Manifold 'Debate'

[Bergie_dark by design]

yeah !, atlast this topic is pretty much done ! :-)

[SpookSVT]

Stop the word twisting, NOW!

No one said the hybrid was slower. Where are you getting that idea?

3L vs. SVT cams - FordContour.Org (http://www.fordcontour.org/3L-vs-SVT-cams-t9873.html)

How about actually reading it. It was stated initially that the hybrid would take the full 3L. No one disagreed.

Both port CSA's are too big. We need a TRUE high performance oval cam for the oval port 3L. You've shown yourself that the oval cams are the limiting factor. NO ONE here has the equipment to determine the actual downfall of the 3L cams. The argument about lift is mute, especially when there is too much lift to begin with (calculated).

The idea of split port manifolds was to obtain the highest ratio of port area based on the valve area. That was based on valves that are too big (calculated).

Instead of looking at STATIC power figures, look at transient response, acceleration, getting from point A to point B the quickest, what really matters, etc... STATIC power figures are for STEADY STATE engines, no one hear can say they stay at a constant RPM except cruising.

You can't seem to agree with me even with formula and your own dyno that shows what affects power the greatest. I won't agree with you because what you're pushing goes against the very physics that govern the internal combustion engine.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

A moderator might deem fit that no more good will come from this thread and lock it.

[buckeyesvt]

This is typical, first you are fighting that it's NOT true information, swearing up and down about the superiority of your straight 3Ls and now when 5 separate people have measured their cams you ridicule the idea of the very test that brought this information to light. Then notice you keep qualifying "'04 cams" but before this it's been earlier ovalport engines you've been raving about. Please don't use smoke and mirrors on this one too.

The Idea of using the ovalport cams in an SVT was to measure whether cams or the manifolds on the ovalport suck. Well it seems that both do now.
The cam profile on the escape/taurus cams is the same, all through the years to the present day last I read and it is not a bad profile but the lift on the earlier ones makes them out of the question. Probably the reason all the dynos of those straight 3L's you sold before you got hold of 2004 motors never materialized......:rolleyes:
Just remember, if this idea to use the escape cams in an SVT was bad, to test this information, then it's my responsibility. I did the labor all for free just to test this out and see what would happen.
Obviously it was a GOOD idea to test it because we've found out some very good information between the three of us: 2004 cams measure the same lift as SE/SVT and the rest of the earlier 3L cams obviously suck.
And while you are at it, you can keep your plastic ovalport manifold.
Why? Because if I was proved right yet again about the lift being lower on the cams, then there is a good chance I'm right about the analysis between the manifolds.
1: The split port intakes may have a small plenum but the tuning length and resonance effect of the runners more than makes up for it in the appropriate rpm ranges...both LOW and HIGH rpm.
2: The Ovalport intake chokes off airflow above 5200rpm. How do we know? Because with taurus/escape ovalport cam dyno's the power always falls of. With an ovalport 3L with SVT cams in it, guess what? THE POWER FALLS OFF TOO!

That is the reason for the "stupid" test. Instead of making this about your genius choice to use a 04 ovalport to get closer to equaling the performance of the old hybrids, how about giving credit where credit is due. Is this the first non-hybrid you've built that even is in the ballpark with the "hated hybrid"?
I will say good job to you for finding an engine that competes without a lot of work, but I'm betting it was an accident. You see what deliberate testing of theories can produce in terms of information right?
You remember who it was that kept swearing that 3L valves wouldn't fit in the 2.5L heads back in 2000? Do you remember who the only person to do systematic testing, mount the valves in the 2.5L heads and post the information to dispel the myths and show the truth? Yeah that's right you're reading my work again.

Dude, unfortunately you putting words in my mouth isn't something I'm prepared to answer. Perhaps if you knew me, my shop- My work... You would realize I NEVER DID ANY STRAIGHT 3L ENGINES BEFORE THIS 05 SABLE MOTOR. Get your facts straight captain! I did hybrids for people on request... Don't twist my words and tell people things that I have never done. I don't pretend to know anything but what you say. Did I say I did earlier straight 3L engines? I don't have dyno graphs because I NEVER DID ANY. You are a fool for saying any of this, and a tool in my book. Hope that makes your Army values minded customers happy.

