Best place to get Mondeo ST220 UIM & LIM?

From what my mechanic explained, it's the position of the injectors inside. Other side basically gets nothing. Going back to oval, $2500 down the drain.

The injectors are supposed to be on the side, that is OK and how the manifolds were designed, the tumble port head will allow for good mixing of air and gas before it gets to the chamber. There is no reason to scrap this manifold your so close I hate to see it not tried.

Originally posted by gotapex:
From what my mechanic explained, it's the position of the injectors inside. Other side basically gets nothing. Going back to oval, $2500 down the drain.

OMFG...LMAO. I am not trying to be a dick, but this forum prob could've saved you some money. Basically the UIM/LIM you used isn't going to line up because it is totally different from oval port to split port. The injector placement is totally different. Your mechanic sounds like he knows whats up. LOL.

You could still run your SVT manifolds...you just need to port match the heads to work. 'demon style'

Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoShoâ�??¢:

Originally posted by gotapex:
From what my mechanic explained, it's the position of the injectors inside. Other side basically gets nothing. Going back to oval, $2500 down the drain.

OMFG...LMAO. I am not trying to be a dick, but this forum prob could've saved you some money. Basically the UIM/LIM you used isn't going to line up because it is totally different from oval port to split port. The injector placement is totally different. Your mechanic sounds like he knows whats up. LOL.

You could still run your SVT manifolds...you just need to port match the heads to work. 'demon style'

He already did. Sounds like he wants it the way it was intended though, with the injector in the middle. Sounds ideal to me. Just have to find a manifold, or have one made.

Gabe you can't just bolt on the oval intake anymore unless you swap your heads. The injector position is fine, I urge you to just bolt everything up and see how it runs before jumping back to a oval port set up.

I still have my original heads with 2000 miles on them.

My issue is if the injector position causes any of the cyl to go lean. If those get screwed up, I'm even more in the hole.

I'm totally willing to try the split port and dyno it back to back with the ovals, since I have both setups and easy access to a dyno. However, I don't want to screw up the engine and be another few thousand dollars down.

If they are oval port heads like the 3L heads we use, then there will be no issues with using the split port on it. Definitely no problem with fuel delivery.

Gabe trust us, there is no issue with a cyl going lean ITS STILL GETTING THE SAME fuel, where the fuel gets injected either equally through both valves or more through the primary valve is a mute point it all goes into the cylinder.

The only way to kill the engine is the tuning and I assume you have good people doing that. The injector position has no effect on A/F.

Originally posted by kinger:
Gabe trust us, there is no issue with a cyl going lean ITS STILL GETTING THE SAME fuel, where the fuel gets injected either equally through both valves or more through the primary valve is a mute point it all goes into the cylinder.

The only way to kill the engine is the tuning and I assume you have good people doing that. The injector position has no effect on A/F.

True.

What's wrong with the plastic Taurus one? Nice, smoothe, heat shedding. Why would you want to switch to a big metal one? Do you think you are going to pop the plastic one?

It won't seal possitively with the TB as it only use two bolts to hold the TB on and not 4.

Originally posted by Stazi:
It won't seal possitively with the TB as it only use two bolts to hold the TB on and not 4.

Well that blows. What about the fancy new one on the Montego/FiveHundred's 3L?

Haven't seen it yet. Plus the new 3L Duratech is a totally different animal.

I think you could get an Escape Al unit to work. But honestly Gabe's problem doesn't exist. People on here have already assured him that the injector position is fine.

Also the interior plenum volumes are much different and better on the ST220 intake over the Plastic taurus one.

Gabe's problem of the injector position is not a issue and hopefully he can convince his mechanic

Well, ok. I think we're going to try both the stock Escape one and this 2.5L one, and dyno them both back to back.

The 2000 Cougar rail can support 600-700hp?

Originally posted by gotapex:
Well, ok. I think we're going to try both the stock Escape one and this 2.5L one, and dyno them both back to back.

The 2000 Cougar rail can support 600-700hp?

You will be the first to find out ... sucks being a pioneer. However, your tuner should be able to slowly ramp up the power and find the threshold safely.

