs they would have equal power output!)
Why did Duttweiler make specific note that he chose the 99-00 Dual Honed UIM for his project beast engine?
Then there is the really, really simple one.
Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM?
Exactly...
PM your CDSID and I will send the prints..........
Where's procyon when we need him - he could look up the info himself I'm sure.
I bought one of these "exactly the same" late DH manifolds and measured the ports, and just like Demon said they are bigger than what came on the 98's.
I'd suggest you check the accuracy of the print you are looking at, maybe you found a print for the legendary "$300 dollar SVT upper manifold" part number that was released but never built (around the time of the elinator that was also never built)?
I know this will not sit well with what I just said, however I can not scan the entire print. Way too risky. I do, however, have pdf screen dumps of the title block and spec portions. I must admit, though, I need some advise as to the best method of posting these.
I am also in process of quantifying the EH specs I listed, and this will show who knows what.
Lastly, I really love it how some people think they know it all. I will not mention his name, but suffice to say he always plays the demon's advocate??or is that devil's advocate???:)
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Lastly, I really love it how some people think they know it all. I will not mention his name, but suffice to say he always plays the demon's advocate??or is that devil's advocate???:)
Well..if the proof is in the pudding...
He's run a 13.94 1/4 mile at 101.6mph... 
That makes him the fastest N/A Tour on the site...
And you've....????
Yeah, that's what I thought... 
Mr 49 posts and know's more than the bro's that have been doing this for more than a while. I've yet to see Kyser, Bnoon, Warmonger, or Hightower say that anything demon has said has been wrong. Theguy does his home work before posting his thoughts, and most of his postings come from direct experience.
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Lastly, I really love it how some people think they know it all. I will not mention his name, but suffice to say he always plays the demon's advocate??or is that devil's advocate???:)
Well..if the proof is in the pudding...
He's run a 13.94 1/4 mile at 101.6mph...
That makes him the fastest N/A Tour on the site...
And you've....????
Yeah, that's what I thought...
Mr 49 posts and know's more than the bro's that have been doing this for more than a while. I've yet to see Kyser, Bnoon, Warmonger, or Hightower say that anything demon has said has been wrong. Theguy does his home work before posting his thoughts, and most of his postings come from direct experience.
OK MR 196 Posts. If that is the best you have, then you must be a genius. Lets just say I do not run my mouth like you because it shows lack of intelligence and reminds me of juvenile logic.
Anytime you want to go to the track or dyno for that matter, let me know. I am sure you will be impressed then??.
someone just shoot Terry Haines an email and lets get it over with! LOL
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Lastly, I really love it how some people think they know it all. I will not mention his name, but suffice to say he always plays the demon's advocate??or is that devil's advocate???:)
Well..if the proof is in the pudding...
He's run a 13.94 1/4 mile at 101.6mph...
That makes him the fastest N/A Tour on the site...
And you've....????
Yeah, that's what I thought...
Mr 49 posts and know's more than the bro's that have been doing this for more than a while. I've yet to see Kyser, Bnoon, Warmonger, or Hightower say that anything demon has said has been wrong. Theguy does his home work before posting his thoughts, and most of his postings come from direct experience.
OK MR 196 Posts. If that is the best you have, then you must be a genius. Lets just say I do not run my mouth like you because it shows lack of intelligence and reminds me of juvenile logic.
Anytime you want to go to the track or dyno for that matter, let me know. I am sure you will be impressed then??.
1st..I am not the one claiming to be an expert, am I there Jeff. You come into this site like a ton of bricks..."uuhhh, I can't scan it it..." and expect us to to say yeah, you're right with what, your words versus countless times the boys on here have been right?
2nd...under a previous log-in I had over 1200 posts, so
suck on that for a while.
3rd...I doubt it. Unless you're up for the Red-Bull find an american driver, I won't be sh*t impressed with you.
4th...take your juvenille comments somewhere else. You have no idea who or what I am, and your presumption may get the best of you...
Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
someone just shoot Terry Haines an email and lets get it over with! LOL
No F'n sh!t.
"svtjeff":
DemonSVT has admitted he is wrong before, I even remember one specific thread where he put his foot in his mouth arguing with a guy about an engine rebuild.
BUT ...
99% of the time he is spot on with his information and reccomendations! He has a very solid track record of providing excellent advice to the people on this site.
SO if youre going to come on here, with NO credibility and information to back your arguments up, you're not going to get anywhere.
Just something to think about.
