|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 705
Veteran CEG\'er
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 705 |
Would ther be a gain to put on a 3.0 UIM and my 65mm TB? on my 98 CSVT? Thank you -Jeff-
1998 Black SVT
Morette Twin headlight conversion
Street flight turbo kit collecting dust!
Rebuilding my 3.0L
check it out
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 705
Veteran CEG\'er
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 705 |
Anyone have any idea? Please... thank you
1998 Black SVT
Morette Twin headlight conversion
Street flight turbo kit collecting dust!
Rebuilding my 3.0L
check it out
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
A 3.0L UIM will lead to a slightly higher top end, but a dog at lower RPM's. Not very streetable, especially in winter.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621
Redneck Troll
|
Redneck Troll
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621 |
Originally posted by Rogerm60: A 3.0L UIM will lead to a slightly higher top end, but a dog at lower RPM's. Not very streetable, especially in winter.
The 3L UIM was a huge low end TQ gain for my 3L hybrid, even over my supposedly TQ happy SE UIM. I say, try it Jeff!!!
http://www.bnmotorsports.com
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my CEG brothers. And you will know I am the Moderator when I lay my vengeance upon you."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
What kind of modifications need to be made in order to fit the 3L UIM to the 2.5L engine?
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Rogerm60: A 3.0L UIM will lead to a slightly higher top end, but a dog at lower RPM's. Not very streetable, especially in winter.
I'd bet it's the opposite.
Actually I would bet the oval port 3L UIM is a worse overall performer than the dual runner UIM. It may have a better mid range (3500-4500rpm) but that would likely be the only area it might be better.
However anything is just speculation until they are actually dyno tested back to back which likely will never happen.
Food for thought.
We all know Ford would not go through all the expense to design and manufacture a dual runner intake if it was not worth it. Changing to an oval port plastic UIM surely saved them a significant amount of money and Ford has been watching their bottom line tightly in recent years!
Also the 3L is mated ONLY to an ATX so one would expect the UIM design is catered to an ATX. (low to mid range power) While this may sound promising you have to realize that when truly driving your car you never see low range and hardly midrange. 4500-7500rpm is the main powerband!
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
True enough on a 3.0L, but if you put it on a 2.5L it will be too big. The runner air velocity will fall at low RPM's causing a loss of torque.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621
Redneck Troll
|
Redneck Troll
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621 |
All is fine and dandy in theory about 2.5L vs. the 3L UIM, but the fact remains that the 3L UIM eliminates two very tight bends that the air flow must make in the 2.5L UIM. Since one of those bends is basically a wall right behind the TB, you're going to get gains from that alone.
On a 3L hybrid especially, the jump was so great all around there's no way the butt dyno could be that far off.
http://www.bnmotorsports.com
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my CEG brothers. And you will know I am the Moderator when I lay my vengeance upon you."
|
|
|
|
|
|