|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,978 |
If worried about fuel rail, why not just match the svt lower to the oval port heads?
Alex
'99 SVT Contour
-=|WANTED: Vortech, working or not |=-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
iirc isnt the oval port the least amount of work...mainly just the fuel rail thats different?
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065 |
Originally posted by tour96SeVT:
iirc isnt the oval port the least amount of work...mainly just the fuel rail thats different?
I'd say so...you dont have to take the heads off...and no porting work...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732 |
Originally posted by tour96SeVT:
iirc isnt the oval port the least amount of work...mainly just the fuel rail thats different?
correct. cheapest and easiest and best bang for the buck.
and porting the heads to accept svt manifolds increases cost a good bit, specially if you cant do it yourself. in my case i did it because im pulling out all the stops in preparation for my soon to be turbo car 
Russell
Oval Port 3L Nearly Done
MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Originally posted by Russell-3L:
Originally posted by SVTfrog:
Is there really a point in doing the oval port? I think I'd prefer to do the hybrid.
well for starters it gets rid of all the oiling issues the 2.5L has, and the escape one even comes with the upgraded oil pan
oval port will perform better than a hybrid. now if you get the heads PnP with 3L valves then your on a level playing ground, but $1500 deeper in the hole.
the oval port is the best bang for the buck. period.
now my first 3L was a hybrid......blew it up and im going the oval port route. ill have alot less invested in the oval port than i did with my hybrid. and after the turbo i STILL might have less invested than i spent on my hybrid!
I would disagree with your oval port comments. For people on a budget and limited knowledged, the hybrid performs comparably to the full 3.0L. In this platform, in N/A, your not going to miss the 5-10hp the oval ports give you. IMO, the only issue with the hybrids is the oiling issue as already noted which can be fixed with an accusump.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by Russell-3L:
Originally posted by SVTfrog:
Is there really a point in doing the oval port? I think I'd prefer to do the hybrid.
well for starters it gets rid of all the oiling issues the 2.5L has, and the escape one even comes with the upgraded oil pan
oval port will perform better than a hybrid. now if you get the heads PnP with 3L valves then your on a level playing ground, but $1500 deeper in the hole.
the oval port is the best bang for the buck. period.
now my first 3L was a hybrid......blew it up and im going the oval port route. ill have alot less invested in the oval port than i did with my hybrid. and after the turbo i STILL might have less invested than i spent on my hybrid!
I would disagree with your oval port comments. For people on a budget and limited knowledged, the hybrid performs comparably to the full 3.0L. In this platform, in N/A, your not going to miss the 5-10hp the oval ports give you. IMO, the only issue with the hybrids is the oiling issue as already noted which can be fixed with an accusump.
+1
The 3L valves, from what I've seen, aren't making any huge jumps in power when mated to the 2.5L heads. I'm not sure of SVTNupe's mods, but his sig states that he has an oval port 3L, and is putting down 180fwhp and 178fwtq. For the most part, I'm seeing them dyno in the same range as my car, tuned for tuned, and untuned for untuned. Ofcourse, there are some that have a bit more work into the heads and intake/exhaust, that are putting down more. But for the most part, they are equal in power, mod for mod.
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
