Direct tq/hp comparison of the 3L straight oval and hybrid

[warmonger]

Okay, as promised I went ahead and superimposed the two dyno runs over top of each other by lassoing one in photoshop and just dragging it over top of the other, then lined up the two at 5252 rpm, where the HP&TQ curves cross when the torque and HP scales are equal. All that required was a shift left.
Now we can compare the two graphs on the exact same HP/TQ scales, the only thing that is shifted is the time. This is the only verifiable point I can line up accurately. The only other rpm reference point you can reasonably show is the IMRC crossover point which on an SVT is 3800rpm. What you find is that the ovalport starts its dyno run at a higher rpm and when overlayed it is equivalent to a 1.3-1.5 second delay before it starts, meaning time is not a viable comparison here.
However, you can now compare rpm and the hybrid curve starts at approximately 2500rpm when you look at the known points and the grid lines and interpolate the starting rpm. The ovalport starts approximately 3000rpm.
This allows direct comparison of torque and horsepower curves. The
hybrid is actually 20ft-lbs torque higher at 3000rpm. The ovalport
breaks higher at abouts 4000rpm to the tune of 10ft-lbs higher than the
hybrid about4500-5000rpm, then drops down below the hybrid again at the
5252rpm crossover point.
Go up higher to approximately 6000rpm you will see the hybrid is still 180ft-lbs but the ovalport is down to about 145-148ft-lbs, about 40ft-lbs lower! The vaunted torque of the ovalport with escape cams amounts to abouts a 5hp gain over about a 500rpm range whereas it is dramatically lower both below and above, to the tune of 50 wHP @ ~6000rpm and 25wHP @ ~3000rpm!!!
Amazing how erroneous the conclusions that were first drawn over a
simple scaling issue.

I just don't know how to put it any other way after spending a good 2 hours on analyzing and breaking out the scaling error. This honestly shows that the original manifold system, cams and tuning were far superior for their time if they can still allow a hybrid 3L with all that old technology to be so dramatically superior to the 2005 engines in production.
However, since this is again derived information we can only base it on how accurate the information was originally. Since BuckeyeSVT did say it was the same dyno, same operator, and the same day and the data was correlated in dynojet runviewer with HP/TQ layed out as a function of time, we have to agree that the data is pretty incontrovertible at this point.
I do want to add that this is only two cars and is not representative of every hybrid and every ovalport though.
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/progressive/cardoc_s_scam_revealed.jpg

[StealthyWeasel]

Wow, nice work. So is this the extent of the experiment or are you going to finish the studies on oval vs split (EDIT: 3L heads only)? It's about time we put the myths to rest and get some facts on the table.

[warmonger]

Wow, nice work. So is this the extent of the experiment or are you going to finish the studies on oval vs split (EDIT: 3L heads only)? It's about time we put the myths to rest and get some facts on the table.

Sorry I've been lazy but I was going to draw it up in a word document showing all the xcal2 datalog screenshots that I made.
I'll finish it pretty soon now that people are quite interested in it again.

[Rikenbomb]

Nice comparison.

However how many hybrids have the extent of mods (and tuning) that I do?

[warmonger]

Nice comparison.

However how many hybrids have the extent of mods (and tuning) that I do?

Well I don't truly know what mods you have though I did provide four or five dyno's of various 3L hybrids viewable in the 3L forum on CEG. When you start comparing 4 or 5 different dynos of different hybrids you begin to see the patterns. The average torque for a hybrid seems to fall between 190-200 ft-lbs with low end being 180 and high end being 210 or so ft-lbs. The power at the wheels peaks from a low 195-200 all the way up to 230s with the average falling about 210HP.
Since these are wheel HP numbers that is quite impressive considering it is on par with brand new Nissan VQ 255-270crankHP engines though with a bit less torque.

Oh, forgot to add that the graph above came from the original posted on FCO and the correction factor is STD. The average numbers I was quoting were SAE which always ends up a bit lower.

[buckeyesvt]

I love the graph, however when did dyno operators start sampling in 4th gear st 500RPM? You can play on your photoshop all day long - Anyone smart can see through this "smoke and mirrors" attempt. You are trying to make 5252RPM happen at the same time for both but you clearlty fail to realize that this is a time graph and the number WILL NOT overlay at the same time if one is FASTER!! You can play with it all you like, however you can't escape the truth.

-Dom

[StealthyWeasel]

Here we go, take cover.

[buckeyesvt]

Well I don't truly know what mods you have though I did provide four or five dyno's of various 3L hybrids viewable in the 3L forum on CEG. When you start comparing 4 or 5 different dynos of different hybrids you begin to see the patterns. The average torque for a hybrid seems to fall between 190-200 ft-lbs with low end being 180 and high end being 210 or so ft-lbs. The power at the wheels peaks from a low 195-200 all the way up to 230s with the average falling about 210HP.
Since these are wheel HP numbers that is quite impressive considering it is on par with brand new Nissan VQ 255-270crankHP engines though with a bit less torque.

Oh, forgot to add that the graph above came from the original posted on FCO and the correction factor is STD. The average numbers I was quoting were SAE which always ends up a bit lower.

Here are the two graphs "unmolested" by you and BurritaSVT. This is no joke and I'd appreciate it if you would stop all this nonsense. If you choose to keep comparing apples to oranges this discussion is good for no one. You think this proves that one is better than the other? In a way it is - But there is more to the story. You're comparing a $1300 engine build to an estimated $2000+ build (I'm not saying he spent that much but the cost of all the mods added together would equal this amount). Perhaps the evidence is damning - It is what it is. I can't use photoshop to make it any better or worse - That would be outright lying to everyone on this forum. I have no need to make a liar out of myself nor to prove anyone else a liar unless their circumstances present it.

Changing the STD to SAE makes no difference on the time graph. Perhaps you should try the WinPEP software and put photoshop away. The mere fact you presented this forum and CEG "photoshopped" graphs strips all your credibility. I have used WinPep this whole time from data run .drf files that are locked. I cannot change nor modify the results, this is very disheartening that you feel compelled to challenge me in this manner. If you cannot resist "changing facts" to suit your benefit - We have nothing more to discuss and I would recommend the thread be closed. There is no point in lying to good people - Period.

-Dom

[jaged]

maybe i cant see it, but in the graphs which line is which(3l v hybrid), or which graph is which

[buckeyesvt]

maybe i cant see it, but in the graphs which line is which(3l v hybrid), or which graph is which

The guide at the top lists light red / dark red as the Hybrid (Henry's car). The light blue / dark blue is the straight 3L (Mine).

-Dom

[StealthyWeasel]

Well what doesn't take much interpretation or driver skill is roll racing which takes out alot of confounding variables.. give different gears and different RPM's a shot and see the results.

[FastCougar]

I think the only way this can be settled is at the track ... bench racing is dumb!

Someone bring a Hybrid, someone a straight 3L and I will bring my car and we can settle this once and for all ... forced induction wins :rofl:

[spridget]

I think the only way this can be settled is at the track ... bench racing is dumb!

Someone bring a Hybrid, someone a straight 3L and I will bring my car and we can settle this once and for all ... forced induction wins :rofl:


After reading all the responses over the last few days.... this is the best statement so far.

t3h w!nn4r!

[fordrule]

I think the only way this can be settled is at the track ... bench racing is dumb!

Someone bring a Hybrid, someone a straight 3L and I will bring my car and we can settle this once and for all ... forced induction wins :rofl:

@$$hole......ur a luckier breed right now trevor with ur beast

[BurritaSVT]

Here are the two graphs "unmolested" by you and BurritaSVT. This is no joke and I'd appreciate it if you would stop all this nonsense. If you choose to keep comparing apples to oranges this discussion is good for no one. You think this proves that one is better than the other? In a way it is - But there is more to the story. You're comparing a $1300 engine build to an estimated $2000+ build (I'm not saying he spent that much but the cost of all the mods added together would equal this amount). Perhaps the evidence is damning - It is what it is. I can't use photoshop to make it any better or worse - That would be outright lying to everyone on this forum. I have no need to make a liar out of myself nor to prove anyone else a liar unless their circumstances present it.

Changing the STD to SAE makes no difference on the time graph. Perhaps you should try the WinPEP software and put photoshop away. The mere fact you presented this forum and CEG "photoshopped" graphs strips all your credibility. I have used WinPep this whole time from data run .drf files that are locked. I cannot change nor modify the results, this is very disheartening that you feel compelled to challenge me in this manner. If you cannot resist "changing facts" to suit your benefit - We have nothing more to discuss and I would recommend the thread be closed. There is no point in lying to good people - Period.

