3L no IMRC vs split port IMRC [Archive]

RodneyBur

01-25-2006, 12:39 AM

I have yet to read anything proving or disproving any gains with leaving the secondaries in or removing them. Noone, to my knowledge, has done a pre and post dyno with the removal of the secondaries. At this point it is alot of theories and what ifs.

There is a 5 page thread on CEG debating this topic. Here is the link:

CEG THREAD (http://www.contour.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=3L&Number=1140214&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1)

I am about 75% sure that I will be removing my secondaries in my build. Only draw back I'm having is getting the holes welded which is going to cause me even more sanding and porting and polishing. I'm not sure if I want more of that. One of my reasons is the fact that I do not have a controller or cable. I was planning on buying them and installing the "puckpuck light". I have sinc then inspected my LIM and noticed (visually) how much air flow was actually being blocked by this thing.

I have two questions for those who say to keep them in:

1. The stock 3.0l does NOT come with them. Why put them on?

2. We are installing performance parts such as cams, SVT intakes, AEM intakes, exhaust, headers, etc etc in order to produce better airflow yet are retaining secondaries from a smaller displacement engine which impedes airflow (having stock design reasons). WHY keep them?? Wouldnt more air be better at ALL rpms as long as you can get the right air-fuel ratio at ALL rpms?

3. I can understand why a smaller engine would have them in if the purpose is to black of passage and keep the velocity up through the still opened passages while at lower RPMS. The 3.0 has extra air flow along with the addition of larger TB / piping / intake / machined heads wouldn't this surfice to keep the airflow stable at the lower RPMS?

4. We are basically upgrading the stock 3.0l with aftermarket and stock performance. If the 3.0 was in a tuarus it would still need tuning there and with the same method (chip, piggyback, etc). Why is tuning an issue when it is in a cougar / contour?

I think I provided more questions than answers, but no matter what I am probably still going to remove mine.

Logan Motorsports

01-25-2006, 12:52 AM

Tuning really isn't a problem if it's done right. For example on Jason's car (escape motor) I just basically turned his computer into an escape computer by loading all the timing and fuel tables from an escape computer. I turned off the IMRC's, basically just telling the computer that it didn't have any. It should be noted that IMRC's do tend to improve low end torque, but Jason's car made significantly more torque on the dyno than Ryan's car did, even though Ryan has IMRC's and Jason doesn't. This is mostly due to the intake design and the Escape cams in Jason's engine. Actually, Jason's engine outperformed Ryan's engine at every data point till about 5400 rpm. From there on Ryan's engine takes a big lead, eventually making about 13 more horsepower. Truth be told, Ryan's car would probably be alittle bit faster at the dragstrip assuming equal weight, and assuming you could keep his engine at higher RPM during the run. Jason's car is going to feel faster on the street however, and will be very well suited to the autocrossing that he intends the car for.

Basically it depends on what you want. Honestly modifying a fuel rail and EGR isn't very difficult, and it's alot easier than port matching.

jaged

01-25-2006, 12:54 AM

beat me to it

but ive got at least 100lbs of BBOX so ill be faster :biggrin:

RodneyBur

01-25-2006, 01:21 AM

beat me to it

but ive got at least 100lbs of BBOX so ill be faster :biggrin:

apperently you aren't fast enoguh though since he beat you to it. :)

Rikenbomb

01-25-2006, 01:34 AM

Demon SVT also covers this topic on his website. It's in Theories and such, IIRC.

If you haven't taken a look at DemonSVT's webpage then I suggest you do.

I think Blackcoog can help you out with fabbing up fuel rails and egr.

Full Escape, it has more torque (tuning is best here like jaged's car).

3L Hybrid, has more power (tuned of course).

Full 3L with port matched intake to SVT manifolds and SVT cams (best option). Obviously this is the most costly one at that (port matching, PnPing, adding in cams). However you're adding about another 30+ hp with this setup.

