Manifold 'Debate'

[SpookSVT]

I'm getting a bit fed up with some of the stuff going around. This thread is for technical talk only. Petty BS aside. The mass confusion and word twisting that resulted from a concept that was trying to be explained that no one has a damn clue about now because of personal issues that got involved in an argument. Enough of it, forget it was mentioned unless you'd like it explained in another thread.

I'll ask to all those that actually HAVE taken measurements of the port CSA at the head inlet of both split port and oval port heads to post them up. I want measurements in in2. No other BS until we have measurements from everyone that has taken them. MEASUREMENTS ONLY until I say we move on.

[morbid]

In regards to my post in the other thread here:

"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."

and with the latest thread on CEG getting locked :(, I would really like all the (as SpookSVT stated) technical discussions to be here about the UIM. Not on CEG, and not on FCO, let's keep it centralized.

If someone states something that pisses you off.. get over/ignore it! No need to add to it until the thread gets locked. The forum and your doctor (stress) will thank you.

[SpookSVT]

Will a moderator that has no interest or knowledge of the topic in this debate watch over it and remove any garbage that may pile up.

This is for people with data that can be shared of any type. However, it must be relevant. Dyno's can only be used if all runs in comparison are on the same dyno under similar conditions. If not, I ask they be deleted. This will weed out the countless variance in the dynos. Datalogs, calculations, etc.. will be considered. Relevence will be determined however.

Again, I want port areas from those who have measured them before we go on.

[BurritaSVT]

Ok I had it written down for my manifold research I will break down the lower intake at the bottom where the head matches the LIM base.

Ok the cougar SE early SVT has a smaller port LIM The primary is 32mm and the secondary is 34mm

A=Pi*r*r
A=1710mm =67.32"

The second the SVT LIM primary is 33mm and the secondary is 35mm

A=1816mm=71.49"

The oval port opening you have to figure out with one square and circle

the height of the oval is 27mm and the length is 60mm

the circle is 27mm diameter so the radius is 13.5 now the circle is cut in half but we will end up adding the two cut halfs to one is A = 572mm=22.51"

now the square is 60-27=33 length and the height is still 27 A=891mm=35.07"

now add the two figures to a total of 1463mm =57.59"

results

nonSVT = 67.32"
SVT = 71.49"
Oval =57.59"

now you can see why the engine intake is tuned for low range its runner is smaller and now we are trying to drain a swimming pool with a garden hose.

Plus the SVT cams have .20 more lift at the cam lobe and 15 % more airflow due to more valve opening too and don't forget the 20 % more airflow in the runners. This explains the dyno we tested both cams in the SVT stock motor where the escape torque curve was identical to the svt just 10whp less acorss the whole band but the escape cams still were able to breathe up top due to the well designed UIM. So the oval ports fall between the primary and secondary size ports which explains why the SVT UIM makes a dip in the torque curve due to airflow only (resonance tuning)

[warmonger]

additionally:

The SVT cams have more lift than the escape cams. 1.680" base-lobe peak for the SVT and 1.660" base-lobe peak for the escape.

I personally tested escape cams into Kremit's stock SVT contour engine in order to see if the cams were the cause of the torque falling off in the ovalports or the intakes. If it was the cams then when I put the cams into the 2.5L svt it should have the torque fall off pretty fast. If not then the torque would not fall off.
Well:

A: the torque curve was still pretty wide and characteristic with the two humps associated with the split port manifolds. Power did not fall off dramatically like it does in the ovalport engines using ovalport cams. Interesting.
HOWEVER:
B: despite the fairly wide and flat torque curve, the car produced abouts 10 ft-lbs less torque across the whole rpm range and ended up about 21 less HP.
Kremit's car dyno'd abouts 180 wHP and 165ish torque with stock precats.
Then with the escape cams and headers he could only make about 155ish torque with abosuts 158wHP.
What was different? The rpm range about the same, the torque curve was wide and had a small midrange hump from the escape cams, but if the torque didn't drop off like the ovalports then it should have made more power.
Well Joey and I were talking and we speculated it was different lift, and sure enough when he measured it the SVT cams produced 0.020" more lift.

That translates to 0.5mm more height on the rocker and depending upon the rocker arm ration that is froms 0.5-1.0mm lift on the valves.
That provides at a minimum 13.3% increase in flow capability.

So the results from all this experimentations show that it is actually the ovalport manifold that causes the torque to fall off due to reduced airflow.
The other thing that came out of this is that the SVT cams suddenly got a LOT MORE valuable when they have 20thousandths more lift that can open the valves more and let in more air. :eek:
Now you know why the SVT cam equiped vehicles are dynoing 20 HP more than their competitors, 13% increase in airflow is nettings about a comparable increase in HP.

[SpookSVT]

Alright, hold on a second. I want port area ONLY as measured at the inlet. We're going to discuss area first, all other things aside. Fix your measurements, you converted for distance. I need area.

[SicSE]

What about the taper of the LIM runners.. or do the SVT LIM runners not have a taper? The secondaries in the LIM on my SE tapered down about 4mm, iirc. The runners also taper down in the heads.

[BurritaSVT]

Alright, hold on a second. I want port area ONLY as measured at the inlet. We're going to discuss area first, all other things aside. Fix your measurements, you converted for distance. I need area.

Ok here are the raw dat you want

SE early SVT ports are Pri. 32mm & 34mm
SVT 2000 and 3 liter LIM are Pri. 33mm & 35mm
Oval port LIM 60mm long and 27mm tall

I have all LIM here I have calipers and I will show pics if you want to verfiy the measurements. joey

[BurritaSVT]

What about the taper of the LIM runners.. or do the SVT LIM runners not have a taper? The secondaries in the LIM on my SE tapered down about 4mm, iirc. The runners also taper down in the heads.

Yes they do taper in the LIM and the measurements I gave you are at the base.

[SpookSVT]

Ok here are the raw dat you want

SE early SVT ports are Pri. 32mm & 34mm
SVT 2000 and 3 liter LIM are Pri. 33mm & 35mm
Oval port LIM 60mm long and 27mm tall

I have all LIM here I have calipers and I will show pics if you want to verfiy the measurements. joey

I have them myself, I'd like you and anyone else that has them to post them. I need you to find the area of the port please. I want to make sure mine and everyone elses math coincide so there is no discrepency.

[fordrule]

i think pics will help

[SpookSVT]

I'll convert your measurements then,

Oval: ~2.26in2
2000 SVT Split Port: ~2.815in2

So we obviously have more flow area with the split ports which means there is more potential.

First off, let’s talk about volume vs. velocity. The engine has a FIXED max displacement. The displacement changes with the pistons movement (engine kinematics). This consequently changes the pressure differential between port and runner, and the demand placed upon the head to flow air. Without increasing displacement, the only way to increase demand is higher piston speeds (RPM). Higher piston speed creates stronger inertia in the air column (more momentum, velocity, etc…)

There is a given amount of air that is necessary for corresponding amount of fuel to obtain a given RPM or power level. One must calculate the demand first. I don’t have the actual formula, but for say a 8000RPM HP peak, 205cfm is required. I use a program for this, you can find online calculators and formulas.

Using basic formula for runner CSA. This formula is actually used when developing a port on a flow bench to get a precise dimension to work with (an oriface x, can only flow y amount of air (depends on port shape etc.., we'll leave it out for the sake of the dimension will speak for itself);

Avg CSA= (CFM demand * 2.4) / FPS

CFM=actual demand
2.4=constant
FPS=port speed in FPS

Now to clarify things. We must know actual demand which has been calculated for a 8000RPM power peak, ~205CFM. The velocity input in this equation is scaled to ~50% of that in a live running engine, actual would be 2x faster.

Before I write out the math, understand that static CFM flow means absolutely nothing without the velocity being spot on. We must have high velocity, especially in higher engine speeds to actually get that air in the cylinder to make any power. As RPM increases, the time to fill the cylinders goes down. We're talking thousands and ten thousandths of a second at higher engine speeds, so you can now hopefully see why the velocity must be spot on.

Without velocity, the engine won't accelaerate because little air will actually stay in the cylinder. It is instead pushed out because there is no momentum in the column. Port sizing is key! Until significant piston speed occurs, the engine will 'lag'. We want on demand power, not half a lap behind power (dyno queen).

According to a study conducted by the SAE, optimum port velocity at the choke point for best VE has a mach index of .55 (~600FPS). A maximum of .6 is allowed for later closing valve timing, this is necessary as to not allow the charge to stall and revert back up the intake port. Any higher than .6 and VE falls off fast. I have heard of heads that have been as high as .78 though, but that is with radically long duration cams, LATE valve closings, and high RPM. Some may even be higher. This is all determined by the use and intended range of the engine.

Since we're using the dimension for port entry, a well developed port at the inlet should be around 440FPS or 220FPS for our purposes. This is based off of various engine builders work I've researched and where I have found various formula.

So;

CSA= (205 * 2.4) / 220
CSA for 8000RPM HP peak = 2.236in2

So we see we have plenty of port area to deal with on any street engine that is lucky to peak past 6600RPM. I wonder what happens to the velocity as the area is increased? Simple, as volume increases, velocity decreases. They are in correlation, basic law of physics.

There is no problem with the oval manifolds. They have, as I've shown, more than enough area to feed a race motor. The variable runner manifold of the 2.5L has way too much flow area. It also does not have sufficient plenum for even a 2.5L because of packaging reasons, this is well known already. Remeber SVTProdigy from CEG a while back? He had a Ford proto manifold, had much bigger plenums didn't it?

The problem is the cams. The outcome of putting oval cams in a split port is no surprise. They are a 'mule' cam that was not designed to work in a twin port head. The port timing (flow coefficients) are not the same. It is a completley different port design. The SVT cam is a 'hotter' grind, better timing points for high end power. No surprise why it performs better. Your using this to illustrate the manifolds are better is a poor expieriment since the the cams are far better.

The 2.5L manifolds can't enhance the the 3L cams since the velocity is even lower with them, not to mention it is a shorter duration cam (less time). Unless you've broken the bounds of physics that govern every engine, which I don't see happening.

Shall I go on?

[warmonger]

I'll convert your measurements then,

Oval: ~2.26in2
2000 SVT Split Port: ~2.815in2

So we obviously have more flow area with the split ports which means there is more potential.

..........edited for length...................

There is no problem with the oval manifolds. They have, as I've shown, more than enough area to feed a race motor. The variable runner manifold of the 2.5L has way too much flow area. It also does not have sufficient plenum for even a 2.5L because of packaging reasons, this is well known already. Remeber SVTProdigy from CEG a while back? He had a Ford proto manifold, had much bigger plenums didn't it?

The problem is the cams. The outcome of putting oval cams in a split port is no surprise. They are a 'mule' cam that was not designed to work in a twin port head. The port timing (flow coefficients) are not the same. It is a completley different port design. The SVT cam is a 'hotter' grind, better timing points for high end power. No surprise why it performs better. Your using this to illustrate the manifolds are better is a poor expieriment since the the cams are far better.

The 2.5L manifolds can't enhance the the 3L cams since the velocity is even lower with them, not to mention it is a shorter duration cam (less time). Unless you've broken the bounds of physics that govern every engine, which I don't see happening.

I'm cutting out all the stuff in the middle because I've read it before and I'm tracking it.

I want EVERYONE to read this post and put a thumbs up if you can understand it because I'm going to walk through it step by step logically. I don't want to see just Spook to respond. If you can follow it logically then say so. Then draw your own conclusions.