-Dom

Oh since we are all using SAE numbers for all our dyno charts where we show people the results. Please show the numbers corrected and like you mentioned before. Do the dyno plot over speed because I have a feeling the tires are different sizes which would explain why you are thinking the car is pulling faster on the dyno. Because when the hydbrid just outright dominated the COP over the torque curve the whole time except for 2000 rpms out of the 2000-7000rpms(which was shown on a fair comparsion RPMS) how can it be possible for the car to accelerate faster on the dyno unless you had the dynoject that has load bearing capabilities where one was off from the other car very unlikely (like mustamg dynos)

joey

[cpapashley]

Maybe it is just a seat of the pants impression, but does it really take that long for the torque curve to recover from that imrc point. I know mine shows its face at 3,300rpm (slightly different tuning in the MPV) but it does not "feel" like it dies when it opens, it feels like it comes alive??? I do understand there is some loss of torque but....

and another point that I have to ask, with the dynojet I had my dyno run on they also kept km/h which would obviously equate to mph. If everything is on those drf files then why not also show the time vs mph run as well?

[StealthyWeasel]

After reading all the responses over the last few days.... this is the best statement so far.

t3h w!nn4r!

too bad I said that already :tongue:

[FastCougar]

This is bench racing at it's best. Let me shed some light on this graphing ... all that this proves is that from 1,000 RPMs to redline, a straight 3L will beat a hybrid in 4th gear. When as the last time you where trolling around in 4th gear and decided to race somebody without downshifting? I'm sorry, but the entire arguement is gay and if both of you can't see that, you are welcome to take it to PM's. I will restate what I said in the "tweaked" thread:

All this proves is that if you are trolling around in 4th gear at 1,000 RPMs and don't downshift, the straight 3L will beat a Hybrid in acceleration due to having more torque on tap. Last I checked, when I shifted into 4th gear, it dropped me square into the powerband of the SVT cams. This really is getting silly ... who does an entire run in 4th gear from 1,000 RPM? Nobody!

This is like saying a Toyota Prius has more torque than any Lamborgini under 1,500 RPMs and will take them from 0-10 MPH every time. While it's true, it's still pointless because nobody races 0-10!

[StealthyWeasel]

This is bench racing at it's best. Let me shed some light on this graphing ... all that this proves is that from 1,000 RPMs to redline, a straight 3L will beat a hybrid in 4th gear. When as the last time you where trolling around in 4th gear and decided to race somebody without downshifting? I'm sorry, but the entire arguement is gay and if both of you can't see that, you are welcome to take it to PM's. I will restate what I said in the "tweaked" thread:



This is like saying a Toyota Prius has more torque than any Lamborgini under 1,500 RPMs and will take them from 0-10 MPH every time. While it's true, it's still pointless because nobody races 0-10!

Right, which proves what warmonger said - straight 3L STILL looks like a tempo vs a 3L with SVT cams and split port...

[gamiller]

If Nautilus Performance is up to it, I think we can settle this once and for all by dyno'ing my car with the straight setup I have now (with or without boost), and then bolt on Joey's LIM and an SVT UIM for another round of testing on the dynamometer. That would be the most controlled experiment of the sort to date and offer the best comparison. And if the hybrid setup wins, then I'll buy my third Nautilus product. :)

[StealthyWeasel]

Well Gary, it's a good idea in theory. However, that is kinda a different debate all together. The heads behave differently under boost conditions as they would under vaccuum... that's a confounding variable that nearly nullifies any findings.

[spridget]

If Nautilus Performance is up to it, I think we can settle this once and for all by dyno'ing my car with the straight setup I have now (with or without boost), and then bolt on Joey's LIM and an SVT UIM for another round of testing on the dynamometer. That would be the most controlled experiment of the sort to date and offer the best comparison. And if the hybrid setup wins, then I'll buy my third Nautilus product. :)


I'm beginning to think that's what this whole argument is about... Burrito and Warmonger selling products and worried that Dom's COP setup will somehow interfere.

These guys are wasting alot time and effort bickering, while they are some of the best Contour enthusiasts out there. Sad.

STFU and get back to work making cool stuff.

[FastCougar]

I'm beginning to think that's what this whole argument is about... Burrito and Warmonger selling products and worried that Dom's COP setup will somehow interfere.

These guys are wasting alot time and effort bickering, while they are some of the best Contour enthusiasts out there. Sad.

STFU and get back to work making cool stuff.I honestly don't think that is the motive behind this bickering. Nautilus has nothing to loose to someone making COP setups for roughly $150/each when they are making more than that per tune not to mention the turbo kits.

[spridget]

i apologize for the thread hijack

honestly, I don't understand where all the animosity is coming from. It's a complete waste of time. It makes me not want to contribute. I log in to these forums to read about cool stuff, discuss new ideas, not argue over petty BS and wave my e-penis around because I have better peak HP numbers.

Do Warmonger or Burrito have a personal problem with Dom? How is Dom scamming people? Go back to building turbos, y'all do a great job with that. Dom builds great hybrids and straight 3Ls. I don't think this is really about money, or idea infringement... it's little boys throwing stones. I see Dom producing new things for the Contour/Cougar community and making 3L's more accessible. These cars are dead... have been for over 5 years.

Both setups have their merits. Straight 3Ls are much less expensive than they were a couple years ago. Hybrids are fun peaky engines, 3L's are torquey. Both are gonna get you to the finish line at roughly the same time.




If you are going to compare 3L's to hybrids, at least start with similar level of build. I don't see a comparison or dynos of a plain 3L shortblock with SVT heads and intake compared to an unmodified 3L. Put two cars one the same dyno, under the same conditions.

All I've seen so far is that a straight 3L is very competitive against a built hybrid. For the money, the 3L is the best bang for the buck.

[fordrule]

what kind of hybrids are we talking about , the 3L shortblock and svt heads hybrid or the full 3L with svt cams and split port matched heads to svt uim.lim? then there is a difference.

[gamiller]

Well Gary, it's a good idea in theory. However, that is kinda a different debate all together. The heads behave differently under boost conditions as they would under vaccuum... that's a confounding variable that nearly nullifies any findings.

i disagree. from what i can tell, this is a resurrected debate over intake manifolds, not heads. the only definitive answer is to compare the power outputs of the two configurations using the same motor with the same internals, the same intake up to the TB, and the same exhaust manifolds. sadly the debate, it's turned into quite a brawl over at CEG. the feud between CEG and FCO goes back years but flares up from time to time.

[SpookSVT]

The hybrid is the faster car. That was originally agreed upon and showed on the overlay graphs in the thread on FCO. The time factor was to demonstrate something else (read the thread). Words have gotten twisted quite a bit with this nonsense. With that settled let's focus on this manifold 'debate'.

I want to hear what everyone else thinks.

But first I want someone to post up their own measurements on port CSA (cross-sectional area) just so there is no discrepency later on.

[BurritaSVT]

Spridget

We have nothing against Dom at all we defending ourselves since we were attacked by him by not taking a joke over Terry Haines where he came out with full attack over it. Which the dust finally settled at least I saw it that way. The COP are not at all going to affecting us we will always help anyone with their goals.

The unsolved matter here is that which setup for the money is the best for the car owner. The big problem I had with him not personal was he keeps telling everyone that we are selling people mods that is hampering their performance saying we are just stealing people money for nothing that his COP is best way to go. So when this statement is made we need to tell our side but it seems that when we do he just keep trying to destroy our credit or knowledge, instead of getting a dyno to side by side to compare.
And quit comparing dynos on seconds when the mph is off that he mentioned so therefore the car will speed up different time due to leverage differences.

I took this to a more postive approach and will show him a dyno of the SVT UIM which is really the only difference between the engine. We do know from datalogs that the 3 liter cams in a SVT UIM with SVT LIM drew in the same air up top so the cams are not what makes the car have less topend power it is the oval port manifold that has a resonance tune for mid range where the SVT had two ranges since it has two different lengths runners.

We also know that the the SVT upper can flow a 3 liter which is the rumor that it won't and Ford swapped over because it. But that is not true since the highest HP car is 240whp NA 3 liter SVT honed UIM and LIM so therefore the highest modded 230whp NA will never see the upper limits of the split ports.

We don't sell 3 liters we just sell the performance mods so any 3 liter benefits us regardless. And if I can make the install faster for the 3 liter swap I will. I rather sell my fuel rail adapter to returnless since it manufactured quicker than the manifold. The fuel rail adapter will make any COP, full 3 liter swap fast and inexpensive for just $99 you have a 3 liter swap..:)

[buckeyesvt]

Spridget

We have nothing against Dom at all we defending ourselves since we were attacked by him by not taking a joke over Terry Haines where he came out with full attack over it. Which the dust finally settled at least I saw it that way. The COP are not at all going to affecting us we will always help anyone with their goals.

