|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Well, I for one thank you for the SVT info, but frankly I donâ??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. 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
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
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
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)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 80
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 80 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
Pete, can you give both part numbers just for reference? Thanks.
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
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.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
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?  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
hmm...the part number on my receipt for my svt uim is 1S8Z9424AA. what gives?
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975 |
Oh, I know that one. That's the HALF-HONED SVT UIM! 
|
|
|
|
|