Let me list the main points here so I understand where you are coming from.
- You say it's a poor experiment because the cams are far better
- You say 2.5L manifolds can't enhance the 3L cams....
- The outcome of oval cams in 2.5 is no suprise...
- plenum size on split ports is too small
- ovalport manifold has plenty of flow for race engine


I'm going to post up two dyno plots, supported by the airflow datalogs I took using the xcal2 that measured load, a proportionate calculation based on the airflow going into the engine versus the theoretical size of the engine via displacement.

The dyno's will speak for themselves but to sum them up:
Dyno 1 is stock SVT with K&N, with stock precats! power 175.4/156.4 HP/TQ
Dyno 2 is same SVT with escape cams, 149/129 HP/TQ

If you think the Ovalport manifold is sufficient for a race engine then you must think that the reason the ovalport suffers good top-end flow is because of the cams.
The 3L conversions we do are otherwise equivalent with same block pistons, stroke, bore, etc. This same stroke/bore, piston shape and valve size would mean that the only difference between a hybrid 3L and an ovalport 3L would be the intakes and the cams. Tunes are otherwise stock on stock PCMs in most cases.

To separate out whether it is the cams or the intake that makes the ovalports torque curve fall off more rapidly than a split port, I looked at the following:

- We already have data of split port heads and intakes on 3L blocks making torque long into the rev range.
- This torque curve mirrors the 2.5L engine's torque curve in terms of shape with the only difference being the 3L has increased displacement therefore the numbers are higher. So they are comparable in terms of characteristic shape.

Assumption: If the ovalport manifolds are good enough for race engines then it must be the ovalport cams that cause the torque to drop right?
Assumption: If the cams cause the torque to drop off rapidly above 5000 rpm then it shouldn't matter what manifold we use on it right? It should still drop off at that rpm.
Assumption Based on the two above: If you put ovalport cams back into an SVT camme'd engine then you will see the characteristic torque curve completely change and fall off above 5000rpm

So look at these results below and you tell me why real world results directly contradict everything you are saying. If you are correct in that the 2.5L runners have way to much area for good velocity then they should definitely not make good power down low and if the plenum volume was wrong even for a 2.5L then it should not make good power in higher rpm ranges. I don't even have to debate this point because stock svt 2.5L dyno's show the manifold does make power both low and high rpm.
Oh, well it's the hotter SVT cams you say....well then why does the dyno data and airflow data with escape cams into a 2.5L ALSO show that it is not losing torque down low OR up top?


And your attitude here: Shall I go on? makes it look like you are just dying to prove me wrong. However, if you have more to add then please do so if it is different than above. I'm pretty sure that the datalogs and the dynos along with all the historical dynos of hybrids, 2.5s and ovalports are pretty consistent and don't contradict this new data.

SVT cams:
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/progressive/kremit_svt_cams_pre-cats_98.5svt.jpg

ESCAPE CAMS:
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/progressive/kremit_escape_cams_headers_99svt.jpg

[SpookSVT]

I have more data.

The test with 3L cams in a 2.5L is going to show better topend. If we can agree on the following, continue reading.

-The 2.5L is smaller than the 3L
-The 2.5L has to turn more RPMs to draw in the same amount of air a 3L would at a lower RPM (because the 3L is bigger)
-You agree on this forumula to illustrate CFM flow demands by the engines, CFM draw = (CID * RPM) / 3456

A 3L cammed full 3L will die shortly after 6000RPM. Using the above formula (181 * 6000) / 3456 = ~315CFM draw.

Now because the 2.5L has to rev higher to reach the same CFM demand, we back calculate to find the RPM where the cfm draw is the same. This will also show where the 2.5L has started to exceed the 3L cams flow capacity.

(315 * 3456) / 152.5 = ~7150RPM

So at this point the 2.5L with 3L cams should start dropping the TQ. As evident by the graph, the downward trend as already started. The SVT cammed engine is still holding the TQ curve flat.

[BurritaSVT]

I have more data.

The test with 3L cams in a 2.5L is going to show better topend. If we can agree on the following, continue reading.

-The 2.5L is smaller than the 3L
-The 2.5L has to turn more RPMs to draw in the same amount of air a 3L would at a lower RPM (because the 3L is bigger)
-You agree on this forumula to illustrate CFM flow demands by the engines, CFM draw = (CID * RPM) / 3456

A 3L cammed full 3L will die shortly after 6000RPM. Using the above formula (181 * 6000) / 3456 = ~315CFM draw.

Now because the 2.5L has to rev higher to reach the same CFM demand, we back calculate to find the RPM where the cfm draw is the same. This will also show where the 2.5L has started to exceed the 3L cams flow capacity.

(315 * 3456) / 152.5 = ~7150RPM

So at this point the 2.5L with 3L cams should start dropping the TQ. As evident by the graph, the downward trend as already started. The SVT cammed engine is still holding the TQ curve flat.

So from what I rad so far the you stated that the Escape cams are only allowed to flow XX amount of air due to what .020 difference in lift. I am not sure if anyone here knows the duration on the cams but I am sure Tom will give you some flow charts next since he has datalogs of most of the engines.
As we speak now I am hoisting a blown 3 liter out of a car to put in a full swap 3 liter with 3 liter cams. If the cams as you say made the difference not the manifolds we should see the dyno chart putting the oval port more power accross the board except you do agree the split ports will take over at top due to its larger intake runner only if I am not using the IMRC because If I was using them you would see two humps in the graph one low and high since the split port is functioning correctly.

Now I am going to give you what I will think will happen is that the split port UIM with a LIM modded to taper down early before it hits the head will give the mid range power it lacks in the SVT transition point. The dip we see in the split ports are from the secondairies dumping a large volume of air making the velocity change a bit.

I hopefully will have the car finished up in two weeks crossing my fingers. Joey

[SpookSVT]

Look at it as valve curtain area (flow area). More lift creates more curtain. That can also reduce velocity. However, curtain area is another staic measurement. Look at curtain vs. time (duration).

I have the cam specs as measured at .050" lift. The SVT's have more duration but duration alone means little. They are the hotter grind though, as evident by a noticeable increase in top end. Cam timing is based on the ports flow capabilities and intented use.

Previous calcs have shown that both ports are too big. If no agreement on this can be made, I see this thread going no where and will have to respectively decline to continue any further.

[BurritaSVT]

Look at it as valve curtain area (flow area). More lift creates more curtain. That can also reduce velocity. However, curtain area is another staic measurement. Look at curtain vs. time (duration).

I have the cam specs as measured at .050" lift. The SVT's have more duration but duration alone means little. They are the hotter grind though, as evident by a noticeable increase in top end. Cam timing is based on the ports flow capabilities and intented use.

Previous calcs have shown that both ports are too big. If no agreement on this can be made, I see this thread going no where and will have to respectively decline to continue any further.

I am not saying you are wrong but When I go to dyno to test the two setups what do you expect from your knowledge will happen? Do you think the oval port manifold will hands down out perform the SVT UIM? I know we don't have any evidence or proof where someone swap intakes to see the difference and I willing to spend the money and time to test this. I like you and most here would like to see what the two intakes do with a full 3 liter swap. I am not going to say I know the cam profiles and data on the lifts as much as you presented but Tom may know more than I do. I know my limitations when I am getting out of my zone. Don't think I am not agreeing with you I am just researching why? Since there are so many variables here we will see which setup makes the best all around Heck I even have some SE cams here I will be checking to see if they are similar to the 3 liters too. Joey

[SpookSVT]

I'd like you to do a full 3L with gutted precats, a SRI, and your LIM. I'd like the run to start at 2200RPM and to end at 6900RPM. I'd like the time graphs as well as the A/F plot. We'll go from there...

[buckeyesvt]

What Spook just said.... X2!

And BTW - I know you two (Tom and Joey) are all knowing... but.... What happens when your 2.5L has a rocker ratio of 1.8:1 and the 3L has a rocker ratio of 2.0:1?

Both of you (you know who) follow me slowly. If the cams in the 2004-2005 Taurus and Sable (forget the Escape), are the same exact cam lift as the SVT but the rocker ratio of the 2.5L is 1.8:1 and the 04+ 3L is 2.0:1 - How does that make the SVT .020 more and 15% more volume flow? Reconfigure and get back to me, I'll do my own figures (with pics) and we'll then debate your camshaft "debacle". This isn't about Escapes and 2000-2003 engines, this is about 2004+ engines I install. Let's keep it on that track. Lose the Escape parts, they are no different than 00-03 Taurus parts.

Otherwise, build a friggin engine with your mod and post the comparison? We're all dying to see it - C'mon with it.

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

What Spook just said.... X2!

And BTW - I know you two (Tom and Joey) are all knowing... but.... What happens when your 2.5L has a rocker ratio of 1.8:1 and the 3L has a rocker ratio of 2.0:1?

Both of you (you know who) follow me slowly. If the cams in the 2004-2005 Taurus and Sable (forget the Escape), are the same exact cam lift as the SVT but the rocker ratio of the 2.5L is 1.8:1 and the 04+ 3L is 2.0:1 - How does that make the SVT .020 more and 15% more volume flow? Reconfigure and get back to me, I'll do my own figures (with pics) and we'll then debate your camshaft "debacle". This isn't about Escapes and 2000-2003 engines, this is about 2004+ engines I install. Let's keep it on that track. Lose the Escape parts, they are no different than 00-03 Taurus parts.

Otherwise, build a friggin engine with your mod and post the comparison? We're all dying to see it - C'mon with it.

-Dom


Curious as to what lift you have the intake on the 2004 I have the taurus 2001 cams here. I just curious to see if anything in the inside of the engine was change from the prior engines. I have .16 lift with the Taurus and the SVT were .18 lift now since I was comparing the heads being the same since the option we are talking about is which cams flows more.

I noticed the taurus 2004 just made 7ft/lbs more torque is it from tuning or was it mechanical? The power seemed to not increase one bit so is the cams different? It seems you did your research and so this info you must have. The engine is out the car I will be sandblasting the old rusted parts tomorrow for painting. The car came from Chicago so the rusted parts and crappy rounded off bolts from the previous installer took some time to get out. I seriousily not doing this to prove you wrong I am doing this for techinical info which noone has really done with direct swap outs. If you can think of any other combination anyone would like to see then let me know.

Dom isn't there another car you are doing with all the mods that will be dynoing very soon. Will you be using the SVT cams for the setup or you plan on sticking with cams? I will be keeping everyone updating on the setup I am sure it on't be disappointing. Joey

[warmonger]

I have more data.

The test with 3L cams in a 2.5L is going to show better topend. If we can agree on the following, continue reading.

-The 2.5L is smaller than the 3L
-The 2.5L has to turn more RPMs to draw in the same amount of air a 3L would at a lower RPM (because the 3L is bigger)
-You agree on this forumula to illustrate CFM flow demands by the engines, CFM draw = (CID * RPM) / 3456

A 3L cammed full 3L will die shortly after 6000RPM. Using the above formula (181 * 6000) / 3456 = ~315CFM draw.

Now because the 2.5L has to rev higher to reach the same CFM demand, we back calculate to find the RPM where the cfm draw is the same. This will also show where the 2.5L has started to exceed the 3L cams flow capacity.

(315 * 3456) / 152.5 = ~7150RPM

So at this point the 2.5L with 3L cams should start dropping the TQ. As evident by the graph, the downward trend as already started. The SVT cammed engine is still holding the TQ curve flat.