The unsolved matter here is that which setup for the money is the best for the car owner. The big problem I had with him not personal was he keeps telling everyone that we are selling people mods that is hampering their performance saying we are just stealing people money for nothing that his COP is best way to go. So when this statement is made we need to tell our side but it seems that when we do he just keep trying to destroy our credit or knowledge, instead of getting a dyno to side by side to compare.
And quit comparing dynos on seconds when the mph is off that he mentioned so therefore the car will speed up different time due to leverage differences.

I took this to a more postive approach and will show him a dyno of the SVT UIM which is really the only difference between the engine. We do know from datalogs that the 3 liter cams in a SVT UIM with SVT LIM drew in the same air up top so the cams are not what makes the car have less topend power it is the oval port manifold that has a resonance tune for mid range where the SVT had two ranges since it has two different lengths runners.

We also know that the the SVT upper can flow a 3 liter which is the rumor that it won't and Ford swapped over because it. But that is not true since the highest HP car is 240whp NA 3 liter SVT honed UIM and LIM so therefore the highest modded 230whp NA will never see the upper limits of the split ports.

We don't sell 3 liters we just sell the performance mods so any 3 liter benefits us regardless. And if I can make the install faster for the 3 liter swap I will. I rather sell my fuel rail adapter to returnless since it manufactured quicker than the manifold. The fuel rail adapter will make any COP, full 3 liter swap fast and inexpensive for just $99 you have a 3 liter swap..:)

However, you leave one big gaping hole in all of this. Firstly, are the secondaries operating on these "dyno" graphs you posted on CEG? If so, will they in your "mod"? That's a huge difference. Secondly, it was a 60RPM overrev and a one mile and a half difference. That's splitting hairs if you ask me, what do you want - Perfection? And lastly this....

Most full straight 3L's that are either hybrid or SVT'ized all run around 180-200HP / 180ish TQ. Does anyone disagree? Someone, please anyone speak up - I'd like to know first before I say anything next. Plots would be helpful, but just posting your numbers would be great.

And this fuel rail mod you keep mentioning? Pic? On a LIM preferably installed. You keep talking about it, so I assumed it was a done deal. I know materials alone cost more than $90 to make a new rail so I'd like to see this myself... (what you said about keeping the factory regulator gives me the chills). Please indulge me..

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

However, you leave one big gaping hole in all of this. Firstly, are the secondaries operating on these "dyno" graphs you posted on CEG? If so, will they in your "mod"? That's a huge difference. Secondly, it was a 60RPM overrev and a one mile and a half difference. That's splitting hairs if you ask me, what do you want - Perfection? And lastly this....

Most full straight 3L's that are either hybrid or SVT'ized all run around 180-200HP / 180ish TQ. Does anyone disagree? Someone, please anyone speak up - I'd like to know first before I say anything next. Plots would be helpful, but just posting your numbers would be great.

And this fuel rail mod you keep mentioning? Pic? On a LIM preferably installed. You keep talking about it, so I assumed it was a done deal. I know materials alone cost more than $90 to make a new rail so I'd like to see this myself... (what you said about keeping the factory regulator gives me the chills). Please indulge me..

-Dom

It does surprise you that I can build a fuel system mod to sell for $99 to make the system safe as factory and vey reliable at that. How much is your fuel system setup selling for I am guessing more than twice my retail right?

The mph plot you looked is automatically lined up but if you noticed the rpm plot noted one was 600 rpms afterwards so therefore you just answered your question. The mph was the same only because the higher 7200 rpm run had smaller tires made same mph as the lower rpm 6600 rpm car. Right?

[Blackcoog]

Quite a few of the recent full 3L's ported out for SVT intakes have been putting 210+whp down. Mine put down 220whp and the graph is here:

http://www.newcougar.org/forums/3-0l-duratec-performance/89951-3-0l-dyno-plot-sheets-post-yours-here.html

Previously my was a hybrid and it put down 192hp. The only major changes for the 220hp graph were 3L heads ported out for SVT intakes. I'd say that's a good indication that the 3L heads ported out flow much better than the SVT heads even though they have less compression.

[buckeyesvt]

It does surprise you that I can build a fuel system mod to sell for $99 to make the system safe as factory and vey reliable at that. How much is your fuel system setup selling for I am guessing more than twice my retail right?

The mph plot you looked is automatically lined up but if you noticed the rpm plot noted one was 600 rpms afterwards so therefore you just answered your question. The mph was the same only because the higher 7200 rpm run had smaller tires made same mph as the lower rpm 6600 rpm car. Right?

Show me your $99.00 fuel system mod. A picture, a drawing - Something. Until I know it "exists" it's another paper fantasy.

Lol, I clearly said 60 RPM not 600, at 600RPM difference the car would've gone a whole lot faster than 1.5MPH.

I want to say this for everyone here who is reading this can absorb.

The Split port mod is using the SVT UIM (and SVT cams from what I can see). This mod caters to people with SVT Contours or people who have an SVT UIM on their existing 2.5L. Ok? So?

Where does that leave people with normal Cougars and Contours with 2.5L's/ MTX? Out in the weeds, you would need to also source SVT bits in order to get the power out of that system. Slapping on the stock intake will do even less power and without the cams you have no TQ down below. Therefore the price discussion even including his parts brings the build with labor and tune to over $3000.00. That factors in his "cheaper" $250 SuperChip and tune?

Anyone else dyno'd and tuned here paid less than $500? I haven't anywhere in my state - I'd hate to see the power or tq left on the table because the tune is unique to one engine on one car. Datalogging and going back and forth is a time consuming unfortunate event. In the end, you'll wish you paid someone to do it right in the first place so everything is "Customized" to your engine/car.

-Dom

[brapple]

only thing I can say about use "guys left out in the cold", or most of us is if we where serious about getting some more power we already have the SVT UIM and cams, etc. I see alot of people here that have "upgraded" to SVT components. Since the cougar already has the same LIM thats taken care of.

So yes there would be an additional cost but I would believe most of those people who want a 3L have already gotten the SVT parts.

I know they made a big difference in my car so I don't regret spending the money on those parts, plus I got a good deal as the prices are much lower then they use to be for said parts. I know I wouldn't have done so if the price wasn't right at the time.

[SpookSVT]

So no one has actually taken a basic port measurement? A lot of these 'conclusions' about manifolds are starting to sound like assumptions to me...

I'll ask again, I want anyone that HAS taken measurements to post up split port and oval port CSA at the head entry.

[morbid]

Anyone else dyno'd and tuned here paid less than $500? I haven't anywhere in my state - I'd hate to see the power or tq left on the table because the tune is unique to one engine on one car. Datalogging and going back and forth is a time consuming unfortunate event. In the end, you'll wish you paid someone to do it right in the first place so everything is "Customized" to your engine/car.

-Dom

Since I already own an xcal2, I got dyno tuned by ADC for $200 (threw away the crappy mail order tune (not from ADC)).

And my god! Can the first debate PLEASE be for which one site to have these discussions on? Just pick one.. any one... but I waste so much time going between the 3 sites, essentially reading the same/similar info. Just agree... and post "moved to blah forums". Anyone who's interested and doesn't already have an account on the one forum should get an account there. I would assume the primary participants of these threads (Dom, Joey, Tom, etc...) would appreciate this too.

[BigBalledOX]

Anyone else dyno'd and tuned here paid less than $500?

I know of about four or five people who have. I personally paid $350, $300 for two hours of dyno tuning on a Dynapack dyno, $30 for welding a bung for a wideband O2 sensor and $20 for custom-burning the tune on to an SCT chip.

And when I discovered a vacuum leak and the tune needed to be tweaked, the shop did it for free. They guarantee all their tunes that way. They've also tuned another hybrid, a full 3L and a supercharged 2.5L, all with excellent results.

[StealthyWeasel]

I got dyno tuned for $300 (given warmonger helped me out after) and made 213.9/194.6 to the wheels on my proud split port svt cam setup. I spent less than that $3000 figure. If I was to do it again (knowing what I know now) I could have done it all for $1500, sans labor because I do it myself of course. It's a superior setup, so I'll pay the extra.

Oh and I bet if we raced at the track I would get you out of the hole and still beat you up top.. so that "extra tq" got you nowhere.