Gabe,

How do you propose your going to swap manifolds? You talking swapping heads with your stock heads as well? Thats a TON of work in the name of science but would give a good indication of the different top end set ups.

I just gave this to Eloy, its a simple flow calculator you can use to see how much the rail will flow, its very simple doesn't account for fluid viscosity, friction, eddies, etc. But shows that at 500 lb/hr of fuel you need a 1" diamter pipe ie rail to support. What fuel pumps are you going to be running?

http://www.1728.com/flowrate.htm

My thought is to swap heads (and buy yet another set of copper head gaskets).

The 2.5 Contour manifold is volume sized for 2.5L intake pulses. Plus, the dual runners are set up for secondaries. Do you have secondaries?

2.5L intake is going to give you nothing but wasted time and a big heat sink.

Originally posted by GoppelDanger:
The 2.5 Contour manifold is volume sized for 2.5L intake pulses. Plus, the dual runners are set up for secondaries. Do you have secondaries?

2.5L intake is going to give you nothing but wasted time and a big heat sink.

1st part of that is true, designed for 2.5 with secondaries, the second statement is not true, it will not be a big heat sink. Of the two available options looking from intake valves to TB the spilt port will flow MORE air then the ovals period. Is either one optimal probably not, will it show up as a restrition on the dyno on the way to 700hp maybe, maybe not, however I guarentee he will make more power with the SVT intake manifold versus the oval. You should see how much material is removed from the oval heads to make them into a split port, its gross how bottled up the oval ports are from the factory. If Gabe runs into a restriction at least he has the heads worked to allow for the larger better flowing split port intake runners, he can then have a custom manifold made that would be optimal for a TC set up eliminating the bends, increasing volume etc....but we only have two options available at the time and he choose the best way available.

Whatever happened to 96BlackSE? Was he serious about selling his ST220 manifold, or not?

Originally posted by kinger:

1st part of that is true, designed for 2.5 with secondaries, the second statement is not true, it will not be a big heat sink. Of the two available options looking from intake valves to TB the spilt port will flow MORE air then the ovals period. Is either one optimal probably not, will it show up as a restrition on the dyno on the way to 700hp maybe, maybe not, however I guarentee he will make more power with the SVT intake manifold versus the oval. You should see how much material is removed from the oval heads to make them into a split port, its gross how bottled up the oval ports are from the factory. If Gabe runs into a restriction at least he has the heads worked to allow for the larger better flowing split port intake runners, he can then have a custom manifold made that would be optimal for a TC set up eliminating the bends, increasing volume etc....but we only have two options available at the time and he choose the best way available.

Since when did more removal of more material become better? The runners on the 2.5 intake are one short and one long for the secondaries... How does it affect the airflow when you port the oval port heads to split port and have one longer runner getting air to one side and the shorter runner to the other???
How are they bottled up? Just because they don't use and UIM like the 2.5's?
And the injector position is far from optimal unless you have injectors specifially made for this setup which are gonna be spraying so it'll be properly atomized
How do you figure he'll be making more power with the svt than the oval?

BTW, im not sure if I want to sell the UIM since its probably gonna go on my engine once I drop it back in

Yeah, kinger why does that manifold automatically make more power than an Oval one!? All you are doing is really moving that material out of the way for the width of that 2.5L LIM. I was looking at stazi's 2.5L heads tonight and I have very hard time believing that the amount of material you remove from matching that 2.5 LIM to the oval ports makes a large HP diff. I mean these Nobles are making close to 400 hp with plastic oval port manifolds!

Well, I"m not going to assign any numbers to it because I wouldn't know that without thorough testing. However, the cross sectional area of the SVT split ports, with the area of both ports added together, is significantly more than the cross sectional area of the oval port by itself.
Then if you add to it the fact that you can overbore it more if you wish and it will still retain structural integrity since it is aluminum, I think it makes it superior.
For NA motors this isn't necessarily what you are after, but for a turbo motor like his, the stock SVT split port can definitely flow more than the stock oval port if you base the comparison on constant pressure and square area of the ports. They aren't just a little bigger, they have like 20-30% more cross-sectional area.

