Originally posted by DemonSVT:
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? I guess you must believe everything you read. Come on now you are obviously smarter than that.

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!) Not sure how you are getting the 3-4 hp difference as we all know dyno's are not repeatible. Again, you are smarter than that. The extra honing was done to the cylinder heads - primary and secondary. This is where the extra HP comes from.

Why did Duttweiler make specific note that he chose the 99-00 Dual Honed UIM for his project beast engine? Do not know this guy, nor where he again came up with this urban legend.


Then there is the really, really simple one.

Why are the ports an the 98/98.5 UIM smaller then the 99+ UIM? Not sure how you are measuring the hole size, but calipers is not the way to get an accurate reading. Lastly, the specs I am referring too are listed on the print - you have one of those too, right? Thought so. In any case, the 98 UIM has EH spec M605, the 99 UIM has EH spec M602, and guess what - for 2000 the EH spec goes back to M605. The only diff in the specs is a n adjustemnt to the dwell time. No dual hone BS here. So them by obvious deduction the 98 and 2000 should be the same in flow - if there is actually any difference. But wait, you seem to think the 99+ is the best. So now what smarty pants.....?????

Exactly...