[buckeyesvt]

I got dyno tuned for $300 (given warmonger helped me out after) and made 213.9/194.6 to the wheels on my proud split port svt cam setup. I spent less than that $3000 figure. If I was to do it again (knowing what I know now) I could have done it all for $1500, sans labor because I do it myself of course. It's a superior setup, so I'll pay the extra.

Oh and I bet if we raced at the track I would get you out of the hole and still beat you up top.. so that "extra tq" got you nowhere.

That's an awesome price guys, really. There is no one around here that will do it that "inexpensively". I don't feel bad paying these guys $550 because instead of paying by hour they can work on it for 4-6 hours to get it perfect where I'm not on the hook for hourly charges if something needs attention that we can't get perfect. They honestly do these anywhere from 8-19 runs to fully tune. Then adjust and repeat. Anyone knows that takes time...

Oh, and I bet if you came to Ohio and looked me up - I'd find a track and lay this "myth" to rest? Game?

-Dom

[fordrule]

when i get back from iraq i want to run.......bowling green ky has a awesome 1/4 track....

[morbid]

Since the thread on CEG was locked... can this thread or SpookSVT's new thread (http://www.newcougar.org/forums/3-0l-duratec-performance/116823-manifold-debate.html) be the only location for this discussion?

[StealthyWeasel]

go to the drag strip, cut better than a 2.05 60' and trap at 96+ and i'd consider racing you. Nima ran a 14.0 @ 99 with a full 3L because he has an SE, weighs 2600 lbs and had SVT cams. Oh AND drag radials.

You have a 3200lb SVT with a full 3L? Good luck.

[warmonger]

i apologize for the thread hijack

honestly, I don't understand where all the animosity is coming from. It's a complete waste of time. It makes me not want to contribute. I log in to these forums to read about cool stuff, discuss new ideas, not argue over petty BS and wave my e-penis around because I have better peak HP numbers.

Do Warmonger or Burrito have a personal problem with Dom? How is Dom scamming people? Go back to building turbos, y'all do a great job with that. Dom builds great hybrids and straight 3Ls. I don't think this is really about money, or idea infringement... it's little boys throwing stones. I see Dom producing new things for the Contour/Cougar community and making 3L's more accessible. These cars are dead... have been for over 5 years.

Both setups have their merits. Straight 3Ls are much less expensive than they were a couple years ago. Hybrids are fun peaky engines, 3L's are torquey. Both are gonna get you to the finish line at roughly the same time.




If you are going to compare 3L's to hybrids, at least start with similar level of build. I don't see a comparison or dynos of a plain 3L shortblock with SVT heads and intake compared to an unmodified 3L. Put two cars one the same dyno, under the same conditions.

All I've seen so far is that a straight 3L is very competitive against a built hybrid. For the money, the 3L is the best bang for the buck.

Well if you had something productive to say in this post it might have been better. I'll just correct you in that:
Hybrids on average make more power. Hybrids can be done cheaper than a straight 3L swap if you just get a used shortblock and do the work yourself.
For the money, the hybrid is the best bang for the buck because you get a lot more BANG for the buck.
How you can you make these statements and then talk about your e-penis waving about stuff....compensating for the fact that straight 3Ls produce less power than a hybrid?

We (the real world) all know that the hybrids are more powerful because we have looked at 6 years of dyno plots for both these and straight 3Ls. How is that attacking Dom? Defending is what is going on when he came on two different forums to track us down and evidently is speaking very nastily on his own forum....a forum you are a primary member at by the way, and you have the e-balls to come on here and imply we have a problem with him? Check the dates on all the bad stuff he's been saying abouts us over there pal....it predates any of this stuff here as well as continues right up to the present.
This just makes it look like you are peddling tripe for him instead of being objective.

[warmonger]

Quite a few of the recent full 3L's ported out for SVT intakes have been putting 210+whp down. Mine put down 220whp and the graph is here:

http://www.newcougar.org/forums/3-0l-duratec-performance/89951-3-0l-dyno-plot-sheets-post-yours-here.html

Previously my was a hybrid and it put down 192hp. The only major changes for the 220hp graph were 3L heads ported out for SVT intakes. I'd say that's a good indication that the 3L heads ported out flow much better than the SVT heads even though they have less compression.

Don't forget, we are all using SAE numbers and Dom is using STD numbers. Go back and convert all those dyno's to STD because he won't post the numbers in SAE....it won't even break 200wHP if he does.

[warmonger]

So no one has actually taken a basic port measurement? A lot of these 'conclusions' about manifolds are starting to sound like assumptions to me...

I'll ask again, I want anyone that HAS taken measurements to post up split port and oval port CSA at the head entry.

Been there done that and bought the t-shirt. It's been posted before.
Hands down the ovalport manifold cannot flow as much as even the SE split port manifolds just due to cross sectional area. Then you add the resonance tuning and you'll see why the dual runner was a better design and was only removed due to Ford cheapening up the project.

[FastCougar]

Some food for thought ... why would a 2.5L engine have more cross sectional area in the port than a 3L engine? Ford tuned the 3L for low end torque because of two reasons: 1) the engine was mated to an ATX and 2) the engine/ATX where mated to a PIG of a car (01 Taurus = 3,354 lbs. [Hell, the Escape weighs less and it's an SUV/mini-ute]). Between the Automatic and the weight of the car, it needs it's grunt down low.

[buckeyesvt]

Some food for thought ... why would a 2.5L engine have more cross sectional area in the port than a 3L engine? Ford tuned the 3L for low end torque because of two reasons: 1) the engine was mated to an ATX and 2) the engine/ATX where mated to a PIG of a car (01 Taurus = 3,354 lbs. [Hell, the Escape weighs less and it's an SUV/mini-ute]). Between the Automatic and the weight of the car, it needs it's grunt down low.

Perfect arguement I've been waiting for an answer on since this whole thing started.

E-balls... haha. Nahh, but I do have E-Brains. Perhaps a dive into this more would interest me.

-Dom

[spridget]

Don't forget, we are all using SAE numbers and Dom is using STD numbers. Go back and convert all those dyno's to STD because he won't post the numbers in SAE....it won't even break 200wHP if he does.


Interesting that you say that... Rikenbomb posted the same dyno, now with SAE numbers. The difference between SAE and STD?.... 1.5hp.


http://www.newcougar.org/gallery/files/2/0/9/Dyno1.jpg



http://www.newcougar.org/gallery/files/2/0/9/Rikenbomb.jpg

[96blackse]

go to the drag strip, cut better than a 2.05 60' and trap at 96+ and i'd consider racing you. Nima ran a 14.0 @ 99 with a full 3L because he has an SE, weighs 2600 lbs and had SVT cams. Oh AND drag radials.

You have a 3200lb SVT with a full 3L? Good luck.

LOL so my car now is 2600 lbs???? (Must of filled the entire car with helium) If anything the SE is heavier than the SVT since its not decontented... Where did you come up with this BS???
BTW my 60ft times were 2.3+ just to let you know and I only had a few runs before it started to rain so the drag radials were plain uselss... My car is no where near running perfectly either since my tune is out to lunch and I have basically a stock exhaust on the car, if it wasn't for those my times would of been much better... But then again the word would of been my car is 1700lbs :rofl:

So it must of been the SVT cams???

I have a friend with a 98 SVT with a full 3L with STOCK OVAL PORT CAMS with a busted 3rd gear (HAS TO GRANNY SHIFT 3rd GEAR) running the same 99+ mph traps... Good luck? I don't think so...

If anyone thinks that the SVT split port intakes on the 3L oval port heads are better than the 3L oval port intakes designed for the oval port heads you should go read on all the other conspiracy theories on the internet maybe you'll buy into all those too...

[spridget]

Well if you had something productive to say in this post it might have been better. I'll just correct you in that:
Hybrids on average make more power. Hybrids can be done cheaper than a straight 3L swap if you just get a used shortblock and do the work yourself.
For the money, the hybrid is the best bang for the buck because you get a lot more BANG for the buck.
How you can you make these statements and then talk about your e-penis waving about stuff....compensating for the fact that straight 3Ls produce less power than a hybrid?

We (the real world) all know that the hybrids are more powerful because we have looked at 6 years of dyno plots for both these and straight 3Ls. How is that attacking Dom? Defending is what is going on when he came on two different forums to track us down and evidently is speaking very nastily on his own forum....a forum you are a primary member at by the way, and you have the e-balls to come on here and imply we have a problem with him? Check the dates on all the bad stuff he's been saying abouts us over there pal....it predates any of this stuff here as well as continues right up to the present.
This just makes it look like you are peddling tripe for him instead of being objective.