Originally posted by warmonger:
Well, I"m not going to assign any numbers to it because I wouldn't know that without thorough testing. However, the cross sectional area of the SVT split ports, with the area of both ports added together, is significantly more than the cross sectional area of the oval port by itself.
Then if you add to it the fact that you can overbore it more if you wish and it will still retain structural integrity since it is aluminum, I think it makes it superior.
For NA motors this isn't necessarily what you are after, but for a turbo motor like his, the stock SVT split port can definitely flow more than the stock oval port if you base the comparison on constant pressure and square area of the ports. They aren't just a little bigger, they have like 20-30% more cross-sectional area.

Which one has more interior surface area?
Does high boost on a dual plane manifold with no secondaries do anything between the two sets of runners?
How do these factors affect air velocity?

Ideally, one would just create a single oval chamber above the "V" and have short runners to the heads. That is the best thing for forced induction. You just need to make sure the injectors fit, too. The plastic oval intake is the closest thing to that configuration.

Originally posted by warmonger:
Well, I"m not going to assign any numbers to it because I wouldn't know that without thorough testing. However, the cross sectional area of the SVT split ports, with the area of both ports added together, is significantly more than the cross sectional area of the oval port by itself.
Then if you add to it the fact that you can overbore it more if you wish and it will still retain structural integrity since it is aluminum, I think it makes it superior.
For NA motors this isn't necessarily what you are after, but for a turbo motor like his, the stock SVT split port can definitely flow more than the stock oval port if you base the comparison on constant pressure and square area of the ports. They aren't just a little bigger, they have like 20-30% more cross-sectional area.

A bigger hole is ofcourse gonna flow more air through... But how much air does the engine need? How much are you hurting the velocity when your overporting and how good is the fuel atomized?

Originally posted by GoppelDanger:
Ideally, one would just create a single oval chamber above the "V" and have short runners to the heads. That is the best thing for forced induction. You just need to make sure the injectors fit, too. The plastic oval intake is the closest thing to that configuration.

Your theory is sound but the oval is too small. Airflow under boost takes precendece over manifold design in this instance.

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:
But how much air does the engine need?

A LOT stock take what 260 CFM to make 200 fwhp, this bad boy needs to make 700 hp

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:
How much are you hurting the velocity when your overporting and how good is the fuel atomized?

Under 20+ psi of boost velocity and fuel atomoization are not as important as volume which takes precendence.

In terms of the ST220 intake:

Is the lower intake manifold the same as the standard oval port 3.0L one we get on the Escape block here?

Looks like it.

Originally posted by gotapex:
In terms of the ST220 intake:

Is the lower intake manifold the same as the standard oval port 3.0L one we get on the Escape block here?

I 'believe' so might ask 96blackse to give us the measurements. The difference is in plenum volume which is much larger on the ST220 IIRC.

Originally posted by GoppelDanger:

Which one has more interior surface area?
Does high boost on a dual plane manifold with no secondaries do anything between the two sets of runners?
How do these factors affect air velocity?

Ideally, one would just create a single oval chamber above the "V" and have short runners to the heads. That is the best thing for forced induction. You just need to make sure the injectors fit, too. The plastic oval intake is the closest thing to that configuration.

I don't know, you tell me!

As far as the surface area, I can sort of answer that:

Twin port, assuming 34 and 36mm (avg. guess) diameter runners of length L:
(34*Pi*L + 36*Pi*L) = 70*Pi*L

Ovalport, 57mm long by 23mm thick, or broken down to one circle and one rectangle where we take the surface area of the cylinder and just the two long sides of the rectangle:
(23*Pi + 34*L +34*L) = (23*Pi+68)*L

So lets assume that L of both intakes is equal, then:
S<split>= 220*L mm^2
S<oval>= 140*L mm^2

But to me, in this particular case, the surface area is much less of a factor influencing flow since they are on the same order of magnitude and therefore is not as relevant to our FI flow as the cross sectional area would be.