Cams aren't rated on airflow! They affect airflow as a second order effect but they only control valve lift, duration and overlap. IF your valve diameter was 10mm on one motor with the same cam versus the 35mm with the same cam then the airflow would be dramatically less, no matter what the displacement is. It is the valve diameter and lift that controls the airflow. I agree that valve timing and overlap will be related to piston speed and displacement but with appropriately sized valves you control the velocity of air.

The whole concept of the cam 'is going to 'run out of air as a function of rpm' has something inherently wrong. That is because the valves are already sized proportionately for the engine and that fact alone will provide the correct proportionate airflow to match the above equations assuming the manifold is adequate as well.
Either that or I'm REALLY missing something here.

And just to lend credibility to the point, SVT cams show the same torque curve and shape with 2.5L or 3L's of displacement AND so do SE cams!
The dyno's of the SE cams show the exact same shape but with just more torque being produced, NOT showing them dropping off quicker in a 3L engine....
So you are saying if I used those escape cam specs for a set of cams in a 5.0L duratec with appropriately sized valves that the torque would be dropping off at about 3600 rpm. um........I can't agree with that.

[warmonger]

I'd like you to do a full 3L with gutted precats, a SRI, and your LIM. I'd like the run to start at 2200RPM and to end at 6900RPM. I'd like the time graphs as well as the A/F plot. We'll go from there...

Maybe you'd like to help out with this??
We'll see what we have on the agenda and whether or not this is feasible.

You know I actually installed those escape cams for free in that car dyno'd above, solely to test out the idea for the sake of research.
Pity no one can appreciate the significance of it. :banghead:

[warmonger]

What Spook just said.... X2!

And BTW - I know you two (Tom and Joey) are all knowing... but.... What happens when your 2.5L has a rocker ratio of 1.8:1 and the 3L has a rocker ratio of 2.0:1?

Both of you (you know who) follow me slowly. If the cams in the 2004-2005 Taurus and Sable (forget the Escape), are the same exact cam lift as the SVT but the rocker ratio of the 2.5L is 1.8:1 and the 04+ 3L is 2.0:1 - How does that make the SVT .020 more and 15% more volume flow? Reconfigure and get back to me, I'll do my own figures (with pics) and we'll then debate your camshaft "debacle". This isn't about Escapes and 2000-2003 engines, this is about 2004+ engines I install. Let's keep it on that track. Lose the Escape parts, they are no different than 00-03 Taurus parts.

Otherwise, build a friggin engine with your mod and post the comparison? We're all dying to see it - C'mon with it.

-Dom

Well if the rocker ratio is different then of course the lift is different. But we know from measurements that the roller finger follower equiped 3L's and 2.5L's have the same roller follwers and therefore the same ratio.
So there is no recomputing to do. According to Procyon who posted the cam specs there is no difference between the escape, taurus, sable cames.

It is a moot point if the rockers are different between the 2.5L and 3L anyway because the cams are going into a 3L for the sake of our argument

If the rocker were 1:1 ratio then the SVT cams would produce 0.5mm more lift. We get .17" lift on the svt and .15" lift on the ovalport cams

If the 2.5L SVT rocker ratio was 2:1 and given 32mm valves, then
take 8.636 x 32mm x 3.14159 and what do you get?
868 mm^2

For the 3L with ovalport, 35mm valves and 2:1 rocker ratio:
837 mm^2

For the 3L with SVT cams and 2:1 ratio:
949 mm^2

949/837= 13% increase in flow area. So it really doesn't matter what the 2.5L rocker ratios are. If the 3L uses a certain ratio with ovalport cams and then you slap in SVT cams, you get a 13% increase in flow area just from changing the cams.
As spook said if the velocity is the same then you'd net a significant improvement.
It can't be the same because the valves open more, in effect acting like bigger valves, but you can see that engines do not suffer in the low range from having he SVT cams therefore there is not a significant enough drop in velocity to affect the engine negatively. The positives are that it allows the engine to breath deeply all over the rpm range.

Now you can take this information back to the 2.5L and say "Why oh Why does the 2.5L still make uniform torque in the low rpm ranges when these cams must be killing the low rpm velocity?"
Well the IMRC for one and the dual runner manifold is tuned in two spots thats why. Resonance tuning with the longer runners and the IMRC active.
Even though the flow area is large on the valves and the lift is higher on the cams it still has good low end torque!

[buckeyesvt]

Well if the rocker ratio is different then of course the lift is different. But we know from measurements that the roller finger follower equiped 3L's and 2.5L's have the same roller follwers and therefore the same ratio.
So there is no recomputing to do. According to Procyon who posted the cam specs there is no difference between the escape, taurus, sable cames.

It is a moot point if the rockers are different between the 2.5L and 3L anyway because the cams are going into a 3L for the sake of our argument

If the rocker were 1:1 ratio then the SVT cams would produce 0.5mm more lift. We get .17" lift on the svt and .15" lift on the ovalport cams

If the 2.5L SVT rocker ratio was 2:1 and given 32mm valves, then
take 8.636 x 32mm x 3.14159 and what do you get?
868 mm^2

For the 3L with ovalport, 35mm valves and 2:1 rocker ratio:
837 mm^2

For the 3L with SVT cams and 2:1 ratio:
949 mm^2

949/837= 13% increase in flow area. So it really doesn't matter what the 2.5L rocker ratios are. If the 3L uses a certain ratio with ovalport cams and then you slap in SVT cams, you get a 13% increase in flow area just from changing the cams.
As spook said if the velocity is the same then you'd net a significant improvement.
It can't be the same because the valves open more, in effect acting like bigger valves, but you can see that engines do not suffer in the low range from having he SVT cams therefore there is not a significant enough drop in velocity to affect the engine negatively. The positives are that it allows the engine to breath deeply all over the rpm range.

Now you can take this information back to the 2.5L and say "Why oh Why does the 2.5L still make uniform torque in the low rpm ranges when these cams must be killing the low rpm velocity?"
Well the IMRC for one and the dual runner manifold is tuned in two spots thats why. Resonance tuning with the longer runners and the IMRC active.
Even though the flow area is large on the valves and the lift is higher on the cams it still has good low end torque!

I beg to differ with the 13% gain. You have no evidence of the "gain", how can the cam lift be 13% more when the factory lift from the 2 cams are the same? What was the exact lift "calipered" not calculated of the SVT cams? I took both a 1998 SVT intake camshaft and a 2004 Taurus intake camshaft and compared the lift between them. There was no difference, only the duration/ramping/timing were different. Now, those factors alone can make them better "performing" camshafts - However using them in the straight 3L without split ports isn't correctly doing so. Any arguements about the use of those in a straight 3L is meaningless -The cams are tuned to the engine. The 2000-2003 3L isn't a 2.5L split port engine last time I checked. So unless you do a full hybrid swap, or your invention shows some better results those findings are at best "fallable".

And before spouting data off like it's on the back of your hand - You seem to still overlook something (not that time graphs shouldn't line up at 5252RPM...:crazy:) . Only 2004+ 3L heads and cams are redesigned. They use a 2.0:1 rocker ratio, and the cam lift specs follow the SVT's the same. Switching the SVT cams in would do NOTHING for the lift whatsoever... Just alter the duration, overlap, ramping and such as they were designed. Your 13-15% flow increase arguement is null...:bs:

Besides, you play with 2000-2003 Escape cams and heads. Those retain the SVT like 1.8:1 ratio. Joey asked why the newer engines are putting out more torque than the older one's. That's easy, the ratio has changed and there are some other "little" changes. The lift has changed, that increased the torque some - As did the intake design to true dual plenum oval port intake. To me comparing the older engine to the newer is apples/oranges if you use the stock heads. There are improvements on the newer engines that you haven't discovered yet that we did last year.

Here, the specs direct from Ford contradict you:

98-00 2.5L

Lobe lift
Intake (primary) mm 4.79
Intake (secondary) mm 4.79
Exhaust mm 4.79
Allowable lobe lift loss mm 0

Theoretical valve lift @ zero lash
Intake (primary) mm 9.80
Intake (secondary) mm 9.80
Exhaust mm 9.80

Rocker Ratio 1.8:1

00-03 3.0L

Lobe lift
· Intake (primary)
4.79 mm (0.188 in)
· Intake (secondary)
4.79 mm (0.188 in)
· Exhaust
4.79 mm (0.188 in)
· Allowable lobe lift loss
0 mm (0.0 in)
Theoretical valve lift @ zero lash
· Intake (primary)
9.80 mm (0.388 in)
· Intake (secondary)
9.80 mm (0.388 in)
· Exhaust
9.80 mm (.0388 in)

Rocker Ratio 1.8:1

04-05 3L

Theoretical valve lift @ 0 lash 9.80 mm (0.388 in)
Lobe lift 4.80 mm (0.189 in)
Rocker Ratio 2.0:1


Now... hard specs. Again on those measurements you took?

-Dom

[SpookSVT]

I was wrong on the the cam vs. draw, I should have known better.

Even so, this shows that the cams are affecting the power, not the manifold area. Resonance tuning is putting a hump in the upper range, that's it. Very limited though as the cams are showing ~20whp increase up top as evident by the graph.

One thing I'm curious about is what happens to the waves in a shared port when they are no longer isolated in their respective runners (split port)?

[BurritaSVT]

I beg to differ with the 13% gain. You have no evidence of the "gain", how can the cam lift be 13% more when the factory lift from the 2 cams are the same? What was the exact lift "calipered" not calculated of the SVT cams? I took both a 1998 SVT intake camshaft and a 2004 Taurus intake camshaft and compared the lift between them. There was no difference, only the duration/ramping/timing were different. Now, those factors alone can make them better "performing" camshafts - However using them in the straight 3L without split ports isn't correctly doing so. Any arguements about the use of those in a straight 3L is meaningless -The cams are tuned to the engine. The 2000-2003 3L isn't a 2.5L split port engine last time I checked. So unless you do a full hybrid swap, or your invention shows some better results those findings are at best "fallable".

And before spouting data off like it's on the back of your hand - You seem to still overlook something (not that time graphs shouldn't line up at 5252RPM...:crazy:) . Only 2004+ 3L heads and cams are redesigned. They use a 2.0:1 rocker ratio, and the cam lift specs follow the SVT's the same. Switching the SVT cams in would do NOTHING for the lift whatsoever... Just alter the duration, overlap, ramping and such as they were designed. Your 13-15% flow increase arguement is null...:bs:

Besides, you play with 2000-2003 Escape cams and heads. Those retain the SVT like 1.8:1 ratio. Joey asked why the newer engines are putting out more torque than the older one's. That's easy, the ratio has changed and there are some other "little" changes. The lift has changed, that increased the torque some - As did the intake design to true dual plenum oval port intake. To me comparing the older engine to the newer is apples/oranges if you use the stock heads. There are improvements on the newer engines that you haven't discovered yet that we did last year.