96blackse

01-25-2006, 01:41 AM

Why even bother with the EGR... You can just plug it and get your chip with no EGR...

Go with the oval port and if you really hate plastic intakes get some of these ;)

http://chat.carleton.ca/~nazeri/st220uim.jpg

http://chat.carleton.ca/~nazeri/st220uim1.jpg

:biggrin:

96blackse

01-25-2006, 01:47 AM

Full 3L with port matched intake to SVT manifolds and SVT cams (best option). Obviously this is the most costly one at that (port matching, PnPing, adding in cams). However you're adding about another 30+ hp with this setup.

Why do I think that port matching to SVT manifolds is a big waste of time???
I am sure you would see similar if gains if you just left the 3L intakes in place

RodneyBur

01-25-2006, 01:48 AM

Full Escape, it has more torque (tuning is best here like jaged's car).

3L Hybrid, has more power (tuned of course).

Full 3L with port matched intake to SVT manifolds and SVT cams (best option). However you're adding about another 30+ hp with this setup.

Isn't what you just said contradicting since HP is direct equation of torque? As torque increases so does HP up into when they cross at 5250. Then HP overtakes torque.

To got into a little more detail:

"Full Escape, it has more torque" . If it had more torque then it should have more HP unless it creates more toque at a lower RPM and drops off a little at higher RPMS.

"3L Hybrid, has more power ". More toque or more HP? It could have higher HP at higher RPMS but be producing lower torque all the way across the board.

"Full 3L with port matched intake to SVT manifolds and SVT cams (best option). However you're adding about another 30+ hp with this setup."
More HP, but what RPM and what does the torque curve look like?

RodneyBur

01-25-2006, 01:52 AM

Go with the oval port and if you really hate plastic intakes get some of these ;)

:biggrin:

Do you still have that off your car like that? Could you take some measurements for me?

Logan Motorsports

01-25-2006, 02:30 AM

I'm waiting for the guy who just scraps these upper intake manifolds and makes a sheetmetal intake. Since the LIM holds the injectors, it would be fairly straightforward.

RodneyBur

01-25-2006, 02:33 AM

there is actually a tublar one made already. I'm not sure if it is the same design you are picturing but it was a one off piece. It was for sale on ebay about 9 months or so ago. I have no idea where pictures would be but am sure someone on here would have them.

Rikenbomb

01-25-2006, 03:16 AM

Isn't what you just said contradicting since HP is direct equation of torque? As torque increases so does HP up into when they cross at 5250. Then HP overtakes torque.

To got into a little more detail:

"Full Escape, it has more torque" . If it had more torque then it should have more HP unless it creates more toque at a lower RPM and drops off a little at higher RPMS.

"3L Hybrid, has more power ". More toque or more HP? It could have higher HP at higher RPMS but be producing lower torque all the way across the board.

"Full 3L with port matched intake to SVT manifolds and SVT cams (best option). However you're adding about another 30+ hp with this setup."
More HP, but what RPM and what does the torque curve look like?

That's what I was saying smart guy, I didn't feel like being so elaborate. No I am not contradicting myself. I was simply reiderating what DeWayne was saying. Have you looked at the dyno plots of both these engines?

Blackcoog

01-25-2006, 08:46 AM

The past 7 SVT Contours I built all ran with the IMRC fooled with a spring and no tuning. I told the owners they may want to eventually get the car tuned but since they used the stock injectors and stock MAF it was able to compensate perfectly fine with the 3L in there. I've even had one dynoed before and it was almost dead on. I was a little pissed I paid for the dyno after that. The Cougars on the other hand need a chip no matter what if they go with a 3L because of the larger injectors.

RodneyBur

01-25-2006, 11:08 AM

are those 7 straight 3l then or was any of them using the 2.5 uim / lim with secondaries removed?

Blackcoog

01-25-2006, 11:17 AM

All are straight 3L's with 3L intakes. All are still running great. Power seems to be more than enough for most people.