Why argue with your points? You have a product that you are producing that depends on the SVT materials being the "best" choice. How could I expect to have an impartial discussion in this thread? I don't have anything to sell in this thread do I? Nothing... You and Joey do. I've bit my tongue this whole time not to say it but when you discard reason and actual proof over your "theories and extropolations" I have to point that out.

If everyone chooses to blindly follow you, have at it. I can't make any point without you attacking it. My whole point was dropping a straight 04+ engine in vs. stock hybrid engine. You and Joey have turned it into something completely different. Once one point is made, you switch to something else. Then when that point is made, you switch again. Your arguements are so all over the map that making "one" point is moot.

I'm tired of all this, you tell everyone without proof that SVT stuff is the best. Of course it is, you profit from it. Perhaps other "individuals" will continue this debate and study elsewhere and away from your "biased" opinions. What's best in reality and best for your "business" are clearly two different things.

And one more thing, If I had never installed an '05 motor you guys would've never known about the newer cams and potential. That was your CEG values telling you not to use anything newer than a 2001 block. Sorry, I did more in this thread than you did. Don't take credit for old stuff, I did the new stuff. I did, get it right. I'm sure Captain Crunch has more values than you do... :rofl:

-Dom

[spridget]

There is a difference between Escape and Taurus cams from '01-03.

I went outside and tested my own stock of cams. Escape (not sure of year) cams measured 4.2mm while '01 and '03 Taurus measured 4.8mm. I made these measurements with the same Harbor Freight digital calipers Dom and Joey used.

So lets end the confusion and refer to them as Escape cams for low lift, and Taurus cams. Do not refer to them as "3L cams".... this is where all the confusion is.

[morbid]

Stop the word twisting, NOW!

No one said the hybrid was slower. Where are you getting that idea?

How about actually reading it. It was stated initially that the hybrid would take the full 3L. No one disagreed.

Initially... but then the purpose of the timed dyno graph was "proof" that the 3.0L was quicker. You know my stance on the credibility of WinPEP timed displays though.

I believe what you are talking about was the speculation that the hybrid would only take the 3.0L in the 1/4 mile. There was alot more gruff about the timed display than the 1/4 mile comment... so I would assume Tom is referring to the dyno graph.

[SpookSVT]

I was hoping chassis dynos could get one thing right, obviously they do not by what you showed. Need an engine dyno set up for this purpose. Either way I'm done...

[BurritaSVT]

There is a difference between Escape and Taurus cams from '01-03.

I went outside and tested my own stock of cams. Escape (not sure of year) cams measured 4.2mm while '01 and '03 Taurus measured 4.8mm. I made these measurements with the same Harbor Freight digital calipers Dom and Joey used.

So lets end the confusion and refer to them as Escape cams for low lift, and Taurus cams. Do not refer to them as "3L cams".... this is where all the confusion is.

The change was made in late 2003 the 2000-2003 taurus are .168 and the late 2003 -2005. Prcoyon from CEG has all the info since he works for Ford here is the link to see all measuements unaltered by ford revision bulletin
3L ovalport cams having less lift.. - CEG Forums (http://www.contour.org/ceg-vb/showthread.php?p=269276#post269276)

He is a very reliable source of info so the rocker ratio I am not going to say yet it is right or wrong. Once again my products has nothing to do with the test we have performed in the past and now. If you think my business relies on $325 product where you can do the math about cost on material and machining it is just a option I am giving people to do it themselves in a weekend and still not sacrifice any power but may even add some up top. Like I said before we are not going to be affected one way or the other by the results of all this. We already have dyno numbers using SVT UIM with the secondairies pinned open the power loss down low was nothing less then a fulll swap and even gained mor power up top too.

