Intake test results are here

[Bergie_dark by design]

From what im looking at.... isnt the 2004 taurus the better intake ? I mean yea the escape has 1.5 more hp but at a limit spot where it's kinda jaged.
Where as it also keeps 10+ more torque.

Also is there a reason for the taurus motor to just be better at mid range rpms ? Just asking cause im not that great of a guru when it comes to the specs.

[SpookSVT]

Also is there a reason for the taurus motor to just be better at mid range rpms ?

Quite possibly runner length.

I'd like to see the what the SVT cams do. You may see the escape make a significant improvent over the Taurus up top but the lower TQ in the midspeed area would not aid in shift recovery. So compromise and utilize the the Taurus with SVT cams for a very broad power curve and have excellent high and mid speed TQ production.

[BurritaSVT]

The escape manifold and the mazda6 are identical intakes in shape and height I used the 2004 Mazda6 for the test and shut the hood. The manifold is deeper on the back plenum. I had to relocate the coil pack on the motor. I will take pics of the mazda6 manifold when I arrive home. I will say if you are looking for the easiest cheapest swap if you don;t have the SVT cams then just do the full 2004 swap. I will redo the test on the setup minus the 2001 tuarus manifold and replace it with the st220 and the split port 3 liter 1998. I spent ovver $400 on the dyno to get the unanswered problems somewhat completed. But my analaysis is that the Taurus is very restrictive above 6000 rpms because the aiflow is to fast for the smaller runners. I only had gutted cats stock y-pipe and my CAI with the tune not touched once I dialed in the first ova port engine at 13.4 A/F and did not touch the spark tables afterwards. The SVT manifold was 12.0 A/F which was the last manifold I tested so I had to recalibrate the A/F to 13.5 to keep it within close measurements. I do know I could have added alot of timing in the SVT midrange because the airflow was slow enough to tolerate more spark where I could have sat on the dyno and made more power down low but ar $120/HR I was already spending enough time swapping manifolds.

[SpookSVT]

So all were not truly optimized except the one oval and you played merely with fuel? This seems rather incomplete per data to analyze. Be nice to see some A/F plots...

[BurritaSVT]

mazda 6
taurus 2004
taurus 2001
SVT UIM 13.5
SVT UIM 12.5

in that order

taurus 2004
taurus 2001
SVT UIM
Mazda 6


notice the A/F are very close plus I have some more dyno runs showing the A/f did not make more than 1whp difference even at 12.5 versus 13.5

notice the Mazda 6 pulled to 116mph in 2 secs quicker than all the manifolds so midrange power does not mean you will accelerate faster than topend power because you can clearly see that the smoother torque band made a faster pull. Joey

[SpookSVT]

I get an x for the A/F plot.

Looks like the Mazdas run in the TQ graphs started later and thus had less revs to traverse, so less time...Comparing the 04' Taurus and SVT since they are the closests to start speed, you're looking at about a .4-.5s to terminal speed in 4th gear from ~2000RPM. Now if you get more 'real', and look at the rev drop for each gear, the 04' Taurus is going to be in an area of much greater TQ, aiding shift recovery and acceleration in the higher gears. It does lack a little up top and it is uncertain if this would perform significantly worse than the Mazda.

[BurritaSVT]

Originally Posted by SpookSVT

I get an x for the A/F plot.

Looks like the Mazdas run in the TQ graphs started later and thus had less revs to traverse, so less time...Comparing the 04' Taurus and SVT since they are the closests to start speed, you're looking at about a .4-.5s to terminal speed in 4th gear from ~2000RPM. Now if you get more 'real', and look at the rev drop for each gear, the 04' Taurus is going to be in an area of much greater TQ, aiding shift recovery and acceleration in the higher gears. It does lack a little up top and it is uncertain if this would perform significantly worse than the Mazda.

I think he started after 2k I will find the one where he did not start after 2k I screwed up ...lol

[BurritaSVT]

now you will see the fifth run is 12.1 that is the SVT that I had to adjust but it didn't gain any power from it when I did lean it out some as you can see. on the fourth run

Oh I did mess up I grabbed the wrong dyno for the time comparision. Joey

the crazy thing is the SVT made more power down low then all the manifolds so I am certain the small plenums are acting as small runners. Joey

[SpookSVT]

~1s in accleration time! That's an eternity...

The gap is only going to get wider when both cars are in contest. Both will be 'in the band' where the oval intakes clearly have a large advantage in TQ production for most of that period. That last bit the 2.5L intake holds will not make up for it's near 10ft-lbs handicap over most of the rev band, especially in the upper gears. The 2.5L induction system is inadequete for any 3L let alone the 2.5L itself. Porsche prototype?? Much bigger plenums, right?

I'm going to bring up the same point with SVT cams. Yes, they do make excellent HP but over a VERY narrow range. Unless you live in the throttle, it does you no good having that bit of power at one extreme of the graph. Every RPM the engine sees in racing, let alone daily driving, is important! Peak power has nothing to do with the performance of a vehicle.

Even worse in a street application using the SVT cams, unless you have fully functioning IMRC on a TWIN PORT head that allows good lowspeed and highspeed efficiency (it's original design intent) you're going to loose power in the lower and mid regions when you use them with an oval port or remove the IMRC from the twin port engine

[tour96se]

wonder why noone has cut the plenums or end tanks off taken a larger diameter pipe,capped the ends and welded them to the runners?
i see cutom manifolds on other car forums all the time..but never the cdw27 based boards....???