StealthyWeasel

01-25-2006, 04:02 PM

I guess now that im looking towards the svt manifold-powerhouse idea, the next thing I have to ask is now I won't need an EGR/ fuel rail fab with the manifolds in place? what about the vaccuum lines in place on the uim? those remain the same? Lastly, how much will it cost me to have the heads ported to accept the intakes? I think I might have seen a ballpark number.. but for example how much do you charge blackcoog?

GrandMasterKhan

01-25-2006, 05:34 PM

I thinking of keeping the SVT uim (max eh) and run SVT cams with my 3.0 but w secondaries.

Though I am curious if running SVT cams with the oval port plastic intakes will flow any better than svt/setup. (no secondaries) Any issues with the variable profile SVT cams (different profiles between the valves for the secondaries)

StealthyWeasel

01-25-2006, 05:53 PM

Joe (mond12345) brought a good point to my attention (I knew it but it helps put the SVT cams into a power-gain perspective).

170 HP vs 200 HP SVT (in order of HP gain %)
1) Compression
2) SVT Cams
3) SVT manifolds

With that in mind, we can see that the SVT cams are important in making larger gains. However, after speaking with blackcoog on the subject, he had stated that 3L cams produce nice torque feel, while during daily driving is in uniform. The (top end) power production of SVT cams isn't noticed unless near the redline, on the dyno, etc. So, the 500 dollar (250 cams + 250 timing components) question is, do you want SVT cams that much?

At this point in time, I see that i'll be losing some horsepower not using svt cams. However, a split port 3L with 3L cams and SVT manifolds makes a little less power.. but a good daily driving feel, good torque, and less headache of needing all new timing crap. Plus you save 500 dollars.

No secondaries with SVT cams.. hmm.. I wonder?

mond12345

01-25-2006, 06:03 PM

From the SVT FAQ:

Full 30hp at the crank if using 2000 SVT pistons (10.25:1)- 25hp if using '98 or '99s (10.0:1)

StealthyWeasel

01-25-2006, 06:04 PM

I know I included that under the compression catagory.

ClaymoreWW

01-25-2006, 06:28 PM

From the SVT FAQ:

Full 30hp at the crank if using 2000 SVT pistons (10.25:1)- 25hp if using '98 or '99s (10.0:1)

I think the indirect point he is making is that, based on your 170-200hp comparison...virtually all of it comes from compression, leaving relatively little gains from the cams and intake.

Is something inconsistent here? What is the real story?

One other thing I was confused about ... the "full 3L" vs "3L hybrid" If the "full 3L" has svt intake and cams - then isnt that really a hybrid?

I can see what blackcoog said...a stock 3L is plenty of power for most people. Especially pointing out that the cam grind onthe SVTs is high-end and nearly always people use their engines at low-to-medium rpm.

Oh, one last thought...the split port and secondaries were probably designed into the 2.5 because the narrow passages of the split ports should flow air at a higher velocity, allowing the engine to rev faster at lower rpms. A full double-width intake may have bogged the car down too much, but the 3L was able to compensate for that with brute power.

Engine geniuses: feel free to point out my flaws.

--george

StealthyWeasel

01-25-2006, 06:31 PM

A hybrid is typically associated with 2.5 heads. I guess if im using 2.5 svt intakes im looking into doing a hybrid?

DanG

01-25-2006, 06:40 PM

More displacement = good

More displacement + SVT cams = better.

It's a hotter profile, more overlap, more top end power. The SVT engine spikes at high RPM due to the valve timing and overlap. You amplify what the SVT engine did by increasing the displacement to 3L. The curves should be comparible- Only the 3L w/SVT cams is offset higher, and the difference in oval port vs. split port will cause a slight shift (and no "bump" as the secondaries open).