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
1st..I am not the one claiming to be an expert, am I there Jeff. You come into this site like a ton of bricks..."uuhhh, I can't scan it it..." and expect us to to say yeah, you're right with what, your words versus countless times the boys on here have been right?
Hold on. He asked for the best advice to post his PDF. He says he has information, give him a chance to post it. IMO way to many people on here lambast others on this site for trying to provide information. I personally haven't looked into the facts of the UIM (Have you?) and just took veterans information as fact. I am interested to see his evidence before jumping to conclusions.
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
2nd...under a previous log-in I had over 1200 posts, so
suck on that for a while.
What does this prove? There are a bunch of people on here that have tons of posts and I will NEVER pay attention to what they said. We know who they are...
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
3rd...I doubt it. Unless you're up for the Red-Bull find an american driver, I won't be sh*t impressed with you.
blah blah blah...
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
4th...take your juvenille comments somewhere else. You have no idea who or what I am, and your presumption may get the best of you...
Hey, you're the one that attacked him. I think with all the people attacking him, he's done a great job at keeping his cool. Lets give him a chance to provide his data.
Blah Blah Blah wheres the proof??????
this dude is on crack. moving on. . .
I think ANYBODY that's ANYBODY knows that there's a difference in the UIM's. . .where's Terry when you need him?
Suneil
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Lastly, I really love it how some people think they know it all. I will not mention his name, but suffice to say he always plays the demon's advocate??or is that devil's advocate???:)
Well..if the proof is in the pudding...
He's run a 13.94 1/4 mile at 101.6mph...
That makes him the fastest N/A Tour on the site...
And you've....????
Yeah, that's what I thought...
Mr 49 posts and know's more than the bro's that have been doing this for more than a while. I've yet to see Kyser, Bnoon, Warmonger, or Hightower say that anything demon has said has been wrong. Theguy does his home work before posting his thoughts, and most of his postings come from direct experience.
OK MR 196 Posts. If that is the best you have, then you must be a genius. Lets just say I do not run my mouth like you because it shows lack of intelligence and reminds me of juvenile logic.
Anytime you want to go to the track or dyno for that matter, let me know. I am sure you will be impressed then??.
1st..I am not the one claiming to be an expert, am I there Jeff. You come into this site like a ton of bricks..."uuhhh, I can't scan it it..." and expect us to to say yeah, you're right with what, your words versus countless times the boys on here have been right?
2nd...under a previous log-in I had over 1200 posts, so
suck on that for a while.
3rd...I doubt it. Unless you're up for the Red-Bull find an american driver, I won't be sh*t impressed with you.
4th...take your juvenille comments somewhere else. You have no idea who or what I am, and your presumption may get the best of you...
Likewise Jack A##. You post BS and expect me to lay down. Dont think so.
Whenever your ready to jump, let me know. I'll be waiting.
Up until now, you're all talk.
Either provide some evidence or get lost.
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM? Not sure how you are measuring the hole size, but calipers is not the way to get an accurate reading.
Right.......
So what is more accurate?
Originally posted by svtjeff:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM? Not sure how you are measuring the hole size, but calipers is not the way to get an accurate reading.
Digital caliper with 2" levers.
I measured the port size and final 2" taper.
I took multiple measurements around the arc and averaged the results.
I realize that using just the outward lip diameter of the port would give erroneous readings. For one thing the ports are not even round.
For that matter this is the same way I port matched and tapered all the work I have done. I am not kidding folks when I say the Demon is in the detail work. Smooth equal transitions are key.
Originally posted by SVT ST PETE:
Up until now, you're all talk.
Either provide some evidence or get lost.
I'm not really sure this proves anything, but he provided me the following PDF files to upload.
1998_UIM
1999 UIM
2000 UIM
Originally posted by zgendron:
I'm not really sure this proves anything, but he provided me the following PDF files to upload.
You will note the date on the 98 & 00 pdf picture is the same. (same exact thing)
It does show the FORD PART NUMBER changed between the 98 file and 99 file.
It does not show any specs at all beyond the composition of the UIM and powdercoating.
Originally posted by zgendron:
Originally posted by SVT ST PETE:
Up until now, you're all talk.
Either provide some evidence or get lost.
I'm not really sure this proves anything, but he provided me the following PDF files to upload.
1998_UIM
1999 UIM
2000 UIM
Looking at the Y2K print, the P/N matches this:
Add 2.5L Eng, 05-03-1999 ... 1S8Z-9424-AA $804.10
so it is the "DH" manifold, I don't see any dimensions just material data, not sure if it means anything but they show a change in EH prrocess from "M602" in 99 to "M605" in 00, but also list M605 for 98 with the same pn as 99??? I bet Rara or Procyon could read the print!
