|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
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.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
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? 
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145 |
i feel dumb now, didnt even pay attention to where it said LIM, was thinking uim, so nevermind
98.5 Black SE ATX
S&B filter, SVT MAF, optimized SVT TB, mesh grille, removed orange reflectors, painted rear reflector, gutted pre-cats, optimized SVT LIM, 19lb injectors, resonator removed
cant afford an svt but lookin for 1 in nc
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 55
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 55 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 55
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 55 |
Also, I would prefer to send keep this stuff off the board and get it to you directly. What is your CDSID?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166 |
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)
- Zack
WANTED: T-Red HEATED Side Mirrors
FOR SALE: 4 14" Alum Alloys and Nearly New Avid H4s Tires w/ Center Caps
2000 T-Red SVT
1995 LX V6 MTX (RIP)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 55
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 55 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166 |
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.
- Zack
WANTED: T-Red HEATED Side Mirrors
FOR SALE: 4 14" Alum Alloys and Nearly New Avid H4s Tires w/ Center Caps
2000 T-Red SVT
1995 LX V6 MTX (RIP)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
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...
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065 |
|
|
|
|
|