Now you're personally attacking me too?

I'm not here to defend Dom. He's a big boy, I'm sure he can defend himself. I'm a primary member of FCO becasue I can't stand the CEG attitude. Flame the newb and search Nazi's. Very little has changed on CEG in the last 5 years. I've never opened an account at CEG for that reason. I'll go somewhere else where I can ask questions and get an adult response.

If you hadn't noticed, Dom has very little tact. He's quick to take the offensive when he's ignorantly questioned and refuted. He's the same guy he was 6 years ago. Rather than act like an adult... or I'm sorry, an Army Values commisioned officer, you keeping stirring the shiz with him. Maybe if you leave it alone, he'll shut up.

Stir the pot Tom. Drag some more people into your petty arguments. You might want to go back and read my posts. Did I make a personal attack towards you?

You type alot of words, Tom, but you don't say shiz. I had alot of respect for you, then you make these statements against me. I think you're coming after me now, simply because I'm a primary member of FCO and asked why you hate Dom so much. He may have diarrhea of the mouth from time to time, but he's a diehard enthusiast constantly offering his services to the community. He runs a very professional enthusiast website on his own dime. He consistently offers new ideas.

Let me correct my original statement.... for MY money, the straight 3L is the best bang for the buck. I didn't need to remove the heads from a 3000 mile 2003 Sable engine, plug drainbacks, buy new head gaskets, bolts, seals, etc. I don't believe in mismatched cams in a oval port, or modding the oval port heads to accept SVT intakes. I paid $500 for an engine and dropped it in. I'm happy with what I have and the knowledge I gained from doing ALL the work myself with basic handtools. I'm the only person to mod or turn the bolts in this build.


Hybrids on average make more power. Hybrids can be done cheaper than a straight 3L swap if you just get a used shortblock and do the work yourself.
For the money, the hybrid is the best bang for the buck because you get a lot more BANG for the buck.


I have never disputed that hybrids make more power on the dyno. I have questioned whether a hybrid can show real gains on the track... that's the "real world" I live in.

Straight 3L for $500 and do all the work yourself, or 3L shortblock for $500, new headgaskets, plugged drains, etc.... a clean, unopenend or modded, straight 3L is going to be more reliable and offer consistent power for years. That's not easy to say for a hybrid. Also, living in Texas and road racing... I wanted an intake that is not susceptible to heat soak like the SVT aluminum manifold. Drive 1/2 mile and the SVT intake is too hot to touch... run hot laps at the track for 20 mins and the plastic UIM is luke warm.


And just when I thought I'd PM you about making a new tune for me to see if you can do a better job than my friend Jim, you go and start shiz with me. Forget it. No salute to you, cap'n.

-Luke

[buckeyesvt]

LOL so my car now is 2600 lbs???? (Must of filled the entire car with helium) If anything the SE is heavier than the SVT since its not decontented... Where did you come up with this BS???
BTW my 60ft times were 2.3+ just to let you know and I only had a few runs before it started to rain so the drag radials were plain uselss... My car is no where near running perfectly either since my tune is out to lunch and I have basically a stock exhaust on the car, if it wasn't for those my times would of been much better... But then again the word would of been my car is 1700lbs :rofl:

So it must of been the SVT cams???

I have a friend with a 98 SVT with a full 3L with STOCK OVAL PORT CAMS with a busted 3rd gear (HAS TO GRANNY SHIFT 3rd GEAR) running the same 99+ mph traps... Good luck? I don't think so...

If anyone thinks that the SVT split port intakes on the 3L oval port heads are better than the 3L oval port intakes designed for the oval port heads you should go read on all the other conspiracy theories on the internet maybe you'll buy into all those too...

I was thinking the same thing, where'd the weight go?...lol. Ohh, we just threw it out the window going down the highway on the way to the track (like yesterdays stale McDonalds fries)...:rofl:

-Dom

[DemonSVT]

You can NOT compare dyno graphs by using the actual time data. That is just common sense. You have no starting reference point to correlate the power curves together.

A simple example.

Take the same engine.

One pull starts at 500rpm.
One pull starts at 2500rpm.

At 500rpm the engine will be making exponentially less HP and torque and thus will have a slower rpm increase plotted against time. Thus when using just time to compare these two graphs of the exact same engine it will look like then pull that started at 2500rpm accelerates significantly faster. Thus reaches power faster, thus "appears" to have a fatter power curve.

The simple answer again. You can NOT use time to correlate and compare graphs.

Tom did the best thing he could with the "only" graphs supplied and matched them up at the only "known" rpm point. That is 5252 and that is a mathematical given in the HP to TQ formula. Thus this photoshopped extrapolation is most likely very close to the actual graphs if there were compared using rpm. Obviously the further away from 5252 you get the more skewed they become because the rates of rpm change are different between the two engines.

Dom. Why don't you post unaltered graphs using rpm since you obviously have the raws and are using dynoviewer? This would have solved everything long ago. For that matter just post the raws so we can do an SAE graphing.

[PuckPuck]

Lets have 1 race and decide it all.... yeah that's the solution. Why do you think Nascar has over 20 races a season for an average of 400+ miles each? because the law of averages is how you crown a winner...

You want to know for certain, 1 driver for all the cars, go to the strip, and race the same car at least 5 times. Throw away the the high and low runs (as well as thoses where a mishift happened) and take the average of the rest. Do this to each car, with the same driver.

Unfortunately even the above scenario is a better indicator, tires play a major role at the drag strip, so using the same tires would be nice, however as a day progresses, the tires will get worse... in other words, sharpen your pit stop skills, cause you'll more than likely be swapping tires between each run to keep things as fair as possible.

Report back the results... in the mean time I'll be installing my stage 5 turbo to race Trevor :)

[FastCougar]

... in the mean time I'll be installing my stage 5 turbo to race Trevor :)Prepare to loose :tongue:

[StealthyWeasel]

nah as long as they are spraying VHT on the track your tires can get more worn out and they stick perfectly. I raced with tires that were nearly down to the metal cords and still had 2.0-2.1 60's.

[StealthyWeasel]

I was thinking the same thing, where'd the weight go?...lol. Ohh, we just threw it out the window going down the highway on the way to the track (like yesterdays stale McDonalds fries)...:rofl:

-Dom

I've always thought it common knowledge that SE's are lighter. What was the temperature that day? Elevation? And get on a dyno, that might help things a bit. I could never run a 14.0 with a 2.3 60' and I don't think you have much more power than me.


EDIT: Curb Weight 2769 lbs (taken from autotrader)
I assume you ran with your 18" centerlines, which reduced rotating mass. Fidanza flywheel.. even maybe an SVT flywheel? Maybe you took the spare out and all the hatch accessories- eventually just that could knock off 70 lbs and take you to the 26xx range. So im not really sure why it was a 'laughable' statement.

[FastCougar]

One thing that bothers me about Rickenbomb's dyno plot ... that IMRC induced dip in torque down low. He has a 3L engine ... ditch the IMRC and "tune" it out.

[buckeyesvt]

You can NOT compare dyno graphs by using the actual time data. That is just common sense. You have no starting reference point to correlate the power curves together.

A simple example.

Take the same engine.

One pull starts at 500rpm.
One pull starts at 2500rpm.

At 500rpm the engine will be making exponentially less HP and torque and thus will have a slower rpm increase plotted against time. Thus when using just time to compare these two graphs of the exact same engine it will look like then pull that started at 2500rpm accelerates significantly faster. Thus reaches power faster, thus "appears" to have a fatter power curve.

The simple answer again. You can NOT use time to correlate and compare graphs.

Tom did the best thing he could with the "only" graphs supplied and matched them up at the only "known" rpm point. That is 5252 and that is a mathematical given in the HP to TQ formula. Thus this photoshopped extrapolation is most likely very close to the actual graphs if there were compared using rpm. Obviously the further away from 5252 you get the more skewed they become because the rates of rpm change are different between the two engines.

Dom. Why don't you post unaltered graphs using rpm since you obviously have the raws and are using dynoviewer? This would have solved everything long ago. For that matter just post the raws so we can do an SAE graphing.

I already posted the separate graphs that showed both cars started at 2200RPM and spun till 6900RPM. I didn't supply that graph to Tom, he stole it from my site - He could've easily asked for the proper data and I would've gave it to him. Instead he chose "his way". :crazy: Perhaps you may want to clarify "how and where" Tom got the data first instead of pointing out I gave out the wrong graph. :rolleyes: There is no "bait and switch" here... Just remember that. Should I repost them again here for your sole benefit?