Here, the specs direct from Ford contradict you:

98-00 2.5L

Lobe lift
Intake (primary) mm 4.79
Intake (secondary) mm 4.79
Exhaust mm 4.79
Allowable lobe lift loss mm 0

Theoretical valve lift @ zero lash
Intake (primary) mm 9.80
Intake (secondary) mm 9.80
Exhaust mm 9.80

Rocker Ratio 1.8:1

00-03 3.0L

Lobe lift
· Intake (primary)
4.79 mm (0.188 in)
· Intake (secondary)
4.79 mm (0.188 in)
· Exhaust
4.79 mm (0.188 in)
· Allowable lobe lift loss
0 mm (0.0 in)
Theoretical valve lift @ zero lash
· Intake (primary)
9.80 mm (0.388 in)
· Intake (secondary)
9.80 mm (0.388 in)
· Exhaust
9.80 mm (.0388 in)

Rocker Ratio 1.8:1

04-05 3L

Theoretical valve lift @ 0 lash 9.80 mm (0.388 in)
Lobe lift 4.80 mm (0.189 in)
Rocker Ratio 2.0:1


Now... hard specs. Again on those measurements you took?

-Dom

Dom I took the measurments and I will try to get some clear pics since my camera suffers up close but first we made sure the zero across the cams lobes were exact size which had to be since we know they can be retrofitted. Then I did a caliper measurments across the lobe to it peak I will get them and I will also show you the SE since i have all three cams here. I am not saying your measurements are wrong for contours because I think you have SE cams mixed up. I will go down anf take some snap shots. joey

[warmonger]

I was wrong on the the cam vs. draw, I should have known better.

Even so, this shows that the cams are affecting the power, not the manifold area. Resonance tuning is putting a hump in the upper range, that's it. Very limited though as the cams are showing ~20whp increase up top as evident by the graph.

One thing I'm curious about is what happens to the waves in a shared port when they are no longer isolated in their respective runners (split port)?

I know I do that sometimes too. lol

I might buy into this last bit except that our livelink datalogs are showing similar behavior on the 3L engines with the split port manifolds on ovalport heads.
The twin torque bumps are still there and when you use IMRC it still will increase the measured load in the load range when closed as was evidenced by Stealthyweasels datalogs. When opened early the velocity completely dies and it is very flat.

I remember That RevPoJay on CEG used SVT cams in an ovalport manifold and it had a hump in the middle but dropped off fairly quick. It wasn't an issue for him because he bolted a supercharger to it and they complemented rather well in that case. I don't have the dyno of the NA version of that motor but I have the FI dyno of that motor with the vortech on it. You can see that the lower torque hump is missing completely even though the svt cams are there.

[SpookSVT]

I believe significant evidence has been published on my part for the effects of each manifolding. We still still can't seem to agree on some things however.

To sum up;
We can agree port CSA is too big with both port styles? The ovals being better since they have a better suited CSA and port design vs the split port.

We're going to agree to disagree on using a 2.5L or any split port manifold on an oval port head, unless you concur?

We're going to agree to disagree on using SVT cams in a shared port, unless you concur?

[BurritaSVT]

I believe significant evidence has been published on my part for the effects of each manifolding. We still still can't seem to agree on some things however.

To sum up;
We can agree port CSA is too big with both port styles? The ovals being better since they have a better suited CSA and port design vs the split port.

We're going to agree to disagree on using a 2.5L or any split port manifold on an oval port head, unless you concur?

We're going to agree to disagree on using SVT cams in a shared port, unless you concur?

To sum it all up till I get the car to the dyno is that the SVT UIM will lack all low range and mid range performance compared to the oval port? And the SVT UIM will pull more peak power up top only? I really don't know either so the dyno will tell all. I will also tape some videos of the cars and take snap shots. My goal is to have the car on the dyno by Oct 9-11th if I don't tun into part delays. Thanks joey

[SpookSVT]

All else being equal, minus the upper intake, the oval manifolding will perform better at all ranges. Make sure you get time graphs done correctly and do a few pulls on each once tuned. I'd like to see the transient times, A/F charts, and the basic RPM graph as well.

[BurritaSVT]

All else being equal, minus the upper intake, the oval manifolding will perform better at all ranges. Make sure you get time graphs done correctly and do a few pulls on each once tuned. I'd like to see the transient times, A/F charts, and the basic RPM graph as well.

I will do the AF on the datalogs since I pay extra for them but I will take some snap shots of the datalog too. Yes since time can be used on the same car based on the fact the tire diameter is consistent I can just do that in the WINpep program when I show them. I am welding up the LIM as we speak I will be posting the pics tomorrow of the MOD that will make the swap happen in one dyno. Oh I will use the stock tune on all runs for the first pull and the second pull of the setup will be a set performance tune because If I change to many variables it will be unvalid info. I better get back to welding I will talk to you later Joey

[buckeyesvt]

Plus the SVT cams have .20 more lift at the cam lobe and 15 % more airflow due to more valve opening too and don't forget the 20 % more airflow in the runners. This explains the dyno we tested both cams in the SVT stock motor where the escape torque curve was identical to the svt just 10whp less acorss the whole band but the escape cams still were able to breathe up top due to the well designed UIM. So the oval ports fall between the primary and secondary size ports which explains why the SVT UIM makes a dip in the torque curve due to airflow only (resonance tuning)

additionally:

The SVT cams have more lift than the escape cams. 1.680" base-lobe peak for the SVT and 1.660" base-lobe peak for the escape.

Well Joey and I were talking and we speculated it was different lift, and sure enough when he measured it the SVT cams produced 0.020" more lift.

That translates to 0.5mm more height on the rocker and depending upon the rocker arm ration that is froms 0.5-1.0mm lift on the valves.
That provides at a minimum 13.3% increase in flow capability.

Now you know why the SVT cam equiped vehicles are dynoing 20 HP more than their competitors, 13% increase in airflow is nettings about a comparable increase in HP.

I did a quick look into these "figures" and I can't reproduce them in my shop at all. Now, I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this... So I'll let the other party figure out how they came to their conclusion in error.

First, take 2 camshafts (Left is 98 SVT and right is 04 Taurus) and your trusty caliper.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM1.jpg

Part numbers for each so we have no "questions" over the camshafts used:
http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM2.jpghttp://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM3.jpg

Now that we have that out of the way. First up - SVT cam. Take your caliper (Digital in this case so everyone can read it easily without "issues". Measure the lobe 90 degrees from the "toe". This will give you your base value, however in this exercise zero the caliper out to 0.00 instead so you can measure the lift on the lobe itself.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM4.jpg

Now, measure the lobe "toe".

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM5.jpg

Here we recieved the value of 4.80mm. That is your base lift figure. Moving on... Next to the 2004 3.0L camshaft. We then measure the lobe 90 degrees away from the "lift" to ensure there is no variance or differences. Here the picture shows spot-on 0.00. Perfect.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM6.jpg

Again, we measure the top of the lobe's "toe" at it's highest point.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM7.jpg

Now, again we received the value 4.80 from the lobe top. See anything peculiar yet? However this isn't all yet...

Ford specs the 2.5L SVT and SE cams at the same lobe lift. There is no difference in the actual "lift" between the camshafts themselves. Also, all 3L engines have the same actual lobe lift as well, making them essentially comparable in the lift department. Now, they are not the same however - Look at the lobe shapes themselves and you can see the duration difference:

SVT:
http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM8.jpg

3.0L
http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM9.jpg

Now there are a few things we can extract from this. First off, is lobe timing. Second is duration (which you can see the SVT has more than the 3.0L shorter opening).

Being that the SVT camshafts are "performance" factory grind camshafts we can at least assuredly assume they will outperform stock "non-performance" 3.0L camshafts. However, I believe using SVT camshafts in an oval port 3L may be making a weaker arguement than using the actual cams designed for them. The ST220 has camshafts that are built for oval ports... It even has the same oval port UIM. Perhaps their camshafts are a better "solution" than blindly sticking in the SVT's and getting better results. There is alot "unaccounted for" with the SVT camshafts and that to me makes them "unusable". Just because they work doesn't mean they are the best... For the TQ you lose and the minimal HP you gain it's really moot. Since the manifold discussion itself has died down (Oval ports, long runners and big plenum is setup for high rpm use) just not in the car it came out of. Camshafts can change an engines whole disposition, not only can it reduce or increase HP/TQ - It can also to a point manipulate when and how it comes on. I think further study with "better" cams is needed... Possibly a set of ST220 cams to see if there are significant differences in power output and RPM.

Now, that was a quick lesson on how to measure camshaft lift. To calculate total lift you multiply the rocker ratio (1.8:1) on the SVT heads and 1996-2003 3.0L heads). This gives you total valve lift at 8.64mm at Zero valve lash. That's a standard figure for all 2.5L engines and 3.0L engines from 96-03. However the newer engines 2004+ are a tad different. The camshaft lift is the same as the older 3.0L and 2.5L's. But, the rocker ratio is increased. The 2004+ engines have a 2.0:1 rocker ratio... so.. (4.80mm x 2.0 = 9.6mm total lift). Hmm, the newer 3L's have more lift than the older engines altogether from a better rocker ratio. (Note, even if you install SVT camshafts in the later 2004+ engines the lift stays the same - Contrary to the advice given by other "experts"). The camshaft lift is a fixed figure, across the board.

Thanks for allowing me to enlighten some of you, and correct others.

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

Good post now I did the same measruements with a mechanical caliper though the engine the cams came out of was a escape 2001. I will go back down to the shop and remeasure the cams I will also get the part number of them and post pics of the ones I have. Good info. Joey

[buckeyesvt]

Good post now I did the same measruements with a mechanical caliper though the engine the cams came out of was a escape 2001. I will go back down to the shop and remeasure the cams I will also get the part number of them and post pics of the ones I have. Good info. Joey

Cool, I'll await your response. I have a set of 2002 cams at the shop - Didn't measure them because all 3L's have the same dimensions. However if you have something different I'm all ears.

-Dom

[fordrule]

what about using svt cams and using 3L rockers?

[buckeyesvt]

what about using svt cams and using 3L rockers?


I'm sorry, I must've left something out of the above post. Using the SVT camshafts in the engines nets the same exact results as the 3L no matter which head it goes in. Lift and actual dimensions that is - We are not comparing anything else in this comparison.

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

I'm sorry, I must've left something out of the above post. Using the SVT camshafts in the engines nets the same exact results as the 3L no matter which head it goes in. Lift and actual dimensions that is - We are not comparing anything else in this comparison.

-Dom


Ok I went back and did all four sets of cams.

Escape intake .17 lift 3f1E-A267AA
Exhaust .17 lift
SVT intake .19 lift F73F-6a267BB
Exhaust .19 lift
Taurus 2001 Intake .17 lift
Exhaust .17 lift
Contour SE Intake .19 lift
exhaust .19 lift

So the escape cams so far are the only ones that have less lift I am guessing this is done because the engine was designed to tow alot of passengers. I have pics but the darn flash made the globe glare bright could't see the numbers. And I converted the MM to inches and it came out to .0188 which I was showing on the plus side too.

So now guys with escape cams should have used their old SE cams and chains etc. or buy a taurus motor any year and knowing you did verify the lifter ratio. Now this is my question you are saying the heads were completly redone because there are only one way they could have changed the ratio is by moving the roller closer to the lifter which I like to see if the part number is different for rollers as well as the heads since the cams would have to repositioned closer to the lifter. Right?

[svtnupe]

I remember That RevPoJay on CEG used SVT cams in an ovalport manifold and it had a hump in the middle but dropped off fairly quick. It wasn't an issue for him because he bolted a supercharger to it and they complemented rather well in that case. I don't have the dyno of the NA version of that motor but I have the FI dyno of that motor with the vortech on it. You can see that the lower torque hump is missing completely even though the svt cams are there.

I believe I have the same setup as RevPoJay minus the supercharger if anyone would like to see the dyno graph.