When I was at Xerox - material or machinging changes to a part that did not affect form, fit or function would get a new rev number only. If somethnigg got a whole new P/N it meant it worked or fit differntly from the previous part - I assume most mfg works like that which would imply the Y2k manifold was a "significantly" different part.
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by zgendron:
I'm not really sure this proves anything, but he provided me the following PDF files to upload.
You will note the date on the 98 & 00 pdf picture is the same. (same exact thing)
It does show the FORD PART NUMBER changed between the 98 file and 99 file.
It does not show any specs at all beyond the composition of the UIM and powdercoating.
Exactly still no specs....wheres the proof jeff??????
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
You will note the date on the 98 & 00 pdf picture is the same. (same exact thing)
I had noticed that. I don't know how the rev control works over there, but I thought it was interesting that the 99 has a later date, but not the 00.
Boy, oh- boy. I told you nay sayers I was working on the actual specs which define the M602 and M605. I will pdf the rev levels to show the prints are in fact different. Regardless look at the p/n's and CAD files - the are not the same. And as far as this not proving nothing, where is proof there are dual hone UIM - other just because we know it????
Again, using deducitve logic, the supposed 99+ are the Dual hone, however the 99 has M602 spec while 98 and 2000 has the M605 spec.
Lastly, if you experts are that hard up to nail me, give Rick Miller a call at EH, 800-613-1065. He will verify what I have said from the begining.
It is pretty sad to have this board in such a combative atmmosphere when people do not agree with said experts.....
Here are the Rev Pages.
The biggest thing I noticed here is that the 2000 UIM Approval Date is late July of 2000. I'm guessing that SVTs were not being built by then.
Maybe they decided to return to the 98 style for financial reasons after the last SVT came off the assembly line? I know they are required to make replacement parts for a period of xx years after the last one is built, so by reverting back to the old part number they wouldn't have to make the 99+ UIM? Maybe this explains the high price?
1998 Print Rev
1999 Print Rev
2000 Print Rev
Guys, lets keep this civil and see what information he has. He must have something as he is providing Ford documents.
Hey Guys,
Just got this from Jeff as well. It was originally a LVP (Lucent Voice Player) format, and I converted it to a WAV. Its a voicemail from Rick Miller.
I don't know anything about EH, so I don't know who Rick is, but I thought I'd post it for you guys. Eitherway, its interesting. I'd like to hear what you guys think about it.
Rick Miller Voicemail
WOW! Awful quite all of a sudden. I wonder why???? I guess the 50 post, crack smoking??, don??t know a thing guy was right after all. What a shame. The proof was in the pudding after all - go figure!! I really find it sad that all of the supposed experts have nothing to say now. I would have a small amount of respect for them if they had a least owned up to being a bit quick to judge, but they must have forgot how to type all of a sudden. Typical hypocrites. Another, in your face, illustration of how one sided this board really is.
I must say, though, I do appreciate the help of Zack. Zack was intelligent enough to listen without jumping the gun. His efforts were instrumental in getting the truth out. Thanks again Zack.
My time and principles are not worth the abuse this board propagates. There comes a point in time when people should start acting like adults and it is clearly evident this board is not capable of doing so. Actually, it reminds me of high school - everyone trying to be the big dog on the porch. It appears some of us are still in that stage of life.
Have fun slamming each other, that is what it is all about??right?????????
Settle down Jeff you're making yourself look like an ass.
Oh and the way I do believe I remember reading somewhere in Ford literature that it was dual extrude honed....Maybe someone can chime in and find it. Oh and by the way anyone can record a voicemail message
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by svtjeff:
I keep reading people refer to their UIM and single or dual hone. All SVT UIM manifolds were single hone, via the same spec, from the factory and flow in the low 170 cfm range. Where did the idea originate that some SVT have dual hone UIM's?
Sheesh yet another completely incorrect post from you... 'nuff said
Maybe if Demon didn't throw such a big first rock, Jeff wouldn't have to take such a defensive position?
Once the Demon love posts are ignored, at least there's some actual info in this thread thanks to Jeff.
.... I still hope my 99 supposed DH UIM brings more cash than a SH UIM when I sell it someday for a custom intake
Did Rick ever dig up the specs on the 99-00 manifolds? I know it wasn't just jhere on CEG that we read about more extensive EH process - I beleive it is even stated in SVT literature?