The 3L hybrid is torquey down low (split ports = more incoming air velocity), then it falls off pretty quick compared to the full 3L. The full 3L's area under the curve is greater (cams being identical), so you're getting more power out of the motor by the time you're done. Most hybrids can get over 200fwhp, but they're lucky to see 180fwtq.

Djperico

01-25-2006, 06:48 PM

Good info Dan. For me I'm going full 3l oval port with 3l cams w/o the IMRC.

GrandMasterKhan

01-26-2006, 02:10 AM

What about Sable/Taurus cams? How do they compare to the Escape cams?

Blackcoog

01-26-2006, 08:16 AM

I was under the impression they were the same but I could be wrong.

jaged

01-26-2006, 08:21 AM

im not sure but i think they "should" be a bit different since the escape is 4 wheel drive and designed to pull stuff. So i would think that they would want to get more torque out of them. Have to talk to ford though and see what they say or check part numbers on FPO

mond12345

01-26-2006, 12:54 PM

Here are some 02 Specs for the Sable vs. Escape.

Sable:

Horsepower: 200 hp @ 5650 rpm

Torque: 200 ft-lbs @ 4400 rpm

Escape:

Horsepower: 201 hp @ 5900 rpm

Torque: 196 ft-lbs @ 4700 rpm

You can see theres some difference in the rpms where the max TQ and HP are reached between the two. BUT no big difference in the numbers for TQ.

Blackcoog

01-26-2006, 01:07 PM

They have differenent intake manifolds which could be the difference right there. The cams are in fact the same as shown on DemonSVT's site: http://home.kc.rr.com/newshore/Cars/Info/EngSpecs.html

The escape isn't a tow vehical which may be why they didn't change the cams. I looked into it for a tow vehical a while back it can only handle a class 2 hitch and below. It makes sense though. The 3L engine isn't really towing material.

J-Man

01-26-2006, 02:28 PM

Blackcoog

01-26-2006, 04:05 PM

They are the European Contour manifolds aren't they?

Rikenbomb

01-26-2006, 11:21 PM

I believe it is the new ST200 (or 2-whatever) Mondeo IM.

ilovemycar

01-26-2006, 11:28 PM

I believe it is the new ST200 (or 2-whatever) Mondeo IM.

ST220 isn't it?

Logan Motorsports

01-27-2006, 12:35 AM

that manifold would be nice since it's aluminum....hello heavy modifications. TIG welder anyone?!?!?

GrandMasterKhan

01-27-2006, 12:52 AM

I am thinking I might end up selling my Max Extrude SVT uim and optimized svt lim in favor of the Plastic uim/lim for the weight benefit. Anyone care to convince me otherwise?

I do want the max hp possible. I will be doing P&P as well as Svt cams.

96blackse

01-27-2006, 01:28 AM

The manifolds are indeed from an ST220

I beleive there are differences between escape and taurus cams
IIRC Taurus have green stripes? Escape orange

96blackse

01-27-2006, 01:31 AM

that manifold would be nice since it's aluminum....hello heavy modifications. TIG welder anyone?!?!?

Why the welder? It bolts right up :)

Logan Motorsports

01-27-2006, 01:36 AM

I dunno....cut that plenum off, build a custom one....port those runners...you know, hand-made horsepower!

DemonSVT

01-27-2006, 03:13 AM

I beleive there are differences between escape and taurus cams
IIRC Taurus have green stripes? Escape orange
You must be thinking Split port 3L cams vs Oval port 3L cams.

All split port Duratecs (2.5L or 3L) have the same cam profiles with the exception of the SVT.

All non-VVT oval port cams are the same.

There are two different sets of VVT oval port cams. One for the Jaguar and one for every thing else. The Jag cams have slightly less lift. I do not know the cam timing specs for the Jag cams. All the other specs are on my website and have been for years.

96blackse

01-28-2006, 12:29 PM

warmonger

01-31-2006, 10:23 AM

1.) Because you won't have a stock 3L when you are done. And because who wants a stock pedestrian 3L built for a people mover to be dropped into your sport cougar that originally had a more advanced intake system.