His photoshop extropolation was of a graph I was using to show "time difference" - Not a HP/TQ difference we were already aware of (ON FCO). He took the graph and started screaming bloody murder.. And then calling me a scam artist. The graphs are on NECO, look around. I re-posted them in SAE as well - As I already explained my position on that as well. Perhaps a re-read of a few threads here may give you more info before you post instead of making me re-explain myself over and over again?

-Dom

[PuckPuck]

so instead of clicking attachments and attaching a few files, you opted instead to use dog slaying tactics.... :rolleyes:

please re-post the damn graphs, so that we can be certain they are the right ones, it'll take less time than typing up another 500 words about where they "could" be found if one were to "search"...

[PuckPuck]

Prepare to loose :tongue:

**if** I lose, I'll change the jets, and win...

force induction is great...
forced induction + n2o is <mr-burns-voice>excellent</mr-burns-voice> :evil:

[CincyZetec]

i can solve this whole situation with one word...










ZETEC:thumbsup:

:cover:

[DemonSVT]

I already posted the separate graphs that showed both cars started at 2200RPM and spun till 6900RPM.
Sorry. I seem to have missed the graph of the straight oval port engine plotted against rpm??? Where is that one posted?

Better yet since you have both just put them together and post that graph plotted against rpm. Better yet just post the untouched raws for each respective car.

BTW excellent numbers on the hybrid! I bet that's fun. Well except the whole driving the wrong wheels part.

[SpookSVT]

You can NOT compare dyno graphs by using the actual time data. That is just common sense. You have no starting reference point to correlate the power curves together.

Both transversed the same RPM range.

When engines run steady state, HP and TQ figures alone will tell all. They do not however, since no engine stays at a constant RPM. Measuring acceleration means more than peak numbers. Formula 1 seems to think so!

[buckeyesvt]

so instead of clicking attachments and attaching a few files, you opted instead to use dog slaying tactics.... :rolleyes:

please re-post the damn graphs, so that we can be certain they are the right ones, it'll take less time than typing up another 500 words about where they "could" be found if one were to "search"...

Take a "pill" :rolleyes: I'm at work, I don't have the graphs here with me to repost. Anything else toughguy?

-Dom

[SpookSVT]

One thing that bothers me about Rickenbomb's dyno plot ... that IMRC induced dip in torque down low. He has a 3L engine ... ditch the IMRC and "tune" it out.

Why is that?

The velocity would drop and the car would accelerate even slower until piston speed 'catches up'. Consequently, the air wouldn't have significant inertia to fill the cylinder efficiently.

Stomp the thorttle at low RPM in high gear, what happens? Nothing. Low airflow velocity (due to oversized ports) does not allow the car to efficiently fill the cylinders. It is instead pushed back out into the intake port. Not much power being made then, is there?

That's why on the 'unaltered' time graph, the full setup is able to out accellerate the hybrid, regardless of a static power measurement.

Velocity is key, CFM means nothing without it!

[FastCougar]

Who said anything about CFM? How exactly is this ANY different than a straight 3L without the IMRC? It's not ... both are 3L engines. I don't see your point?

[SpookSVT]

The full 3L has smaller ports. Thus higher velocity...

[FastCougar]

The full 3L has smaller ports. Thus higher velocity...I see your point ...

[fordrule]

One thing that bothers me about Rickenbomb's dyno plot ... that IMRC induced dip in torque down low. He has a 3L engine ... ditch the IMRC and "tune" it out.

its not a split port hybrid its a 2.5/3L hybrid. henry correct me if i am wrong. we know that split port 3L like the imrc and secondaries removed when tuned correctly. i wonder if a hybrid would do the same?

[Rikenbomb]

Yes it's a 2.5L/3L Hybrid. That's why the IMRC is there.

It's not the oval-to-split-port 3L if that's what you are thinking. All my mods listed are in the 3L Dyno plots thread.

The 3L regristry needs to be updated though. :poke: ;)

[warmonger]

I already posted the separate graphs that showed both cars started at 2200RPM and spun till 6900RPM. I didn't supply that graph to Tom, he stole it from my site - He could've easily asked for the proper data and I would've gave it to him. Instead he chose "his way". :crazy: Perhaps you may want to clarify "how and where" Tom got the data first instead of pointing out I gave out the wrong graph. :rolleyes: There is no "bait and switch" here... Just remember that. Should I repost them again here for your sole benefit?

His photoshop extropolation was of a graph I was using to show "time difference" - Not a HP/TQ difference we were already aware of (ON FCO). He took the graph and started screaming bloody murder.. And then calling me a scam artist. The graphs are on NECO, look around. I re-posted them in SAE as well - As I already explained my position on that as well. Perhaps a re-read of a few threads here may give you more info before you post instead of making me re-explain myself over and over again?

-Dom


You posted it on public forums, even FCO is still public last I heard.
Oh, and you forget to tell him that my graph came out almost exactly like the real one. Why are you acting like it was Bad info I posted, it was YOUR information lined up. It came out really nice...... I also saved the real one when you finally posted it and compared. I should get a pat on the back from you for a Job Well done Interpolating the two graphs correctly. :confused:

Oh, and why do your rpm graphs show that the hybrid was started earlier in the rpm range, at least 100 rpm earlier therefore it would add time and with no tire diameters to compare how do we know what mph each car was accelerating to?

Rikenbomb, could you please post up your wheel diameter and tire size? better yet, can you just jack up the car and use a tape measure to measure the outside diameter?

Dom, would you please do the same so we can see if the calculated MPH is the same.
You could also post links to the raw dynojet files so we can just graph them as a function of MPH on WinPep right?

[Adam98SVT]

Rikenbomb, could you please post up your wheel diameter and tire size? better yet, can you just jack up the car and use a tape measure to measure the outside diameter?

Dom, would you please do the same so we can see if the calculated MPH is the same.

You could also post links to the raw dynojet files so we can just graph them as a function of MPH on WinPep right?

This last part aside, I downloaded the "time graph" picture maybe a week ago and posted it like this on FCO. I just used added the black lines and other data (its all accurate). Looks to me like a simulated race with both cars starting at a cruising speed of 2200 RPM and race to see who can reach redline first. Quite a useful plot I would think.

Adam

[SpookSVT]

It only looks like it started earlier because of the hacked graph. The full 3L took LESS time to complete the run while the hybrid took longer. Therefore the hybrid's graph was stretched out to match the x coordinate (time). The plot was selected to show time, that it did...

[warmonger]

It only looks like it started earlier because of the hacked graph. The full 3L took LESS time to complete the run while the hybrid took longer. Therefore the hybrid's graph was stretched out to match the x coordinate (time). The plot was selected to show time, that it did...

Uh, no. Look at the one Buckeye posted of RPM. It shows at least 100 rpm lower start point for the hybrid and that means the car would have more rpm to traverse in order to get to 6900rpm. It isn't a huge difference in rpm but it is more rpm than the 3L ran and therefore one would expect it to take longer if all else was equal. ~2050-6900 versus ~2150-6900 rpm for the ovalport. On the time only graph you see they both start at the same time...i.e. t=0s for the start point. The dyno starts recording about .5 seconds later so the two torque curves will automatically be lined up at the start points.
If you started the hybrid at 1000rpm then the graphs would still be lined up at the start point and then you would see the slower car's graph expanded and the faster cars graph contracted so that time was equal in both cases.
If the difference in time was significant then you would NOT have have had the graphs line up so well when I aligned them with rpm. The very fact that the two graphs look the same, i.e. the photo aligned graph and the real graph is because the time difference is very small.

[BurritaSVT]

like I said before if you don't verify the MPH is the same then the cars are going to accelerate diffently even in a perfect world. For example if you take one minute of your time I will shut up about the time graph but show me the two graphs like this first this graph shows two different cars in secs hmm obviousily the turbo car is faster but I want you to see why even thought you want to look at this graph hey the turbo car is 4 secs faster but that is not accurate why?
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/progressive/tomvssecburrita.jpg
now we look at the rpm cutoff you will notice that the Tom's NA car stopped at 6900 rpms where I carried mine too 7400rpms so what does this all mean well if the cars have same size tires they should be close to the mph of each other right at 5252 but they are off by 5mph and the faster the car accelrates the more the mph will be off. Therefore the turbo car will accelerate faster since the resistance of the rollers is less on the engine due to leverage and of course they had the same power too.
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/progressive/tomvsmphburrita.jpg
and here is the rpms chart
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/progressive/tomvsrpmburrita.jpg

so show me the mph because since the two dynos pulled to redline the mph will have to points to show the mph off if it is and if the mph is within mph from each other then you can compare time from a common rpm range.
Sorry I dont like variables when comparing a time run when one glitch throws off the point.