I'm curious what feature was different enough on the manifold to warrant a new part number? I know my stock 97 SE manifold TB openeing was VERY different than the TB opening on my 99 "DH" manifold I bought from Bill Jenkins - the EGR ports were on the opposite side, and the overall opening was shaped differently. Not sure if all SVT mani's were like that or if maybe that redesign drove the new P/N
SVTJeff if you have the prints can you see when the TB opening changed?
Also strange that Chris Wong and I think one other (forget who?) dyno'd higher HP with the BAT DH mani's over a stock 98 manifold - although I suppose that could just be the diference of a dirty upper to a brand new clean one.
Also, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist - but any chance EH would mislead us on the specs of the later mani given that they want a LOT of people to send in there manifolds for rework with the current group buy?
svtjeff is correct. Terry Haines confirmed that the UIMs from all model year SVTs are indeed the same. Ford changed the part #s because...who knows.
The 5 extra horsepower is a result of:
- later heads being ported, early not
- later heads have a revised/added intake port hone
- .25 compression ratio increase in later years
I never claimed to be an "expert" - I am clearly not. I simply stated that you needed to provide some kind of proof to dispel this long thought to be fact or quit posting - it was quickly turning into a flame war.
Learn something new every day - good info jeff.
Dont forget the bigger LIM ports.
SO thats the final say, no DH UIMs?
I wonder how such a big "myth" got started.
Originally posted by KaptonContour:
...no DH UIMs?
I wonder how such a big "myth" got started.
Here's a quote from the Ford SVT Site:
Fod SVT
Quote:
The ??99 model year meant more horsepower for the SVT Contour, increasing it to an even 200. This was accomplished through more aggressive use of the Extrude Hone Powerflow? process. The EEC-V module was also recalibrated for increased torque. Wider tires for improved traction was another improvement. Prairie tan leather was added as an interior color option.
I don't see how one could assume that "more aggressive use" means that the UIM is dual-honed. Was there a brochure or something else that actually stated that? All I know is that by the time I got introduced to the Contour, that's all I ever heard. Hearing it's not dual-honed makes me want to
From Car and Drivers 1999 issue.
Quote:
Previously, the upper intake manifold plenum and runners, along with the secondary intake ports, got the honing; now the primary intake ports are honed, and the upper intake gets an even more aggressive application.
Regardless whether they did or didnt do a second round of EH'ing (which I do believe they did), obviously more aggressive EH'ing means there is difference between the 98 and 99-00. Nuff said.
Read the full Car and Driver article here
Jim (or anyone else),
If the UIMs were different, wouldn't the ports (openings) of the UIMs be different sizes?
Tough to argue against Terry Haines and Rick from Extrude Hone who say they are the same thoughout all the years.
If it turns out that all the SVT UIMs flow the same after factory extrude honing all I can say is this really upsets some well-accepted and often repeated SVT ??facts.? I personally went to considerable extra trouble and expense to find a ??real? 2000 SVT UIM to take advantage of the extra flow ?? and I am sure there are many other CEG??ers who have done the same!
I??ve been bit by DemonSVT on technical topics in past and sometimes it stings. However, over time I??ve come to really enjoy reading his posts and I appreciate that when he does post he is very damn sure of his information. If DemonSVT and all of us are proven wrong about such basic information concerning a primary performance part like the SVT UIM then..... that??s a good thing! It is always better to know the facts.
I just wish that the person bringing us this information did not have such utterly abysmal social skills!
SVTJeff, occasionally, if you are lucky, you have a chance to help a group of people learn more about what really interests them. While the difference (or lack of) between SVT UIMs is a pretty small thing on a world scale, here at CEG it packs a real punch!
In general, anyone who provides such new and fundamental performance information and history on the car we love earns real gratitude and respect here.
Well, I for one thank you for the SVT info, but frankly I don??t respect you at all. Based on your posts (here and elsewhere) and the attitude they reflect, I know that you are a true cretin. I am sure if I met you on the street that I could not stand more than a few minutes of your company.
You are just one more example of civility on the wane in our time.
Originally posted by SVT ST PETE:
Jim (or anyone else),
If the UIMs were different, wouldn't the ports (openings) of the UIMs be different sizes?
I think Greg already covered this if you look above.
1) Why does name-calling and all that crap always come up? Why can't people discuss a topic without talking sh|t?
2) Jeff, thanks for the info. This is causing a stirring in my brain, as I've always thought the UIM was dual honed.
3) If they're not dual honed, why are the exit port diameters different between years? Why are the LIM (I repeat, the
LIM) diameters larger in the 99+ if the UIM isn't larger?