[buckeyesvt]

Ok I went back and did all four sets of cams.

Escape intake .016 lift 3f1E-A267AA
Exhaust .017 lift
SVT intake .018 lift F73F-6a267BB
Exhaust .018 lift
Taurus 2001 Intake .018 lift
Exhaust .018 lift
Contour SE Intake .018 lift
exhaust .018 lift

So the escape cams so far are the only ones that have less lift I am guessing this is done because the engine was designed to tow alot of passengers. I have pics but the darn flash made the globe glare bright could't see the numbers. And I converted the MM to inches and it came out to .0188 which I was showing on the plus side too.

So now guys with escape cams should have used their old SE cams and chains etc. or buy a taurus motor any year and knowing you did verify the lifter ratio. Now this is my question you are saying the heads were completly redone because there are only one way they could have changed the ratio is by moving the roller closer to the lifter which I like to see if the part number is different for rollers as well as the heads since the cams would have to repositioned closer to the lifter. Right?

Err... perhaps you need to recheck your dial indicator or calibrate your caliper. There is absolutely no difference between any 00-03 Taurus/Sable/Escape camshafts. They have the exact same part #'s - Ask Bill Jenkins. 2004+ Taurus/Sables have redesigned camshafts, lifters and cylinder heads (and blocks). There is a good reason they were redesigned, and we are seeing some of the differences.

Umm, look at the Factory Ford specs (I have the DVD here) they clearly listed the rocker ratios and also the lift specs on both your SVT cams, the Escape cams and the newer Taurus cams. Everything I've measured has been spot on to the factory specs (which I wouldn't doubt they would be).

Here's a view of the newer style rockers - I can't see much difference between them except the rollers are wider and the HLA end is bigger.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM10.jpg

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

Well doubting my measurements were off even though I did them five times I went back down and remeasured all the cams I came up with same so i called Bill Jenkins to make sure everything was the same and it was so I may have a really worn cam at 36k which is possible. So while I was at it I asked him to see if the heads,rollers,valves, cams are different and guess what not one difference. The rollers were just revised but the same length from valve to lifter so in order to get more lift you need to have a longer arm. If that was even the case the heads would be different too because the valve or the lifter more likely the lifter would need to be moved more center. So if all the part numbers are the same for escape and taurus cams too then I must have a worn cam.

So the lift is the same on all the cams the durations are are all different and Bill will be pulling out his techinical book and writing up all the hard facts for us so we can see the ford specs. Thanks Bill

Well if you know another way you can increase the lift on the 2005 versus the 2000-2003 escape or taurus when every part is the same part number and more importantly the heads too then let me know but phiysics on says one way I know of from what I have learned. thanks Joey

[BurritaSVT]

Err... perhaps you need to recheck your dial indicator or calibrate your caliper. There is absolutely no difference between any 00-03 Taurus/Sable/Escape camshafts. They have the exact same part #'s - Ask Bill Jenkins. 2004+ Taurus/Sables have redesigned camshafts, lifters and cylinder heads (and blocks). There is a good reason they were redesigned, and we are seeing some of the differences.

Umm, look at the Factory Ford specs (I have the DVD here) they clearly listed the rocker ratios and also the lift specs on both your SVT cams, the Escape cams and the newer Taurus cams. Everything I've measured has been spot on to the factory specs (which I wouldn't doubt they would be).

Here's a view of the newer style rockers - I can't see much difference between them except the rollers are wider and the HLA end is bigger.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/CAM10.jpg

-Dom


Dom I though you were done with the bashing and seriousily man you are really like drama.
Here's some experts for you... - FordContour.Org (http://www.fordcontour.org/Here-s-experts-you-t9989.html)

Do you really think I made this up I used hard facts like you did I went the two different cams one Non SVT and the other SVT and put some calipers on them. It so happen the cams I grabbed escape cams are calipering .020 less then the SVT's you pretty much dragged this comment that was a civil and made a little rant about it over on your turf FCO. Since the cams I had are suppose to be same as all the taurus/escape/sable cams and I went to the SVT cams which I made measurements once again were taller. I like most never seeing the lift ever posted in the past would have made a good assumption that SVT are taller cams but it seems that the cams I compared to them gave me bad results.......So I even came here and said it must be worn cams or factory screw-up. I will post pics because it is one thing to say it happens to the best but it really shows you are only here to prove a point that you can really get under a person's skin. Now I will go get you some photos even if I have to take alot of them due the flash (glare) so you can see the numbers yourself.

And now that you are attacking me once again on the public forums I will call you out like you seem to do so much and prove to me why all the parts numbers are the same for all the heads,cams,valves,lifter,and rollers for all 2000-2005 taurus call Bill if you think. So where did you get this extra lift from the lifters are the same length The one you shown in the pics are manufactured as a revision on the form not the mechanical fuction. I went out my way today to see if Bill can give us some hard numbers on durations and lifts of all cars since the calipers can be off some to contribute to this topic. And all you did was bring the post over to your area to play your games if you continue to act this way go back to where you came from because the only reason you came here to cause drama by acting like you are over it . Then why did you take the info over there to make yourself look so intelligent and smarter than the other guys. Remember how that turned everyone against you in the past right? You even have a post about why you don't like NECO because they are affliated with CEG would you like me to dif that one up for you......... Sorry guys it just frustrating when you are working on some good info and you have someone who is acting like immature person get to the point where I don't want to post new info since every little mistake he drags you across the coals. Even though this was done here it shows that the guy who even makes his rules doesn't even follow them. :banghead:

if anyone here wants the info we dig up about the different swaps let me know because I am done with guy but after I post the pics that I don't make crap up first. Thanks Joey

[buckeyesvt]

Lol, wow. You and Tom have picked apart EVERYTHING I've done and come out with proving you are right. The moment it turns and things look bad it's personal? You were wrong - Admit it. You measured incorrectly and I called you on it. Get over it. It was the basis for the whole SVT stuff is better - Your major point (.020 more lift - 15% more flow through heads). Bunk, all of it. I think the people need to know that instead of what you posted in reality it wasn't more lift at all. Retract your statements of gains instead of allowing me to do it for you.

Here's my source of all my data - A Ford DVD I bought.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/04specs.jpg

Read "Rocker Ratio". And cam lift specs... etc etc. I'm not making things up, I did the work and showed all the proof with pictures. You thought I was going to let all that earlier stuff slide? Sure, maybe on here because it's frowned upon. Not elsewhere - You belong on FCO, I see your screen name and watch you look around - How about posting on their instead of here? Huh? Maybe I should delete your account for purposely trolling for information (which I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one happy to do so). If you weren't concerned about what you were saying / doing you wouldn't care one bit about what I said or did. You do - Reaction says everything. Stop whining.

I posted my info so everyone who thought "Gee, I need to get SVT cams because they offer more lift" didn't go out and waste their money for nothing.

That's a community service, not posted to spite you. Perhaps if you weren't guilty of dragging me through the mud earlier - I wouldn't be on your case would I?

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

Lol, wow. You and Tom have picked apart EVERYTHING I've done and come out with proving you are right. The moment it turns and things look bad it's personal? You were wrong - Admit it. You measured incorrectly and I called you on it. Get over it. It was the basis for the whole SVT stuff is better - Your major point (.020 more lift - 15% more flow through heads). Bunk, all of it. I think the people need to know that instead of what you posted in reality it wasn't more lift at all. Retract your statements of gains instead of allowing me to do it for you.

Here's my source of all my data - A Ford DVD I bought.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/04specs.jpg

Read "Rocker Ratio". And cam lift specs... etc etc. I'm not making things up, I did the work and showed all the proof with pictures. You thought I was going to let all that earlier stuff slide? Sure, maybe on here because it's frowned upon. Not elsewhere - You belong on FCO, I see your screen name and watch you look around - How about posting on their instead of here? Huh? Maybe I should delete your account for purposely trolling for information (which I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one happy to do so). If you weren't concerned about what you were saying / doing you wouldn't care one bit about what I said or did. You do - Reaction says everything. Stop whining.

I posted my info so everyone who thought "Gee, I need to get SVT cams because they offer more lift" didn't go out and waste their money for nothing.

That's a community service, not posted to spite you. Perhaps if you weren't guilty of dragging me through the mud earlier - I wouldn't be on your case would I?

-Dom

Ok I pulled in the Taurus motor inside to check the lobe lift and guess what that was .17 and the Escape was also .17 too and the SVT and SE cams were .019. Now I am using some calipers that are manual and the overall demisions could be off as much as .001 since locally I only had the choice of the plastic ones but that is not the point regardless what the end result are they are still .020 difference between the 2.5 liter cams and 3 liter now after sitting back even after Bill said the part numbers were the same. I came to one reason why I think the cams are different is because from 2000-2003 the cams were probably built by a different factory or the ford figured they would change the lift to .019 so that would explain why the 2004 has more lift because the cams only. The replacements are all now .19 wich ford felt was not enough change to affect the older engines if they need to replace the cams. The ratio would definitely pose a problem if they tried to put the longer fingers on the heads so the part number would have to be different and the heads would have to be changed too. So since you have the software for the 2004 what was the rocker ratio on the 2003 ? 2:1 right? If someone else here has some escape cams off a 2000-2003 and also have some stock cams 2.5 check the difference if you can.
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/svtcamsagainstescape.wvx
this is video of me checking the cams now I had to rush to save space on the web but I can clearly show that my caliper shows a difference. Now Dom I would not be wasting my time here if I wasn't sure of what I measured now you are porbably right that ford changed the cams in 2004 but Bill who did not have time said he would get the specs tomorrow. It seems ford is trying to only stock the newer cams even for the older engine if they show the same part number. Now can you see from the video how I can say there was a difference lift. Dom I will even send you the two cams the SE cams and the Escape if you don't believe me. I am serious I don't need them then you can use your calipers and own hands to see that the older 3 liters do not show as much lift. Now both these motors only have 50k them and the SE has 100k joey

Don't laugh at my accent ........lol

[buckeyesvt]

Ok I pulled in the Taurus motor inside to check the lobe lift and guess what that was .017 and the Escape was also .017 too and the SVT and SE cams were .019. Now I am using some calipers that are manual and the overall demisions could be off as much as .001 since locally I only had the choice of the plastic ones but that is not the point regardless what the end result are they are still .020 difference between the 2.5 liter cams and 3 liter now after sitting back even after Bill said the part numbers were the same. I came to one reason why I think the cams are different is because from 2000-2003 the cams were probably built by a different factory or the ford figured they would change the lift to .019 so that would explain why the 2004 has more lift because the cams only. The replacements are all now .019 wich ford felt was not enough change to affect the older engines if they need to replace the cams. The ratio would definitely pose a problem if they tried to put the longer fingers on the heads so the part number would have to be different and the heads would have to be changed too. So since you have the software for the 2004 what was the rocker ratio on the 2003 ? 2:1 right? If someone else here has some escape cams off a 2000-2003 and also have some stock cams 2.5 check the difference if you can.
http://easylink.playstream.com/burritasvt/svtcamsagainstescape.wvx
this is video of me checking the cams now I had to rush to save space on the web but I can clearly show that my caliper shows a difference. Now Dom I would not be wasting my time here if I wasn't sure of what I measured now you are porbably right that ford changed the cams in 2004 but Bill who did not have time said he would get the specs tomorrow. It seems ford is trying to only stock the newer cams even for the older engine if they show the same part number. Now can you see from the video how I can say there was a difference lift. Dom I will even send you the two cams the SE cams and the Escape if you don't believe me. I am serious I don't need them then you can use your calipers and own hands to see that the older 3 liters do not show as much lift. Now both these motors only have 50k them and the SE has 100k joey

Don't laugh at my accent ........lol

Ok. First off the specs of every different model (i.e. 1995-2000 Contour SE and 98-00 SVT, 96-03 Taurus/Sable/Escape 3.0L DOHC) are all the same. I really don't understand where your measurements are off - I measured SVT cams with 120K on them. I measured 05 Taurus cams with 10K on them. The Rocker ratio goes like this:

1995-2000 Contour V6 incl SVT - 1.8:1
1996-2003 Taurus Duratec 1.8:1
2004-2005 Taurus Duratec 2.0:1

Only those 2 last years have the higher ratio rocker setup. I did some background research and found everything except the cams to be the same part #. I feel there is a missing piece of information - However I'm having a hard time finding it. I'm going to research deeper since I have DVD manuals to 2007 and follow the 500 and Fusion further. Perhaps that may shed some light on things...