Cross sectional area of oval port:
(23*Pi/2)+(34*23) = 1197mm^2

Cross sectional area of split port:
(18^2)*Pi + (17^2)*Pi = 1926mm^2

% Larger cross section = 1926/1197 = 1.61 or 61% MORE cross sectional area.

% more S area = 220/140= 1.53 or 53% MORE surface area.

ratio of cross section to surface area (split) = 8.75
ratio of cross section to surface area (oval) = 8.55

*****************************************
My analysis of these numbers:
Okay, the split port has more cross sectional and surface area than the oval but that doesn't tell the whole story. These last numbers, the ratio of cross section to surface area show that the split port has a higher cross section to surface area ratio.

A true circle will have the best ratio of cross sectional area to surface area which approaches 9.0

Obviously the circle or cylinder is the most efficient shape for maximizing this ratio, we can indirectly see this in all kinds of piping as well.
This would be a good indicator of the Through-put of the piping system I think because it kind of reflects drag vs. volume if you assume the pipe roughness was equal and that the velocity of the airflow is the same (mass/time through the pipe).

So the split port has a better ratio than the oval port in this case, but they are pretty close so as I said I wouldn't let that bother me.
What does tell the story is the MUCH higher cross sectional area of the split port.
That means that assuming the drag is close to the same, it can flow near 50% more air volume than the oval.

Or at least that is what these numbers are telling me.

Originally posted by kinger:

Originally posted by gotapex:
In terms of the ST220 intake:

Is the lower intake manifold the same as the standard oval port 3.0L one we get on the Escape block here?

I 'believe' so might ask 96blackse to give us the measurements. The difference is in plenum volume which is much larger on the ST220 IIRC.

96BlackSE:

What say you on the LIM? Happen to have the dimension on that? If it's identical to the stock one, at least I can save a bit of money there.

The lower is shorter and aluminum.

Originally posted by warmonger:
....
A true circle will have the best ratio of cross sectional area to surface area which approaches 9.0
...

I have to edit this and its too late, but this statement is true but the ratio equaling 9 is only in the case of a cylinder the same size. This is only usefull for comparing this particular problem I think. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally posted by kinger:

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:
But how much air does the engine need?

A LOT stock take what 260 CFM to make 200 fwhp, this bad boy needs to make 700 hp

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:
How much are you hurting the velocity when your overporting and how good is the fuel atomized?

Under 20+ psi of boost velocity and fuel atomoization are not as important as volume which takes precendence.

CFM is only half the story

Boost is different in the case of velocity but fuel atomization is still very important

Originally posted by gotapex:

Originally posted by kinger:

Originally posted by gotapex:
In terms of the ST220 intake:

Is the lower intake manifold the same as the standard oval port 3.0L one we get on the Escape block here?

I 'believe' so might ask 96blackse to give us the measurements. The difference is in plenum volume which is much larger on the ST220 IIRC.

96BlackSE:

What say you on the LIM? Happen to have the dimension on that? If it's identical to the stock one, at least I can save a bit of money there.

The lower should be the same as the lincoln ls 3.0 lower...
I'll put it beside an escape lim get measurments and let you know

True the plenum volume on the st220 is much larger

Don't forget the "split port" aluminum 3L UIM that a few of us turbo Contour guys have been using with great results. It has awesome characteristics for a FI motor and shouldn't be over looked.

Originally posted by TC'd Swazo:
Don't forget the "split port" aluminum 3L UIM that a few of us turbo Contour guys have been using with great results. It has awesome characteristics for a FI motor and shouldn't be over looked.

That isn't a bad thought Swazo! It would be better then the ST220 in Gabes case because you wouldn't have to swap heads. Although I am unsure to the plenum volumes of the 99 3L split port versus but yes at least the ports would flow much better and Gabe you couls still use your SVT LIM and just swap this on while sitting on the dyno. (use your original turbo piping, etc)

Originally posted by TC'd Swazo:
Don't forget the "split port" aluminum 3L UIM that a few of us turbo Contour guys have been using with great results. It has awesome characteristics for a FI motor and shouldn't be over looked.

That's what I'm using.