Originally posted by Contouraholic:
Quote:
The ??99 model year meant more horsepower for the SVT Contour, increasing it to an even 200. This was accomplished through more aggressive use of the Extrude Hone Powerflow? process. The EEC-V module was also recalibrated for increased torque. Wider tires for improved traction was another improvement. Prairie tan leather was added as an interior color option.
That doesnt say anything about the UIM, that is most certainly talking about the larger LIM and extrude honed heads that are found in the 99+ SVT's.
Are we going to take car and drivers report (the ONLY report thats turned up stating that the UIM was honed more) as fact? I'm thinking maybe it could've been a misunderstanding from Car and Driver, especially since this recent data seems to suggest otherwise.
The only thing yet to figure out is why the ports on those newer UIM's are different, maybe they only increased the size of those ports to match the larger LIM's they used (e.g. port matched, and didnt actually EH the UIMs)?
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Well, I for one thank you for the SVT info, but frankly I don??t respect you at all. Based on your posts (here and elsewhere) and the attitude they reflect, I know that you are a true cretin. I am sure if I met you on the street that I could not stand more than a few minutes of your company.
You are just one more example of civility on the wane in our time.
Based on what I've been reading, my interpretation is that he had what he believed to be the facts in his hands. People got hostile with him for disputing long held notions, so things degenerated from there. If I had the materials in hand and folks started to flame me for my statements, I'd grow an attitude too. No doubt about it.
As for the sheets he provided, there are a few points on them that make me critical of what they really say about the processes for the different model years. The statements from Terry & Rick are the evidence that would sway me in this case.
Now, svtjeff, thanks for adding to the community here. Seems you are one to do your homework & I for one appreciate that, and I am certain many others do as well. I'll let them chime in on this point on their own...
I recently sold a '98 SVT UIM/LIM combo, and that puts me in a good position to send an SE UIM in for the GB. Should be interesting.
This link is no longer good but it is an engineering forum..
http://ctma.ncms.org/NewProjectIdeas/IncreasingHorsepower.htmThe qoute I copied years ago from the link..
SVTC intake "better than a 20% increase in airflow with less than 2% runner to runner variability"....
Now, I called Extrude Hone (not sure who I talked with) years ago and posted this in the past..
"Awhile back I got some approx CFU rates from Extrude Hone..
stock = 155 CFU
single= 170 CFU
double= 180 CFU
triple= 188-190 CFU"
Based on the above discussion, I reviewed the notes I took..which were as follows..
Baseline SE "150-160" CFU (so I said 155)
Final product was "175-180"...I assumed this to mean DH.
Gain per pass "8-10" CFU. I did NOT then specifically ask about SH vs DH so I extrapolated to give people an idea..(ie subtracted 10 from the DH to give 170 for the single Hone. And added the 8-10 to get the estimated 188-190 with a TH). So my extrapolations may have been inaccurate if SVTJeff is correct.
On the other hand...a 20% increase as suggested by the engineering forum (it was an interesting link but I cannot recover it) over stock of 150 would be 180, not the 170 SVTjeff suggests..so something is not adding up. Be it single or dual honed, it would be nice to flow a stock SVT UIM
All very good and solid information Jeff.
I was wrong to say your post had unsubstantiated information.
This does bring up a related question though.
"IF" all SVT UIM's had the same EH process done to them and the newer UIM's have shown to make more HP does that mean the part number change by Ford was because they changed the casting to better distribute flow to all the cylinders or something of the sort?
Ford does not spend money just to change parts. Hell Ford doesn't spend money to change parts that NEED changing so there had to be a significant reason to change an existing casting mold and process.
Then again if they did change something to require a part number change then why does the stock UIM part number stay the same... If Ford changed the SVT part number because the UIM itself changed in some way they would had to have changed both part numbers.
Also I still find it odd that every 98/98.5 SVT UIM measured to date had smaller average ports then every 99/00 did and countless places it specifically mentions the later UIM's had more aggressive use of the EH process.
For Ref - Max flow increase over a stock UIM is about 40%
At that point a few of the ports start showing exterior casting compressions.
Also my data is more in line with Dan's numbers of around 185 for a 00 SVT UIM. (slight port clean up)
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
All very good and solid information Jeff.
I was wrong to say your post had unsubstantiated information.
This does bring up a related question though.
"IF" all SVT UIM's had the same EH process done to them and the newer UIM's have shown to make more HP does that mean the part number change by Ford was because they changed the casting to better distribute flow to all the cylinders or something of the sort?