I am buying some cams right now so I can place them in the motor so after my vacation trip I will have a dyno sheet for all to see. I don't hide info from my customers for them to find out later it is all crap. So let bring it back down a notch please no need to get this into a pissing match but I am not bias to either swap. Joey

[buckeyesvt]

The change was made in late 2003 the 2000-2003 taurus are .168 and the late 2003 -2005. Prcoyon from CEG has all the info since he works for Ford here is the link to see all measuements unaltered by ford revision bulletin
3L ovalport cams having less lift.. - CEG Forums (http://www.contour.org/ceg-vb/showthread.php?p=269276#post269276)

He is a very reliable source of info so the rocker ratio I am not going to say yet it is right or wrong. Once again my products has nothing to do with the test we have performed in the past and now. If you think my business relies on $325 product where you can do the math about cost on material and machining it is just a option I am giving people to do it themselves in a weekend and still not sacrifice any power but may even add some up top. Like I said before we are not going to be affected one way or the other by the results of all this. We already have dyno numbers using SVT UIM with the secondairies pinned open the power loss down low was nothing less then a fulll swap and even gained mor power up top too.

I am buying some cams right now so I can place them in the motor so after my vacation trip I will have a dyno sheet for all to see. I don't hide info from my customers for them to find out later it is all crap. So let bring it back down a notch please no need to get this into a pissing match but I am not bias to either swap. Joey

I'm done. Not hiding info is the "right" thing to do.:disgust: And all this stuff "has given me other ideas". It's time to hit the books again and I've already ordered some parts to play with. Let's just say you guys really don't know how to think outside the box. Boggle on till I get my ducks in a row. :biggrin:

-Dom

P.S. Besides the SVT blah-best-blah you are talking about... what else is there? I see Tom :cry: about no love and everyone confused about damn Escape cams. That was your own fault for picking those.. lol. Don't cry over sour grapes now, what's done is done. Learn from this and move on. I have, and will.

[warmonger]

Stop the word twisting, NOW!

No one said the hybrid was slower. Where are you getting that idea?

3L vs. SVT cams - FordContour.Org (http://www.fordcontour.org/3L-vs-SVT-cams-t9873.html)

How about actually reading it. It was stated initially that the hybrid would take the full 3L. No one disagreed.

Both port CSA's are too big. We need a TRUE high performance oval cam for the oval port 3L. You've shown yourself that the oval cams are the limiting factor. NO ONE here has the equipment to determine the actual downfall of the 3L cams. The argument about lift is mute, especially when there is too much lift to begin with (calculated).

The idea of split port manifolds was to obtain the highest ratio of port area based on the valve area. That was based on valves that are too big (calculated).

Instead of looking at STATIC power figures, look at transient response, acceleration, getting from point A to point B the quickest, what really matters, etc... STATIC power figures are for STEADY STATE engines, no one hear can say they stay at a constant RPM except cruising.

You can't seem to agree with me even with formula and your own dyno that shows what affects power the greatest. I won't agree with you because what you're pushing goes against the very physics that govern the internal combustion engine.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

A moderator might deem fit that no more good will come from this thread and lock it.


Spook, not to be disrespectful, but you are the only one saying the cams have too much lift, that the plenums are not big enough on the split ports, and that the ovalport can flow more air than all of them....by calculation.

I'm saying that the calculation must leave something to be desired if the real world analysis is proving it wrong. SOMETHING must be causing the split ports to hold on to the torque longer with the ovalport cams, it's probably increased velocity from not being too big. The TOO MUCH LIFT issue is actually the moot point when the factory found it was good enough for a production car that it has been standard on 2.5L the whole time and finally apparently applied to 3L engines in 2004.
Why would it be too much when it has improved the engines in all cases where it was used.
What calculations are you using that keep showing these parts don't work even though they keep showing better results than expected? I would think those calcs are not given to Moses by God at this point.
You know we don't understand Jack about electrical forces and haven't for the 200+ years we've been using them...but real world results show that they work....not my words but paraphrasing from my physics instructor. Bottom line is that Ford was probably using some "Not so Public Knowledge" when they were building these parts.