Tom, that in-depth analysis is great. If you take a cross section of the dual runner twin ports, and compare that with a single oval, you might conclude that the dual runner manifold is going to flow more.

One more twist on this is the length of the runners (two different lengths with two different diameters on the dual runner manifold) as well as the end tank volume. Don't forget the two pipes from the TB to the end tanks on the dual runner.

Just for this scenario, lets assume the throttlebody opening is the same.

In the end, the thing that really matters is how much air can effeciently be pushed into the head at a nice range of RPM's.

Ooohhh.... How about the 3 stage Jag X-type intake manifold?

Yeah, there is an advantage to the 3L oval plenum being a bit larger and also a shorter, more straight shot into the manifold but that again may only manifest as a benefit in certain operational rpm ranges.
All I can say is the dual runner hasn't proven to be a restriction, has proven to provide a wider/flatter curve on the basic production motor, and similar on 3L hybrids.
As for FI, I ran it and it was not apparent to me that there was any significant restriction from it for FI. With the secondaries still working it did restrict airflow below IMRC (obviously) with the turbo and that did reduce some of the potential torque around the 3000+ to 3800rpm where the IMRC opened. However, below that it did not impact it and above that it did not.
THis was a benefit in that it allowed traction, but then the sudden onset of power with IMRC open point would easily break traction. It was a moot point for racing type driving because I could and did launch so quickly that IMRC wasn't a noticeable issue, but if I were driving normally, it enabled the car to run very nice, stock-like and with good economy of fuel. Best of both worlds I think.

Well, it's been said several times by Leo Capaldi and Terry Haines that the head is the biggest restrictor in the intake department. LOTS of metal can be removed and larger valves (3L) can be put in the 2.5L heads.

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:

Originally posted by gotapex:

96BlackSE:

What say you on the LIM? Happen to have the dimension on that? If it's identical to the stock one, at least I can save a bit of money there.

The lower should be the same as the lincoln ls 3.0 lower...
I'll put it beside an escape lim get measurments and let you know

True the plenum volume on the st220 is much larger

Thanks, looking forward to your measurements.

Originally posted by TC'd Swazo:
Don't forget the "split port" aluminum 3L UIM that a few of us turbo Contour guys have been using with great results. It has awesome characteristics for a FI motor and shouldn't be over looked.

Have a picture of it? What's the difference between it and the 2.5L SVT split port?

It's really not a split port design. The only thing that it has that allows it to be used with a split port LIM is a 1/4" section that's like an adapter plate at it's mating surface. The runners are a decent sized oval, which is why I chose to use it with my "tumble" port heads like you may use.

I'll have to look for some of my pics of the UIM when I was porting it.

Hmm, interesting. Happen to have a Ford part number on it?

Originally posted by gotapex:
Hmm, interesting. Happen to have a Ford part number on it?

Call a local salvage yard...I know you don't need to be cheap, but this may be faster. Ford sucks with obscure parts.

Originally posted by gotapex:
Hmm, interesting. Happen to have a Ford part number on it?

Here it is:

http://www.trademotion.com/shoppingcart/index.cfm?action=viewCart&siteid=213787

$200 here.

Also car-part.com has a bunch listed for much cheaper search for 1999 Ford Taurus Upper intake manifold. Your lower intake manifold should be fine for both manifolds.

Originally posted by gotapex:
Hmm, interesting. Happen to have a Ford part number on it?

I can get one locally for $35.

Originally posted by todras:

Originally posted by gotapex:
Hmm, interesting. Happen to have a Ford part number on it?

I can get one locally for $35.

Can you pick that up for me? I'll gladly pay you for the trouble.

Im overseas right now I'll get them to you once I get back!

Originally posted by gotapex:

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:

Originally posted by gotapex:

96BlackSE:

What say you on the LIM? Happen to have the dimension on that? If it's identical to the stock one, at least I can save a bit of money there.

The lower should be the same as the lincoln ls 3.0 lower...
I'll put it beside an escape lim get measurments and let you know

True the plenum volume on the st220 is much larger

Thanks, looking forward to your measurements.

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:
Im overseas right now I'll get them to you once I get back!

Thank you.