Ford does not spend money just to change parts. Hell Ford doesn't spend money to change parts that NEED changing so there had to be a significant reason to change an existing casting mold and process.
Then again if they did change something to require a part number change then why does the stock UIM part number stay the same... If Ford changed the SVT part number because the UIM itself changed in some way they would had to have changed both part numbers.
Also I still find it odd that every 98/98.5 SVT UIM measured to date had smaller average ports then every 99/00 did and countless places it specifically mentions the later UIM's had more aggressive use of the EH process.
For Ref - Max flow increase over a stock UIM is about 40%
At that point a few of the ports start showing exterior casting compressions.
Also my data is more in line with Dan's numbers of around 185 for a 00 SVT UIM. (slight port clean up)
So maybe the 99-00's wernt "double" honed but I do belive there is a difference between the 98's and the 99-00's.
weather it be a more aggressive hone or just a port match to the bigger LIM or both.
Sorry, I couldn't find a metric ruler, so I had to print one out, but you get the idea.
I have a UIM from a 00 and a UIM from a 98.
00:
98:
00:
98:
I have carefully measured (and remeasured) every single opening of both the 98 and 00 UIMs and found no difference in the ports openings, throttle body, IAC, etc.
Visually, no difference other than the part# and the following pic from the 00:
This "groove" is in the smaller ports of the 00. The 98 does not have them.
Hope these pics help.
Pete, can you give both part numbers just for reference? Thanks.
Here is an excerpt from that Automotive Industries article.
"these are within 2% of each other in power output--that's excellent," he says. Airflow through the heads is "significantly boosted," Dempster says. According to Rhoades, each honed intake runner shows a 2 cubic feet per minute (cfm) improvement."
That's a 24cfm improvement in airflow over a stock UIM or right about that 180cfm rating.
Jim:
2000: XS2V-9424-AB
1998: F73V-9424-AE
Like I said guys, I carefully measured everything and found no difference greater than .5 mm between the 98 and the 00 UIMs.
98-00 same? 98 different than 99-00? Who's right? Who's wrong?
hmm...the part number on my receipt for my svt uim is 1S8Z9424AA. what gives?
Oh, I know that one. That's the HALF-HONED SVT UIM!
Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
hmm...the part number on my receipt for my svt uim is 1S8Z9424AA. what gives?
That's the part number I found on Signature L/M and posted up a little farther, with prices.
If there is no difference, then why such a huge price discrepency? There must be some difference there, but what?
ok, i didnt see that you already posted that.
I bought from Downs Ford a few years ago during a SVT UIM and TB group buy.
List was $725.87 for the UIM alone.
Of course, the group buy price was $323.40 for the UIM. Not bad.
im sorry kids....reading this whole post has made me realize what type of people are in this forum..i dont know whether everyone thinks that they have the biggest nuts out there...or if some of you are more like those star wars nerds that think the $hit actually happened. If you want to go very fast and handle like its nobody's business, then I highly suggest buying a supersport class motorcycle. 0-60 in less than 2 sometimes 2.5 seconds...9-10 second quarters, a top speed of 165-185+ mph, and all the handling you want and adjustability in the world...guys, i just dont get it....its a dead vehicle in the US. and the ST220 is more like a jag X-type than what we have. Ford didnt like the results of the introduction and im sorry to say, they de-engineered the contour to a lower grade of quality by comparison. So to think that a highly modded 'tour is only capable of 13.94 in the quarter is kinda sad, especially when i see how much the work really costs to do and be reliable....now...demon may have the fastest tour out there. but how much was it? and could someone more easliy spent 9k on a motorcycle and be in the 10's.
someone just explain the lack of rationality here.
What right do you have to criticize people who enjoy modding their car as a hobby? Regardless of cost?
I guess all the F-body owners should quit modding since their platform is dead? Maybe the Merkur owners, too? And the CRX owners, too? "Hey, the car is discontinued so let's stop modding and buy a crotch rocket!!"
And who exactly are you calling "kids" and "star wars nerds"?
Head back to middle school, "learn yourself some English" and come back when your post doesn't have to be deciphered.
You obviously don't have the balls to post where you live, so you must be one of those "internet tough guys". OOOHHH, I'M SCARED.
I've read your other idiotic posts - like the turbo one - where you spout incoherent babble and pretend to know what you are talking about.
.