[warmonger]

blah blah blah.....
And one more thing, If I had never installed an '05 motor you guys would've never known about the newer cams and potential. That was your CEG values telling you not to use anything newer than a 2001 block. Sorry, I did more in this thread than you did. Don't take credit for old stuff, I did the new stuff. I did, get it right. I'm sure Captain Crunch has more values than you do... :rofl:

-Dom

Lookit Memememeeee! Okay Dom We're all looking at you now.
Show us please.........:bowdown:
And you aren't even man enough to post the data we asked for.:rolleyes:
You can't come and admit that you were wrong about all cams measuring 0.188 and that Joey was right when he did the measurements. :flushed:

You are still dipping to personal insults instead of just stating I'm inaccurate....if it's even true. :banghead:
Do your followers respect the kind of flip-flopping you are doing when you insult people on a personal level, then try to accuse them of the same things?
I was very pointed in my comments but not disrespectful. Feel free to correct my mistakes but stooping to the snake-like levels you employ is not welcome. I'm surprised you keep getting away with derogatory statements like that.

You also forget that I've already conducted this test in the past, six months past and it had nothing to do with you using ANY year of engine. :rolleyes:
In fact, until you bashed our company and our turbo products on your forum, I didn't think on you AT ALL. Congrats on being mosquito bite that gets noticed.

It seems that you are proving to be pretty much worthless as a person...you can't respect anyone and can't control your mouth.

You're also proving to be worthless as an unbiased reporter of the facts, I'll let your previous posts speak for themselves on that one.

I, like other people on here tried to defend YOUR bad manners and bad attitude in the past as just in your nature. But now you do it to me too, biting the hand that feeds you. I hope you have someone in your life that doesn't see this side of you....living a lie is better than a completely hollow life I guess.

[warmonger]

There is a difference between Escape and Taurus cams from '01-03.

I went outside and tested my own stock of cams. Escape (not sure of year) cams measured 4.2mm while '01 and '03 Taurus measured 4.8mm. I made these measurements with the same Harbor Freight digital calipers Dom and Joey used.

So lets end the confusion and refer to them as Escape cams for low lift, and Taurus cams. Do not refer to them as "3L cams".... this is where all the confusion is.
What confusion? Depending on year the Taurus/Escape OVALPORT cams suck too.....

[spridget]

What confusion? Depending on year the Taurus/Escape OVALPORT cams suck too.....

Well if you had something productive to say in this post it might have been better. Sound familiar?




Thanks to Procyon for this data.

Lift data below are in mm are are the actual lobe lift (not valve lift).

2.5L 1997-2000 Contour SVT/Mondeo ST200
All are F73E part number. Water Pump drive on LH Intake.
Nominal lift: 4.79 Intake, 4.82 Exhaust

3.0L 2001-2003 Taurus, 2001-2004 Escape, 2002-2003 MPV, 2001-2005 Tribute
All are 1F1E part number. Water Pump drive on LH Intake.
Nominal lift: 4.29 Intake, 4.68 Exhaust

3.0L 2002 Mondeo ST220
All are 2S7E part number. Water Pump drive on LH Intake.
Nominal lift: 4.74 Intake, 4.81 Exhaust

3.0L 2004-2006 Taurus, 2005 Escape, 2004-2007 MPV
All are 3F1E part number. Water Pump drive on LH Intake.
Nominal lift: 4.73 Intake, 4.81 Exhaust

3.0L 2006-2008 Tribute
RH are 1F1E part number. LH are 6L8E-BA. Water Pump drive on LH Exhaust.
Nominal lift: 4.29 Intake, 4.68 Exhaust

3.0L 2006-2008 Escape
RH are 3F1E part number. LH are 6L8E-A*. Water Pump drive on LH Exhaust.
Nominal lift: 4.73 Intake, 4.81 Exhaust

I went back and checked the part numbers on the cams I have. I made a mistake in the cams I measured. I buy alot of shiz off eBay... stuff is not always what it's supposed to be. When I matched my cams by part number, they matched the measurements above.


If Procyon can provide it, I would like to know the part number and specs for 95-00 SE cams and 96-99 3L cams. I realize the 96-99 3L cams are useless for Contour/Cougars, but I work on alot of Taurus's. Also, I wonder if the 500's cams are different as well. Thanks.

[spridget]

He is a very reliable source of info so the rocker ratio I am not going to say yet it is right or wrong. Joey

Measurements between the SVT rocker and '05 rocker showed the '05 to be .93mm longer from HLA center to rocker tip.

[FastCougar]

Well, this thread is turning into a pissing match, so it's locked.