[DemonSVT]

It only looks like it started earlier because of the hacked graph. The full 3L took LESS time to complete the run while the hybrid took longer. Therefore the hybrid's graph was stretched out to match the x coordinate (time). The plot was selected to show time, that it did...
Without the same starting rpm point and the same tire diameter (and gearing if applicable) plotting verses time is irrelevant because of the exact reasoning I explained earlier. There is no "hacking" or "fudging" around this point for either side. period. This is just physics and mathematics. Two things at which I am quite experienced.

To compare the actual power curve you must plot it against rpm. There is no getting around this fact. Even then final drive gearing and tire weight play a factor in the curve. This is a major flaw of any type of dyno except the dynopack which connects to the hub. This elimates the tire diameter & weight element at least.
For that matter dyno's are used to tune cars and unless you are dynoing on the same dyno on the same day any results are going to have quite a large "fudge" factor. This is because dynos were built for tuning not bragging! If you look hard enough or know the owner you can fudge any dyno numbers you want. This is why bench racing dyno numbers is pointless in the grand scheme of things.

[BurritaSVT]

:rofl:Without the same starting rpm point and the same tire diameter (and gearing if applicable) plotting verses time is irrelevant because of the exact reasoning I explained earlier. There is no "hacking" or "fudging" around this point for either side. period. This is just physics and mathematics. Two things at which I am quite experienced.

To compare the actual power curve you must plot it against rpm. There is no getting around this fact. Even then final drive gearing and tire weight play a factor in the curve. This is a major flaw of any type of dyno except the dynopack which connects to the hub. This elimates the tire diameter & weight element at least.
For that matter dyno's are used to tune cars and unless you are dynoing on the same dyno on the same day any results are going to have quite a large "fudge" factor. This is because dynos were built for tuning not bragging! If you look hard enough or know the owner you can fudge any dyno numbers you want. This is why bench racing dyno numbers is pointless in the grand scheme of things.


heck all you have to do is put a light bulb next to the air temperature sensor or some will take a air nozzle and spray the air filter too.

The reason I want more top end torque which we can see is a landslide difference between the two cars is because in a straight out race. My engine will not see less then 4500rpms because of the gearing so I will always be in the powerband that the SVT's were designed for. If you are modding the car to be a fast sports car then build the engine to match your shifting points because the car will only see less then 4k one time in first. Plus I know that a heavy modified 3 liter will rip tire apart below if you are to crazy with the throttle so why add more power down low when you are in the upper rpm range 90% of the time. And I am wondering why we are not posting the mph graph yet ..............:bs: you called me out to make a better NA motor than you so I calling you out to show me the new graph...........:banghead:

Heck be a good sport I am just a stupid and wanna be engineer you claimed :crazy: many of times............:rofl:
but so far I have been dead on what I said so far I might be wrong about the intakes which we will see after I find some 2004 escape cams because I hate to leave some power on the table because of the lift when testing the oval port over the SVT UIM.

Oh I see if you read my other post we did meadure the 2004 taurus cams and I never said you were lying about those sicne we came out wth .185 too. Now the rocker arms I am going to question since the so -called reliable bible you lived by (ford service manual) was wrong on the cams outright. Let me know when you have the new results. Joey

[spridget]

For that matter dyno's are used to tune cars and unless you are dynoing on the same dyno on the same day any results are going to have quite a large "fudge" factor. This is because dynos were built for tuning not bragging! If you look hard enough or know the owner you can fudge any dyno numbers you want. This is why bench racing dyno numbers is pointless in the grand scheme of things.


So, if DemonSVT agrees that dyno numbers are a pointless comparison, can we all agree? I see some people basing their entire argument on old dyno numbers.... calling it "real world".

Anybody line up a track date yet?

[FastCougar]

The two different types of 3L configurations need to be run mulitple times and then averaged ... by the same driver. I think PuckPuck already pointed this out.

[Adam98SVT]

It only looks like it started earlier because of the hacked graph. The full 3L took LESS time to complete the run while the hybrid took longer. Therefore the hybrid's graph was stretched out to match the x coordinate (time). The plot was selected to show time, that it did...

Spook you seem to be in agreement with me on the utility of the time graph. Care to elaborate on how it might be used to properly tune the engine (no idea here). I cant believe tuners would ignore this information or that it is irrelevant.

Warmonger and DemonSVT can you properly tune a Duratec 3L (any kind) without the use of the time graph?

Would your car be as fast on the track as one (all else equal) tuned with the time graph data taken into consideration?

This could be tested easily enough just by using the same car with 2 different tunes...if you had enough access to a dyno and an impartial tuner.

Otherwise yeh Im with Spridget the track == the winner.

Adam

[warmonger]

Spook you seem to be in agreement with me on the utility of the time graph. Care to elaborate on how it might be used to properly tune the engine (no idea here). I cant believe tuners would ignore this information or that it is irrelevant.
It can't. Maybe you didn't read that time is a second order variable in this case. To change the time you have to change a primary variable like air fuel, timing, etc in order to make the car slower or faster and affect the time.
Warmonger and DemonSVT can you properly tune a Duratec 3L (any kind) without the use of the time graph?
EASILY

Would your car be as fast on the track as one (all else equal) tuned with the time graph data taken into consideration?
No point in answering this again as the first answer should ring clear like a bell that it isn't a primary variable
This could be tested easily enough just by using the same car with 2 different tunes...if you had enough access to a dyno and an impartial tuner.
Where does partiality come in? I would hope ANY tuner would tune for max power and not tune for failure....

Otherwise yeh Im with Spridget the track == the winner.
Cool. Three cars that I know of into the 13s show the potential of a well tuned NA 3L. I can't help it that they are all hybrids.

I don't mean anything bad by answering in bold throughout your post Adam, it just makes it easier to respond, saves text and time.
Thanks for your questions though.

[Adam98SVT]

If I buy an Xcal can I access/manipulate the same data as a dyno tuner/operator?

I think you can do some dataloging with Xcal. If this is all correct I can tune the car with my tablet pc at a track right?

Adam

PS - Im only about 2 hours from the track that Top Gear tested there cars in episode 3 this season! Holy crap that episode was funny.

[warmonger]

If I buy an Xcal can I access/manipulate the same data as a dyno tuner/operator?

I think you can do some dataloging with Xcal. If this is all correct I can tune the car with my tablet pc at a track right?

Adam

PS - Im only about 2 hours from the track that Top Gear tested there cars in episode 3 this season! Holy crap that episode was funny.

You would have to buy the ProRacer Pack along with either the xcal2 or the chip and chip burner in order to access the same data as the tuner. You can do an extreme amount of datalogging with the xcal2 and a laptop, it's almost better than many diagnostic tools sold in stores and you can also store tunes with it and reflash your computer. It has been the tuning and datalogging tool of choice since it came out for our platform because it works so well.

[Adam98SVT]

Thanks I wish money grew on trees lol

Adam

[DemonSVT]

Sure I could tune by just a time graph. However it would not be nearly as accurate of a tune as if it were, oh I don't know, tuned by engine rpm. The time graphs means absolutely NOTHING to the PCM. So if you are tuning by a time graph you are basically guessing where the changes need to be made on the spark and fuel curves since the PCM uses, yep you guessed it, rpm based linear plotting. So using that simple logic then in order to make a better, more accurate, and thusly a stronger tune you would want to be tuning with data plotted against rpm.

The simple answer. If you make the strongest power curve based on rpm the engine will accelerate the quickest. Therefore the power curve plotted against time will rise the quickest it can. This is simple mathematics. More power equals the same work over less time.

Now you can still get increases by tuning by plotting against time but you are not going to have a tune nearly as efficient as one done properly. It's easy to make some gains. Matter of fact most tuners can do this no matter what method they use to tune and say "hey look I made you more power." However very few can give you the most efficient setup possible. Very few at all! The simple reason is the either don't want to take the time to perfect their skill, don't have the knowledge (which surprisingly is the most common), or just don't care. Having a shop and owning a dyno does not make one a good tuner. It just means they floated the loan for the dyno.

[DemonSVT]

Cool. Three cars that I know of into the 13s show the potential of a well tuned NA 3L. I can't help it that they are all hybrids.
...and one custom oval port. You know I hate the non-draining 2.5L heads. :tongue:

[StealthyWeasel]

I ain't no hybrid :biggrin:

[FastCougar]

Until you find that timeslip, I call BS :tongue:

[StealthyWeasel]

dude, I took nearly 200 lb+ off my car.