Do us all a favor and go play in traffic
kid.
dude, you're a douchebag. (not you svt st pete, the noob talking internet sh;t)
Originally posted by svtstreetracer:
now...demon may have the fastest tour out there. but how much was it? and could someone more easliy spent 9k on a motorcycle and be in the 10's.
someone just explain the lack of rationality here.
We can carry 4 other people with us & all stay dry if it rains.
Try driving from West Palm Beach, Florida to Madawaska, Maine on a sportbike & you'll understand...
It's not all about the performance, it's the total package.
Actually I just think you explained the lack of rationality yourself! How in the heck can you compare a motorcycle and a car? Thats like me saying a bike is slow to a fighter jet plane. Apples to apples please.
Guys do a search on his former posts. He only comes on here for these big argument threads, and then spouts a crappy tirade about why the contour is such a horrible car.
He's a troll who has no logical arguments to make, NO grammar skills and is just posting flamebait for you guys.
Maybe someone could ban him?
Originally posted by svtstreetracer:
So to think that a highly modded 'tour is only capable of 13.94 in the quarter is kinda sad, especially when i see how much the work really costs to do and be reliable.
So why are YOU calling yourself "svtstreetracer" instead of "svtstreetloser" or just "loser" for short?
For you guys that are sending in SE UIM's. I talked to Rick at Extrude Hone Monday for a good bit. I was going to send in a SE UIM and keep my '00 SVT UIM on the car so I wanted to clear up some confusion I had.
The process is set by attaching metal plates with fixed dia. holes (dia. will not change in process) over all "in" and "out" openings. The abrasive paste is then pumped through the openings until the desired CFM is achieved...in our case approx. 193 CFM. This process was performed on a SVT manifold (don't know what year) that started with a flow of approx 172 CFM. The process is then programmed into the computer (time duration) and is then run on each manifold. This is what they did on the original manifolds in '98-'00 with very repeatable results (well within tolerance). Now for the SE manifolds they will have to do this again but will run much longer to get the 193 CFM and will generate a separate program for the SE UIM. The SE UIM will need to have the ports opened up a good bit mostly on the TB side. This will more than likely have to be done by the customer? Rick seemed to think that "Port Matching" would solve any issues between the two. My only concern was there did not look to be enough material to open up the throttle body opening for the 60 mm SVT TB. Plus the openings are flipped between the SVT and the SE...you will see in the pic's. and may create some possible leaks?
Below are some pic's of my '00 SVT UIM vs. SE UIM and some of the issues between the two.
'00 SVT UIM vs. SE UIM EGR passage flipped and different(on the top for SVT and on the bottom for SE)
SVT TB will not line up properly...may be a potential for a leak?
Front
Back
Difference in TB openings '00 SVT vs. SE...is there enough material to open it up to the 60mm SVT TB ?
'00 SVT TB opening 2.610"
SE TB opening 2.228"
Dif. from SVT to SE on TB opening
'00 SVT UIM Primary and Secondary ports vs. SE UIM Primary and Secondary ports
SVT
SE
SVT Pri. Port 2.200"
SE Pri. Port 1.076"
Dif. from SVT to SE
SVT Sec. Port 2.270"
SE Sec. Port 2.220"
Dif. from SVT to SE...not quite as bad as the others.
Here are some of the measurements I took between the two manifolds referenced in the pic's above:
TB opening: SVT 2.610" SE 2.228"
Pri Port: SVT 1.200" SE 1.076"
Sec Port: SVT 1.270" SE 1.220"
Rick also confirmed that all manifolds they did for Ford on the SVT started around 160 CFM and after the EH pass were approximately 172-174 CFM and the pass was not very long to achieve the results. They never did multiple passes on newer '99-'00. He did say there was some casting changes but did not know what or why for sure. The 5 HP gains on the '99-'00 SVT's came from additional Extrude Honing and polishing of the cylinder heads and that the manifold process was the same as in the past (no additional EH).
As you can see my '00 SVT UIM has been removed and the SE UIM is installed on my car for now and my '00 SVT UIM is on it's way to Extrude Hone Corp.
Scott
Originally posted by scottd60:
Dif. from SVT to SE on TB opening
That pic says it all - how on earth could you evenly open that port? IT would be waaay off to the one side. And when you mount the throttle body on there, it would not match up at all!
Also forgot to mention Rick said that the TB opening gets most of the increase...substantial increase in opening
But for the 3L and FI guys running 65mm TB's it will work well when port matching on a SVT UIM that is. Which by the way Rick also recommended port matching for the best results. Basically put the gasket in place and scribe around the opening then dremel away the excess material to the edge of your scribe line...port matched.
Scott
GREAT INFO!...Thanks!