-Dom

P.S. I have no problem with your accent. I work with thick accented people - No biggie. I believe your cam measurements at face value - However a .020 difference is hard to swallow - Perhaps a .002 difference - sure. Unless you are working with severely degraded camshafts I will print the screen of the 2002 cam specs so you can see what the factory lists.

[BurritaSVT]

Ok. First off the specs of every different model (i.e. 1995-2000 Contour SE and 98-00 SVT, 96-03 Taurus/Sable/Escape 3.0L DOHC) are all the same. I really don't understand where your measurements are off - I measured SVT cams with 120K on them. I measured 05 Taurus cams with 10K on them. The Rocker ratio goes like this:

1995-2000 Contour V6 incl SVT - 1.8:1
1996-2003 Taurus Duratec 1.8:1
2004-2005 Taurus Duratec 2.0:1

Only those 2 last years have the higher ratio rocker setup. I did some background research and found everything except the cams to be the same part #. I feel there is a missing piece of information - However I'm having a hard time finding it. I'm going to research deeper since I have DVD manuals to 2007 and follow the 500 and Fusion further. Perhaps that may shed some light on things...

-Dom

P.S. I have no problem with your accent. I work with thick accented people - No biggie. I believe your cam measurements at face value - However a .020 difference is hard to swallow - Perhaps a .002 difference - sure. Unless you are working with severely degraded camshafts I will print the screen of the 2002 cam specs so you can see what the factory lists.

Now knowing how much I am about measurements I can't stress enough that the caliper is good because I do all my checks with it. Now the chances of me getting a 50k escape motor that was in mint condition and a taurus motor with 60k with worn cams is really hard to believe since they are roller cams and not old push rods ones. Plus the SVT and SE cams both have 100k plus each so if any cam would be worn it would be the 2.5 liter. I wish I would have saved all my other 3 liter cams I will post this on CEG if someone has a 2003 ealier 3 liter and SE or SVT cams to do a measurements. Now if you had some 2003 ealier yourself you can check them there.

From your experience do you think the rocker ratio can be different when the fingers are the same length please measure the 3 liter head with a lifter in there to the top of the cam what distance you have there? I will measure the head here from the taurus and escape to see if the distance is the same. Because if they are the same then the ratio must be the same since the only way to get more swing or push is to extend the distance from the pivot point the lifter. Agree?

[BurritaSVT]

The distance I have from the top of th valve (center) to the top of the lifter(center) is 1.75" exact on taurus and the escape.

[buckeyesvt]

Now knowing how much I am about measurements I can't stress enough that the caliper is good because I do all my checks with it. Now the chances of me getting a 50k escape motor that was in mint condition and a taurus motor with 60k with worn cams is really hard to believe since they are roller cams and not old push rods ones. Plus the SVT and SE cams both have 100k plus each so if any cam would be worn it would be the 2.5 liter. I wish I would have saved all my other 3 liter cams I will post this on CEG if someone has a 2003 ealier 3 liter and SE or SVT cams to do a measurements. Now if you had some 2003 ealier yourself you can check them there.

From your experience do you think the rocker ratio can be different when the fingers are the same length please measure the 3 liter head with a lifter in there to the top of the cam what distance you have there? I will measure the head here from the taurus and escape to see if the distance is the same. Because if they are the same then the ratio must be the same since the only way to get more swing or push is to extend the distance from the pivot point the lifter. Agree?

Here's the 2002 Specs for an Escape (should match your cams).

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/03specs.jpg

I believe Bill won't be able to answer the question - But I can take a look as well when I get down to the shop later this week (not my full time job). Like I said I will do some further looking into it to find out why the specs changed and see if the newer 500's with the same engine have the same specs.

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

Yeah by the book it saids just what you say but I would not put my money on that figure yet. Heck now I want to buy someone's old cams off the escape to see the measurements on them just to compare more. I am thinking Dom that if the heads are different making the Rocker arm ratio better (if it right in the book but contradicts parts numbers) the SVT cams in the engine or the SE or the orginal will perform great.

Now knowing the cams have less lift in the motor I will be testing the intakes on the numbers all around will be less. So since the test is to see what intake allows the Escape cams to flow up top better or even all around I will continue to put the engine together but I personally think the SE cams will be a nice around cam or the 2004 since they both have the same lift based on the ratio we find out is true or not on the older 2001 heads.

Now if this engine breaks 200whp then I love to see what SE cams or even SVT cams would but I must return the car to chicago.

We are just testing the issue will the intakes make the torque curve or is the cams. The cams will be another seperate dyno maybe with a another car since I am not going to swap cams once the motor is in. joey

[buckeyesvt]

Funny, we've already broken 200WHP with one a week or so ago. Here's the dyno sheets comparing all my 3L's (except the highest output one - I didn't build but it is setup like mine is with same fuel system mods - I provided the design).

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/3L-comparisons3.jpg

Now, this is set on SAE - We have no issue being under 200WHP on the others because they are what? Less than 3hp and less than .9 HP away?..lol Those are stock installations with no modifications but gutted precats and a short ram intake. The car that did higher had a CAI, MSDS Headers, BAT Hi-Flo Y-pipe and Borla Exhaust. That's it - And a great tune. Nice numbers and the HP peak on the engine opened up pushed further out in the RPM band.. follow the line.

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

So what are the stock motors putting down with just a factory tune since I see you leaned the car way out. What gains you were able to get from the tunes which I see made a nice difference at least I would expect due to the factory tune being moderate timing and fatter fuel curves? The numbers seem to be very good like the motor is making 230 with gutted cats and cold air and a good tune too. That seems to be right on what I would have expected too. Has anyone done a dyno with all the stock components and no tune yet? I think probably not since it would be crazy to put the restrictive precats back in too. Do you have to make a tune the 2005 engine because of mods you added because the other swaps I have seen will run just fine without but of course we all know they are not gaining all the power they deserve too?

Don't at all take this is as I am proving a point either I am just curious since you have done the first 2005 engine and I appreciate you coming out with the info too. Heck Dom if the engine proves itself to be the better engine because of the timing components then guess what I am to recommend the newer motor. But I am hopefully like you I need hard facts (caliper measurements) which are real world facts to make me believe the engine is worth going out its way for. And if I swap out intakes and there is no lose down low and a better topend then I guess I personally being I like the SVT or SE topend power would stick with the better looking manifold ( I repeat my opinion so far) and also for people who want a easy swap too. If you find out anything new on the cams why they are measuring out different from what they should be let me know. Oh I forgot to tell you that I check my calipers against the drill bits to see how accurate they are plus I used them to drill out the fuel rail holes for O-rings (dead-on). Later joey

[BurritaSVT]

Oh I forgot to ask measure the pivot point from the lifter to the roller versus the older one so we can see who is wrong Ford Parts Dept or Ford Service book. Thanks

[warmonger]

I believe I have the same setup as RevPoJay minus the supercharger if anyone would like to see the dyno graph.

Yes Please!
;)

[buckeyesvt]

Oh I forgot to ask measure the pivot point from the lifter to the roller versus the older one so we can see who is wrong Ford Parts Dept or Ford Service book. Thanks

I can do that, I have no problem with it - Perhaps tomorrow night when I go down to my shop to finish up one car I will set one on my desk and do the measurements (with pics).

I'm going to say this as I know I am the only one speaking from experience here on the new motors. If I pull my chip and allow the factory tune to come back into play - And I video it, it's ugly. I have dyno plots of before tune I can post for you (In SAE) if you'd like to see how much these engines are badly in need of a tune because the SVT tune is horrible (not to mention the car doesn't want to move until the IMRC kicks open (not equipped) and then the car takes off like a rocket.

Would you like me to post that untuned graph at lunch?

-Dom

[warmonger]

Lol, wow. You and Tom have picked apart EVERYTHING I've done and come out with proving you are right. The moment it turns and things look bad it's personal? You were wrong - Admit it. You measured incorrectly and I called you on it. Get over it. It was the basis for the whole SVT stuff is better - Your major point (.020 more lift - 15% more flow through heads). Bunk, all of it. I think the people need to know that instead of what you posted in reality it wasn't more lift at all. Retract your statements of gains instead of allowing me to do it for you.

Here's my source of all my data - A Ford DVD I bought.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/04specs.jpg

Read "Rocker Ratio". And cam lift specs... etc etc. I'm not making things up, I did the work and showed all the proof with pictures. You thought I was going to let all that earlier stuff slide? Sure, maybe on here because it's frowned upon. Not elsewhere - You belong on FCO, I see your screen name and watch you look around - How about posting on their instead of here? Huh? Maybe I should delete your account for purposely trolling for information (which I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one happy to do so). If you weren't concerned about what you were saying / doing you wouldn't care one bit about what I said or did. You do - Reaction says everything. Stop whining.

I posted my info so everyone who thought "Gee, I need to get SVT cams because they offer more lift" didn't go out and waste their money for nothing.

That's a community service, not posted to spite you. Perhaps if you weren't guilty of dragging me through the mud earlier - I wouldn't be on your case would I?

-Dom

I hope that manual isn't like a Haynes Manual....i.e incorrect.
I would think the part numbers and replacement part numbers would be the way to tell. If the newer part number on a 2005 head for a rocker arm can be retrofitted to a 2001 or earlier head, then it has to have the same rocker arm ratio since the head would have to be different. To get a 2:1 lift from a 1.8:1 lift would require an increase in the overall length from hydraulic lash adjuster to valve stem, there's no way around that.
That means the heads themselves or the adjusters would have to be different and then the part numbers could not be interchangeable.

[warmonger]

Yeah by the book it saids just what you say but I would not put my money on that figure yet. Heck now I want to buy someone's old cams off the escape to see the measurements on them just to compare more. I am thinking Dom that if the heads are different making the Rocker arm ratio better (if it right in the book but contradicts parts numbers) the SVT cams in the engine or the SE or the orginal will perform great.

Now knowing the cams have less lift in the motor I will be testing the intakes on the numbers all around will be less. So since the test is to see what intake allows the Escape cams to flow up top better or even all around I will continue to put the engine together but I personally think the SE cams will be a nice around cam or the 2004 since they both have the same lift based on the ratio we find out is true or not on the older 2001 heads.

Now if this engine breaks 200whp then I love to see what SE cams or even SVT cams would but I must return the car to chicago.