[96blackse]

I've always thought it common knowledge that SE's are lighter. What was the temperature that day? Elevation? And get on a dyno, that might help things a bit. I could never run a 14.0 with a 2.3 60' and I don't think you have much more power than me.


EDIT: Curb Weight 2769 lbs (taken from autotrader)
I assume you ran with your 18" centerlines, which reduced rotating mass. Fidanza flywheel.. even maybe an SVT flywheel? Maybe you took the spare out and all the hatch accessories- eventually just that could knock off 70 lbs and take you to the 26xx range. So im not really sure why it was a 'laughable' statement.


How do you think a dyno would help anything its just some numbers... Just because you weren't able to run the same times doesn't mean its not possible does it?
The same way you think by hogging out and destroying a perfectly fine port and thinking that changing the port shape completely just to be able to use an intake manifold that has an SVT badge on it is the same way you think that I wouldn't be able to have more power than you...
It is quite a laughable statement since you are saying the reason why the times are like that is due to the weight... I don't know whose common knowledge or why those weights are posted like that but rest assured they are not no where near those numbers...

Just to let you know all that was removed from the car was the spare tire and the jack I didn't take a note of the temp but it was a mild day... The car has the same 17 centerlines that you have and fidanza flywheel also the baer brake kit, the full leather interior and all the its and bits that were decontended over the years for the SVT's...And let me think I still had the stock exhaust piping which is 2 1/4 inch, and my cat piping is 2 inch and my car was running super rich...

And as a note a friend of mine with a 98 SVT with a full 3L, fidanza, and headers/exhaust with stock taurus cams is running 99 mile traps with the spare and the jack missing, his car is no where near fine tuned either and he doesn't have light wheels either... And the best of all he has to granny shift to 2nd and 3rd since the syncros are shot and of course his ET's are high because of this...

Either way to HOG out the oval port to accept the SVT UIM is just plain RETARDED... There is no data that proves anything... Engineers spent hunderds of hours to design a port using simulations on a computer, making molds for ports testing them etc etc and you think just by port matching to accept the split port manifold to the oval port is going to be acceptable? The end product is not even the same as the original split port design its just some ridicoulusly HOGGED out port just to accept the SVT UIM...
And what is sooo special about the SVT UIM? How in the world do you think an intake manifold designed for a displacement of 20% smaller engine is going to perform on the larger engine... Its just retarded the comments I read and the amount of backing up of PURE CRAP... You could put the SVT UIM on the oval port but its plain retarded, besides the damn port size check the volume of the manifold the volume of a manifold is directly correlated with the engine displacement... And if you really want go ask any reputable engine builder, take pictures of the oval and split port and show them the hogged out oval port to accpet the SVT UIM, I am sure they'll have a good laugh as many of the ones I have spoken to have...

I am sick of reading all this crap which some are arguing this magical hogged out oval port defying all the basic engine building formulas... Sounds quite similar to the late night informercials to me :rofl:

BTW here is a really good read which explains a lot,
Competition Plus.com - Drag Racing's Internet Magazine (http://www.competitionplus.com/2006_04/cylinder_heads.html)

[StealthyWeasel]

Hey now, my SVT UIM has no SVT badge on it :)

I'm not sure I care for the whole science of everything, since this debate is a huge ****ing mess. I did the split port for ease of installation, when it comes down to it I am no scientist. I study politics in college, so I wouldn't say I'll have much college training in the matter, either.

And okay, so in full street trim my car was not as fast as yours at the track. SO, I am curious as to what power your car puts down. That's simple enough.

[SpookSVT]

Now hold on now Mr. Politician, you were quite 'proud' of your split port conversion. It was far 'superior' as well. No back peddling now.

http://www.newcougar.org/forums/3-0l-duratec-performance/116674-direct-tq-hp-comparison-3l-straight-oval-hybrid-4.html#post1349897 Post #37

It's damn physics, and you can't argue it.

Lets take some excerts from Mr. Darin Morgan of Reher Morrison Racing engines from Nima's link (which ALL should read);

Velocity is the life of power! Without the correct air velocity, you can have all the flow in the world and the engine won’t make a lick of power. Air speed within the induction system is the most powerful tuning instrument in the head porter’s arsenal.

Hmmm, we've said that numerous times.

If the flow is high and the air speed is too low, what are you missing?

Well, acceleration, lower E.T.s and a boat load of mile-per-hour for starters. When the velocity profile of the induction system is tuned properly to the engine combination and the RPM range in which it works, it will accelerate faster off the throttle stop, have faster and more consistent reaction times and just plain go faster from point A to point B. Many of my professional counterparts and I often discuss the fact that flow numbers have blinded the general public. Actually, The four words my professional counterparts and I hate to hear are: ” What do they flow”. When an individual calls me seeking my advice about his future cylinder head purchase, the words, “what do they flow” usually come up within the first minute or so of the conversation and tend to dominate that conversation for its entirety

Must of said that numerous times as well...

Static power figures mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Why do you think I've been bringing up accelleration time, getting from point A to point B the fastest. That is what MATTERS!

[spridget]

When did BuckeyeSVT move to Ontario?

j/k Nima - very good link BTW

[StealthyWeasel]

Nah, no back peddling. I just said I can't put SCIENCE behind what I do, I can only base things on my experience.

BTW: Real world experience > Scientific theory

[SpookSVT]

Nah, no back peddling. I just said I can't put SCIENCE behind what I do, I can only base things on my experience.

BTW: Real world experience > Scientific theory

You said you don't care about the subject, yet argue anyway. Your blind to the physics because you havn't taken the time to actually understand how it works. It doesn't matter that one doesn't care, the physical nature does not change.

Something has to be theorized before it is ever put into use. The 'theory' I speak is based on actual physical law that has been implemented since the existance of ICE, theory is how it was realized.

You can't just change something without knowing how it's going to react, it's shooting in the dark. Knowing how it works or is made is the first step to modification. You can't fix it if you don't know what is wrong in the first place. That's not to say trying things never got anywhere, but it is on a level where there is an understanding of the matter.

[StealthyWeasel]

Well this thread contains science and experience. While I might not have science, I have experience. I don't care to discuss science just because I can't. Sound simple enough?

BTW Spook, how old are you? (Just wondering, IIRC you're my age maybe younger)

[SpookSVT]

Certainly don't be afraid of being wrong if that is the case. I was foolish enough to hog out the heads, I'll admit I was wrong. Now I'm pulling out the motor to replace them and have only myself to blame for that. Pays to know.

That's life for ya'...

Well this thread contains science and experience. While I might not have science, I have experience. I don't care to discuss science just because I can't. Sound simple enough?

Fair enough, but lets use both expierience and science together. A lot more will come from both than either one alone.

[StealthyWeasel]

Cool, sounds good. You're still working on your tour? I thought you were done with it?

[SpookSVT]

Cool, sounds good. You're still working on your tour? I thought you were done with it?

I'm holding on to it as a beater and trying some new stuff out. The Focus is a long term project...

[buckeyesvt]

When did BuckeyeSVT move to Ontario?

j/k Nima - very good link BTW

I have a twin in Ontario?...lol

Nice points, agree with most of them.

-Dom

[buckeyesvt]

I guess in hindsight, all of this is silly. First off, proving the SVT intakes are better on a 3L.... I don't see it. Tom's "one size fits all" arguement lacks any merit based on the engine it was designed for. Let's step back to when Ford received the prototype engines from Porsche. The actual intake designed for that engine was almost twice the plenum size. Don't believe me? Look below.

http://www.fordcontour.org/albums/album01/UIM_PROTO.sized.jpg

Now compare that to your SVT manifold. Not considering the SVT UIM as constricted and "compacted" is funny when you have the original design sitting next to it to compare. Then there's the whole other issue - calibration. Why is it when we take a normal stock SE with 135,000 miles on it and remove the PCM and injectors and replace them with SVT PCM and 19lb injectors we get power that matches the SVT? Ok, here's the dyno graph of the comparison of a 1998 Contour SE 2.5L 5spd with all stock parts, and one with just the SVT PCM and injectors added. That's it, no exhaust, no intake - nothing. So the SVT camshafts and UIM are really quite worthless as modding this car with full exhaust and intake setups would've netted higher numbers in the 165-170 range which is what most modded SVT's do. That's with the stock single exhaust as well! So all your SVT "stuff" is no more better than anything else. Why is that? Hmm....

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/blog/blog-1032-1137636449.jpg

Food for thought...

-Dom