So, the only remaining Q is will the SVT t.body work OK with an SE manifold ported to match it. Will it leak, will EGR function OK. Who has done this?
So a 20 CFU gain over SVT is really not bad IMO. The "original SVT UIM was apparently only then about a 13 CFU gain over stock...Given that the extrude Honed SVT heads can flow over 200 and the t.body as well, some gains should be had..
Scott,
That is some EXCELLENT INFO! THANK YOU!
I would love to see the same comparison done to a 98 vs 99/00. Does anyone have the ability?
Originally posted by scottd60:
He did say there was some casting changes but did not know what or why for sure.
How can we find out the differences in the casting? Clearly there is something different looking at the price difference.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
So a 20 CFU gain over SVT is really not bad IMO. The "original SVT UIM was apparently only then about a 13 CFU gain over stock...Given that the extrude Honed SVT heads can flow over 200 and the t.body as well, some gains should be had..
I just might have to do a pre/post dyno on this. We'll see what I can work out.
Scott, thanks for the pics. Very interesting info, I must say. All that old knowledge has been thrown out the window.
Originally posted by zgendron:
Scott,
That is some EXCELLENT INFO! THANK YOU!
I would love to see the same comparison done to a 98 vs 99/00. Does anyone have the ability?
Originally posted by scottd60:
He did say there was some casting changes but did not know what or why for sure.
How can we find out the differences in the casting? Clearly there is something different looking at the price difference.
Your welcome for the info...I hope it helps.
I shipped out 3 SVT UIM's (SVT ST Pete, EvlBill and mine) to Extrude Hone...1 '98 and 2 '00's. I had all 3 in my possession but did not take pic's of them side by side I did look them over very closely and didn't really notice any difference other than the casting on the '00 SVT UIM is much smoother and cleaner then the '98 SVT UIM. The ports visibly looked the same to me. If you look at SVT ST Pete's post a page or two back he did measure these exact two manifolds before he gave them to me to ship. So yes the comparison between '98 SVT UIM vs. '00 SVT UIM has been done and they appear to have the same port dimensions. I think it's safe to say that anyone sending in a '98 - '00 SVT UIM will have no problems whatsoever and should all get the SAME results within the Extrude Hone set tolerance.
On the SE vs. SVT UIM the biggest concern I would have is the TB opening on the SE possibly being too small for the SVT 60mm TB. If you look at the pic closely the SVT is 2.610" and the SE is 2.228"...
Difference is shown in this pic on the SE UIM:
...the difference BEFORE the NEW Extrude Hone process is 0.382" on the diameter. That is 0.191" bigger on the sides (radius) and the SE manifold does not have much more then that left along the EGR slot. I should have measured that as well but unfortunately I did not. It looks like if the opening is opened up to the stock SVT UIM TB diameter I am almost certain it will break through and into the EGR slot. If Extrude Hone opens that dimension beyond the SVT UIM TB diameter which if I understood Rick correctly they do there may be problems for SE manifolds? I don't think there is any problem with the Primary and Secondary ports...they seem to have plenty of room for growth.
Scott
FYI the SVT TB fits fine on the SE manifold. Many SE owners have done it. When I installed my SVT TB I just ground out/port matched the opening with a dremel.
Originally posted by zgendron:
Scott,
That is some EXCELLENT INFO! THANK YOU!
- My neighbor IS a Ford intake design engineer. I will direct him to this thread for review and comment.
- Terry Hains was involved with the delvelopment of the car. Would he still have had input into powertrain modelyear changes as late as 1999 givien he'd been away from ford for some time by then? This in no way discredits his knowledge, simply inquires as to timing.
- The Ford literature (available here on this site) does not claim double EH. It only claims additional.
- Public literature from Ford usually has a disclaimer in very fine print; something along the lines of specifications subject to change without notice. This could support either side of the argument.
- Hey punk, Mr. Motorcycle, no one is preventing you from leaving this site. Please do so.
- Perhaps World Tour could inquire with Mr. Dempster for additional commentary.
My unsolicitied thoughts...
Guys be sure to check out the Jet-Hot GB interest check SVT ST Pete and I are setting up...UIM's can be Jet-Hot coated for $77 plus shipping if the GB happens. With 12 or more we get a 30% discount off the regular cost of $110. I think Extrude Hone will send you UIM directly to Jet-Hot if you like according to Rick at Extrude Hone. This may save a few bucks off you shipping?
Cooler intake is a big PLUS and a nice polished look as well!
See GB for more details...
Scott