We are just testing the issue will the intakes make the torque curve or is the cams. The cams will be another seperate dyno maybe with a another car since I am not going to swap cams once the motor is in. joey

Don't foget we can't discount the fact that the sole difference between the Kremits dynos is the escape or SVT cams. There is NO WAY the torque can be that much lower even outside the peak rpm point unless something is different. This information is what drove us to start checking the cam lobe heights and Voila! what do you know? the measured difference on your escape cams, not even the same set I was using in Kremits car are measuring lower.
We need one more set of escape and one more set of taurus cams measured in the 2001-2003 range and see if they are measuring lower across the board.

Despite Dom being the way he is, it is good information if the newer 2004+ cams are actually the same lift as the 2.5L cams. If all of them are supposed to be the same then I wonder why we have two sets indicating and showing lower lift.

And Dom if you compare the two cams and do a simple calculation between our escape cams and our SVT cams then you'd see through calculation that there is a 13% potential increase in airflow....definitely enough to explain why Kremits car was much reduced in power.
I think the escape cam's specs are fine but the performance was sub-par.

[warmonger]

I can do that, I have no problem with it - Perhaps tomorrow night when I go down to my shop to finish up one car I will set one on my desk and do the measurements (with pics).

I'm going to say this as I know I am the only one speaking from experience here on the new motors. If I pull my chip and allow the factory tune to come back into play - And I video it, it's ugly. I have dyno plots of before tune I can post for you (In SAE) if you'd like to see how much these engines are badly in need of a tune because the SVT tune is horrible (not to mention the car doesn't want to move until the IMRC kicks open (not equipped) and then the car takes off like a rocket.

Would you like me to post that untuned graph at lunch?

-Dom

If you want to go ahead. I think we are already in agreement that they need a tune badly. The maf and injectors are not compatible and if you are using those cams and intake then the timing curve is nowhere right in the SVT tune.

If using the SVT PCM, the split port intakes and cams, injectors and maf then the tune will run fine on a 3L albeit not perfect though.

[SpookSVT]

I'd trust factory measurements before my own. Look at the lobe profiles, they are clearly different. This will have more effect than small lift improvements. What necessitates more lift anyway?

13% increase in airflow or flow area? BIG difference...

[buckeyesvt]

I hope that manual isn't like a Haynes Manual....i.e incorrect.
I would think the part numbers and replacement part numbers would be the way to tell. If the newer part number on a 2005 head for a rocker arm can be retrofitted to a 2001 or earlier head, then it has to have the same rocker arm ratio since the head would have to be different. To get a 2:1 lift from a 1.8:1 lift would require an increase in the overall length from hydraulic lash adjuster to valve stem, there's no way around that.
That means the heads themselves or the adjusters would have to be different and then the part numbers could not be interchangeable.

Ford Technician DVD, same as used in the service departments in most Ford dealers. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's gospel, but it should be pretty darn close.

Don't foget we can't discount the fact that the sole difference between the Kremits dynos is the escape or SVT cams. There is NO WAY the torque can be that much lower even outside the peak rpm point unless something is different. This information is what drove us to start checking the cam lobe heights and Voila! what do you know? the measured difference on your escape cams, not even the same set I was using in Kremits car are measuring lower.
We need one more set of escape and one more set of taurus cams measured in the 2001-2003 range and see if they are measuring lower across the board.

Despite Dom being the way he is, it is good information if the newer 2004+ cams are actually the same lift as the 2.5L cams. If all of them are supposed to be the same then I wonder why we have two sets indicating and showing lower lift.

And Dom if you compare the two cams and do a simple calculation between our escape cams and our SVT cams then you'd see through calculation that there is a 13% potential increase in airflow....definitely enough to explain why Kremits car was much reduced in power.
I think the escape cam's specs are fine but the performance was sub-par.

I think it is important to mention that I am not in agreement that the cams measure differently. They are all "Presta" cams (same manufacturer) and the specs as far back as I go are the same. That is my position on that subject, however on the sub-par performance of the camshafts you have introduced many variables into the mix to exactly point to one issue. Just so I'm clear - All 3L cams and all 2.5L cams have the same lift specs per Ford. Bill will only back this up when he posts the technicians "reference" which I have posted above. How you came to 2 different measurements? No clue? I can't answer that - I don't have a set of Escape cams laying around to compare (tossed long ago).

If you want to go ahead. I think we are already in agreement that they need a tune badly. The maf and injectors are not compatible and if you are using those cams and intake then the timing curve is nowhere right in the SVT tune.

If using the SVT PCM, the split port intakes and cams, injectors and maf then the tune will run fine on a 3L albeit not perfect though.

I would agree with you on this point. I think if you install a hybrid with all stock parts then it will drive "ok", but leave alot on the table. First issue is fueling, stock fuel trims are too "rich" and tend to push the engine below 10.5AFR over 5,000RPM's. I have consistant data to back that up. More modified engines with freer flowing exhausts and intake setups may alleviate some of that concern - However there is still alot of fuel wasted.

In order to do either engine right - Tuning is required. Just ignoring the fact that it needs tuned because it runs "fine" is merely no more than ignoring a CEL when it comes on. There's a problem, but if it doesn't affect driveability it must not exist - Blind foolishness there.

P.S. I posted the SAE graphs, the HP/TQ didn't change much but 3HP or less. I don't see the fasination with it when most local shops refuse to use it because it's averaged "lowball" numbers as they put it. Government regulated "measurement standards" aren't exactly set up to be "reality" in most cases. Are they? They state it's fine for manufacturers to use so "Joe Customer" that buys his Mazda Miata rated at 140HP doesn't dyno it and end up with 130HP and whine up a storm (like what happened that changed the auto industry measurement specs in the first place). How can you apply that same logic to the aftermarket community and tuners as well when they aren't turning out 100,000 engines rated at the same power? Believe what you want - STD #'s are not inflated - They are correct numbers. SAE #'s are PC (Politically Correct). Choose what you like...

-Dom

[svtnupe]

Yes Please!
;)

Here it is. Sorry, no AFR plot.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4209/contourdynoplotts9.jpg

[buckeyesvt]

Confirmed by Bill Jenkins, rockers changed in 2003 (to new style) and all remaining applications backwards were replaced with the new design. Hence the different but same question...

I have both styles at the shop and will measure them tonight. Hopefully I can shed some light on this somemore.

Here's some of my dyno graphs before tune... ugly.

http://www.fordcontour.org/uploads/Tunebase.jpg

Look at my AFR!!! Ugly!

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

Well I just received the some techinical sheets from Bill Jenkins on all the engines in question. It matched your data from what you posted eariler. Now I will say that the cams Bill Said were changed in 2004 different part numbers so therefore the picture I am drawing up right now is this. Based on my hard fact (no-paper) the factory was making the 3 liters only for all the taurus and escape identical when they were assembled and if I get one person to verfiy that the 2.5 liter or 2004 cams are larger than the earlier 3 liters by measuring it with calipers then I know what they did I think. It seems they know that the duratec can run the larger lift so since the newer engines were using them it makes sense to run the newer ones as replacements. But Really scares me is that there was not a attached note saying" must change all rockers or vice versa cams" this would make the engine run uneven scary. This only applies if the two cams I measured under 50k miles were not worn like I would imagine they would since the bearings were in mint condition.

The rollers we will see once you get the measurements tonite but it seems weird that the even have the 2.5 liter all the way back to 1996-2005 for the replacements. I really hope they did increase the ratio but it would suck for the guys who lack lift now. I can see myself buying the motor just for the rollers and the cams if they are larger too. Thanks for helping clear up the cloudy records here. Ford makes me wonder sometimes.......lol

Now I can see that being the stock numbers figuring the drivetrain loss because the stock numbers on the motor with no mods is 201hp based on the drivetrain loss at 178whp. Th SVT is the 169whp for SVT at 200hp stock so a 9whp gain and maybe a 15hp gain on the gutted cat is usual for most duratecs I think so far. But it is very obvious the car picked up alot of power on the tune but even more than the 2.5 liter since the bigger engine will see higher nymbers on mods anyway. So from your post someone would be a fool not to put a tune in the car because you are leaving almost 25whp on the plate without it. Thanks for the info Joey

[Aveman]

Over two years ago, before doing my swap of a 01 Taurus 3L I asked if I should go with SE cams or 3L cams as I didn't have SVT cams available to me. DemonSVT recommended SE cams, I looked up the specs on his website and they seemed more aggressive.


Here is the page.

Duratec Engine Specifications (http://g.lindholm.home.mchsi.com/Cars/Info/EngSpecs.html)

Lift seems to be listed at the same for all cams, which I guess is wrong now?

Here is a dyno with the SE cams, torque still falls off at the end but peak HP seems good.

Motor is port matched with SVT intakes, 65MM TB, MSDS headers and 2.5" exhaust.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t81/Aveman/Dyno1.jpg

[Aveman]

Would be really interesting to see a SVT camed or SE camed 3L upgraded to 04+ rockers on the dyno to see how much of a difference it makes? Assuming is fits right in. Nice find either way.

[warmonger]

Here it is. Sorry, no AFR plot.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4209/contourdynoplotts9.jpg

THANKS!

Now I hope everyone looks at this good because we have the other piece of the puzzle in my opinion. This is a full ovalport 3L with the ovalport manifolds and escape cams.
The low end is flat but that is somewhat explainable by the cams and definitely by the reduced timing in the low rpm range that the SVT tunes have due to dual port intake. However, the top end timing will be more aggressive and should show some nice gains even with the ovalport manifold
That isn't what we see here, we see that the torque drops off quite fast, even faster than those SE cams that were listed.
IMO that is a dead giveaway that the ovalport manifold does not support good flow much above 5200rpm.
-escape cams paired with the dual runner intake manifold still produce a pretty flat torque curve with a slight rish where the two humps are and with an additional rise in the middle where the cams are optimimal. The they hold on to the airflow through 6000rpm.
Now 3L with SVT cams: if it were the cams that determine the torque curve then this would should a broad top-end torque curve but it does not. It follows the standard ovalport dyno's in much of its characteristics.
Now look at the torque and power. The overall values are lower than we normally see and lower than the SE cams also shown here. I'm 99% convinced that this is due to the ovalport escape cams being lower in lift even though the literature doesn't reflect it.
Also in my opinion, this is the 2nd engine with escape cams that shows just generally lower torque values and combined along with Joeys escape cams shows a third set of cams that if used in an engine would dyno lower too.
Honestly, I'm swap for the SVT or even SE manifold at this point and see what happens.

We also need someone to measure the Taurus cams to see if they are indeed the same as the escapes when it comes to lift.

[warmonger]

[QUOTE=Aveman;1352546]Over two years ago, before doing my swap of a 01 Taurus 3L I asked if I should go with SE cams or 3L cams as I didn't have SVT cams available to me. DemonSVT recommended SE cams, I looked up the specs on his website and they seemed more aggressive.


Here is the page.

Duratec Engine Specifications (http://g.lindholm.home.mchsi.com/Cars/Info/EngSpecs.html)

Lift seems to be listed at the same for all cams, which I guess is wrong now?

Here is a dyno with the SE cams, torque still falls off at the end but peak HP seems good.

Motor is port matched with SVT intakes, 65MM TB, MSDS headers and 2.5" exhaust.

I don't think the torque falls off that bad but it is a bit less than the typical extrude honed SVT manifolds and cams show. There have been SVTs that show the same though so what you have is quite good and as Joey and I were speculating, it is probably the best all around cam for better low end and midrange. We that cam and intake setup you are running will be ideal for a 3L forced induction too to be honest...at least as far as contours/cougars go.

[warmonger]

Directed to Buckeye about untuned 3L:

Yeah a tune definitely cleaned that up pretty nice. I still think more can be done in the low end to clean up the flat spot in the torque.
I'm wondering if they didn't make any significant timing changes down low?

I developed a pretty good approximation of what a performance timing curve for an ovalport should look like after going over about half a dozen pcm codes from both Taurus/escape, SE, and SVT cars. Then I plugged them all into excel and now I can plug them into my performance tunes for when someone is using ovalport intakes and cams. The new timing curves is definitely quite different from what the standard contour/cougar/svt engines have.

[SpookSVT]

SVT cams make more power because of better lobe profile/timing points, NOT lift. More valve curtain can reduce velocity if too big. More 'open' time allows more filling potential. SE and SVT cams have the same lift, no? What makes the SVT's 'better' then?

The resonace wave is obviously tuned for ~4.5K RPM as characteristic with the oval manifolds runner length. That has nothing to do flow area/potential. Revisit the calcs for port area as mentioned earlier, both are too big. Resonance tuning just gives a 'bump' in VE at a predetermined point. It is very limited in range (only ~1000RPM). Therefore, it's effects on peak power are near minimal unless tuned in the vicinity of peak HP RPM.

We need a 'hot', non-phased cam combination for the oval port to allow breathing up top. It is not an area or resonance problem.

[buckeyesvt]

I agree with Spook, I did the measurements. There is no difference and I will put money on the fact the Escape cams measure exactly the same. I know that everyone hates a killjoy - But where are we going with this?

Let's recap:


SVT camshafts have no more lift than SE, Escape, Taurus and Sable camshafts (1996-2003)
2004+ 3.0L camshafts have .001 more lift and a revised rocker ratio of 2.0:1
All 2.5L and 3.0L engines till 2004 are all 1.8:1 rocker ratio.


I'm not sold on the manifold idea, it doesn't fit when other engines like the Mazda 6, Mondeo ST220 and other manufacturers are using the similar style oval port dual plane intake with no issue. Instead of focusing only on the intake design itself perhaps it's wise to look beyond the old parts. I think the important thing here is the cams and their role in how the engine responds and behaves. I don't feel the SVT cams are the "best" solution as they are a compromise due to their original engine design (split port) and the lobe phasing for different velocities. Don't discount other "design criteria" as these factors also pose "benefits and drawbacks" for making proper power. So far, we've got a good midrange cam (3L) that is low on the bottom and falls off after 5500RPM but makes driving on open roads with corners fun without having to downshift to 5500+ to rocket out. Then we've got the SVT cams that provide a flat torque curve however no real midrange and peaky HP that is attainable after the 3L cams fall off around 5300+ RPM. Great if you like staying at 5500RPM + so you stay in the power band... However that's not realistic for everyday driving. Midrange torque is alot more valueable than low end torque especially for track use and road courses. Drag racing is probably where the SVT cams would shine, as only when you are at 5300+ RPM would you actually be able to tap into that power. Unfortunately that power runs out quickly in less than 1500RPM. So unless you extend your rev band out to 7500 RPM (which in that case the HP would fall off regardless) it's no use.

I think we need another option for camshafts... Honestly both are not "the best" as the SVT camshafts really don't show the true performance of the 3L and the 3L camshafts are still pretending we're pulling a car and a half of what it is...lol :rofl:

Anyone else?

-Dom

[BurritaSVT]

I agree with Spook, I did the measurements. There is no difference and I will put money on the fact the Escape cams measure exactly the same. I know that everyone hates a killjoy - But where are we going with this?

Let's recap:


SVT camshafts have no more lift than SE, Escape, Taurus and Sable camshafts (1996-2003)
2004+ 3.0L camshafts have .001 more lift and a revised rocker ratio of 2.0:1
All 2.5L and 3.0L engines till 2004 are all 1.8:1 rocker ratio.


I'm not sold on the manifold idea, it doesn't fit when other engines like the Mazda 6, Mondeo ST220 and other manufacturers are using the similar style
val port dual plane intake with no issue. Instead of focusing only on the intake design itself perhaps it's wise to look beyond the old parts. I think the important thing here is the cams and their role in how the engine responds and behaves. I don't feel the SVT cams are the "best" solution as they are a compromise due to their original engine design (split port) and the lobe phasing for different velocities. Don't discount other "design criteria" as these factors also pose "benefits and drawbacks" for making proper power. So far, we've got a good midrange cam (3L) that is low on the bottom and falls off after 5500RPM but makes driving on open roads with corners fun without having to downshift to 5500+ to rocket out. Then we've got the SVT cams that provide a flat torque curve however no real midrange and peaky HP that is attainable after the 3L cams fall off around 5300+ RPM. Great if you like staying at 5500RPM + so you stay in the power band... However that's not realistic for everyday driving. Midrange torque is alot more valueable than low end torque especially for track use and road courses. Drag racing is probably where the SVT cams would shine, as only when you are at 5300+ RPM would you actually be able to tap into that power. Unfortunately that power runs out quickly in less than 1500RPM. So unless you extend your rev band out to 7500 RPM (which in that case the HP would fall off regardless) it's no use.

I think we need another option for camshafts... Honestly both are not "the best" as the SVT camshafts really don't show the true performance of the 3L and the 3L camshafts are still pretending we're pulling a car and a half of what it is...lol :rofl:

Anyone else?

-Dom


What is your address i will send you the cams Friday both Escape and Taurus and if you really think that the .020 will wear then cams or made of butter. Did you put calipers on a 2001 escape and 2001 taurus. Well you will now and do it on video when you get them. So basically you are saying I don't know how to caliper cams because I will get a 1/2 drill bit or any reference point you want me to to do and show you my calipers are precise. I will be out for a few days so let me know if you want to verify my two sets here .Joey

[buckeyesvt]

I'm not implying you can't measure, however I find it "extremely odd" that every other camshaft has measured exactly to spec and your one set didn't. That's all. Perhaps I need to reach out and find a set of 2001 Taurus camshafts (same as Escape) and measure them. If you'd like to send me your camshafts - I'm all for it. Just PM me for my address, I'll take a look at them and video/photo the results.

-Dom

[cpapashley]

Feel free to delete this question if it really does not fit the current debate well, but...

I have read through that SAE paper on the 2.0l duratec, and note the comment that "...this shows the sensitivity of this engine to both intake and exhaust tuning...".

I cannot see for the life of me why so much time is being spent just on intake, when one comment stands out that above 6,000rpm the intake charge was being drawn directly across the chamber to the exhaust port. Would it not be possible that the difference between the svt cams vs the others is to compensate for this draw across.

Now I am nowhere near as up with this stuff as all you guys are, and I read with great interest as this debate continues, but might it not be that as the revs rise the tribute type cams do just that and effectively promote the loss of charge due to overlap, whereas the vvt on the mazda6 etc and the svt grind stop this from occurring?

Hence making the discussion about the intake somewhat mute....


As I said if this does not help the discussion happy for the comment to go as I do not want to stop the current discussion.

[svtnupe]

THANKS!

Now I hope everyone looks at this good because we have the other piece of the puzzle in my opinion. This is a full ovalport 3L with the ovalport manifolds and escape cams.
The low end is flat but that is somewhat explainable by the cams and definitely by the reduced timing in the low rpm range that the SVT tunes have due to dual port intake. However, the top end timing will be more aggressive and should show some nice gains even with the ovalport manifold
That isn't what we see here, we see that the torque drops off quite fast, even faster than those SE cams that were listed.
IMO that is a dead giveaway that the ovalport manifold does not support good flow much above 5200rpm.
-escape cams paired with the dual runner intake manifold still produce a pretty flat torque curve with a slight rish where the two humps are and with an additional rise in the middle where the cams are optimimal. The they hold on to the airflow through 6000rpm.
Now 3L with SVT cams: if it were the cams that determine the torque curve then this would should a broad top-end torque curve but it does not. It follows the standard ovalport dyno's in much of its characteristics.
Now look at the torque and power. The overall values are lower than we normally see and lower than the SE cams also shown here. I'm 99% convinced that this is due to the ovalport escape cams being lower in lift even though the literature doesn't reflect it.
Also in my opinion, this is the 2nd engine with escape cams that shows just generally lower torque values and combined along with Joeys escape cams shows a third set of cams that if used in an engine would dyno lower too.
Honestly, I'm swap for the SVT or even SE manifold at this point and see what happens.

We also need someone to measure the Taurus cams to see if they are indeed the same as the escapes when it comes to lift.

Warmonger...I get the impression from your post that you believe my 3L has Escape cams. Just to be clear, it has SVT cams.

[FastCougar]

With figures like yours, are you POSITIVE you have SVT cams? I don't think I have ever seen an SVT cammed 3L dyno that low in the HP department.

[svtnupe]

With figures like yours, are you POSITIVE you have SVT cams? I don't think I have ever seen an SVT cammed 3L dyno that low in the HP department.

Yes, 100% sure. Installed the cams myself from my blown SVT 2.5L.

Believe me, I was quite disappointed with the numbers after I left Dave's Dyno. I'm tempted to get it dyno'ed again locally to see if the numbers are the same. Not sure if this would play in to the performance but my 3L block and heads were purchased brand spanking new (2001). Very, very few miles on the engine when it was dyno tuned. If I recall correctly, when they did the baseline run, both torque and horsepower were in the high 170's and when they finished this was the best they did. I will add that they claimed their wideband 02 sensor wasn't working. I may have pissed $400 in to the wind.

[FastCougar]

I made roughly the same numbers on a Mustang Dyno ... with 8.8:1 CR, 80mm MAF, #42 injectors, max flowed SVT UIM, 70mm TB running through "Monster" turbo cut heads by Kinger! That's a receipt for HORRIBLE numbers running naturally aspirated, yet I dynoed 175HP/161lbft ... with a rather nice flat torque curve. I obviously made less torque due to the heads & intake setup, but take a look:

http://www.newcougar.org/gallery/files/1/6/20070813_Dyno_Run_03.gif

Was this done on a Mustang or DynoJet dyno?

[svtnupe]

Was this done on a Mustang or DynoJet dyno?

No clue on which type of dyno was used.

[FastCougar]

Wow, I'm such a noob :banghead:

The picture clearly shows it's a DynoJet. The reason for my asking is that DynoJet's are known to show more power for some reason (less rolling resistance ... no loading in some instances). Clearly there is a problem with your car and I think it's fair to say you need to get it tuned.

[svtnupe]

Wow, I'm such a noob :banghead:

The picture clearly shows it's a DynoJet.

I don't know why I didn't think to look at the graph.


Clearly there is a problem with your car and I think it's fair to say you need to get it tuned.

Or retuned! I've been driving it like this since Oct 2004.

[SpookSVT]

I cannot see for the life of me why so much time is being spent just on intake, when one comment stands out that above 6,000rpm the intake charge was being drawn directly across the chamber to the exhaust port. Would it not be possible that the difference between the svt cams vs the others is to compensate for this draw across.

Now I am nowhere near as up with this stuff as all you guys are, and I read with great interest as this debate continues, but might it not be that as the revs rise the tribute type cams do just that and effectively promote the loss of charge due to overlap, whereas the vvt on the mazda6 etc and the svt grind stop this from occurring?

You're referring to the overlap phase where intake charge is drawn across the chamber roof from the low pressure in the exhau