2.)More airflow at all rpms is definitely not the way to look at it. Too much airflow at any rpm means that it slows down the air velocity. You need to optimize your airflow velocity at all rpm for the best torque curve. Sometimes that means restricting the flow of air and is exactly why the duratec uses a split port manifold. If you have wide secondaries that open at the correct time then there is NO restriction to airflow!

3.) Not a clear question. Stability has nothing to do with it. You want to keep velocity up. A velocity versus rpm profile would ideally look like a flat table and would directly correlate with torque output, but in real life that doesn't happen

4.)Tuning. All this means for you is keeping the air fuel curve optimized for the highest, yet still safe, combustion temps. Calibration of your maf curve is the key. What the manufacturere deems safe for long term reliability is able to be sacrificed a little for shorter term high performance. We are talking in terms of half a million mile potential reliability for materials versus maybe only going 250K miles.
Tuning for timing, same thing, maximize power stroke, raise combustion pressure/temp.

All you really need to do is tune to the leanest air fuel that keeps temps under control, doesn't knock. THen add in timing as a component and balance more timing with more fuel to get the most safest power. A balancing act. THAT will yield more power, quite a bit more power without doing a damned thing to the engine.

**
So you think removing the secondaries will improve airflow?
With the 3L escape cams it would be fine. With duratec cams that will cost you some torque. Also, don't think because the secondaries are in the airflow stream that it will cost you power.
For example, you can change throttle body size fairly easily right? That throttlebody has a huge plate and shaft sitting in the airflow stream. If you just put on a bigger throttlebody you reduce the restriction despite that fact. Then if you keep going too big you do what.....you kill your performance.
So you can think of it as optimizing the amount of capable airflow, irregardless of velocity by increasing the cross sectional area of each intake runner. THis would be removing secondaries or widening them, or both.
OR, you could just make the runners bigger to accomodate the increase in airflow that you think you want. HOwever, any increase will decrease velocity as rpm drops.
And I'm talking about the whole intake path here, throttlebody to individual runner to individual valve! If you raise the size of all that then you are slowing down airspeed. If you have a controlled taper to the runners and the right size valve then you build up a LOT of momentum that will really improve air pressurizing the cylinder as rpm climbs. However, as rpm climbs you need even more air but it now starts to restrict incoming air too much to provide the right amount right? So you open up a second, bigger runner that adds more than twice the amount of air.
Easy. Now velocity stays up.
Do you want the recipe to improve your power? Increase gas flow velocity on the intake and on the exhaust.
Reduce the restriction BEFORE the throttle plates, reduce restriction AFTER your header pipes. Make those columns of gasses have momentum.
Optimize your A/F and timing.

Start understanding what you people do when you tamper with a calibrated air flow curve. Think in terms of proportionality: If you raise the displacement by 20% then you might want a 20% increase in flow capability, which might be a 20% increase in cross sectional are of your intake flow path, or it might only be 10% because you can increase the velocity a bit more.

<light bulbs going off...ideas????>

Aveman

01-31-2006, 02:35 PM

You must be thinking Split port 3L cams vs Oval port 3L cams.

All split port Duratecs (2.5L or 3L) have the same cam profiles with the exception of the SVT.

All non-VVT oval port cams are the same.

There are two different sets of VVT oval port cams. One for the Jaguar and one for every thing else. The Jag cams have slightly less lift. I do not know the cam timing specs for the Jag cams. All the other specs are on my website and have been for years.

It's because of your website that I put my stock 2.5 cams into my 01 3L instead of just running the 3L cams. Does an a 96-99 3L put down a similar dyno plot to a 01+ 3L? If it does how is that? It seems like the 96-99 cams are more aggresive so should net more power right? Or are there too many other variables that come into play?

GrandMasterKhan

01-31-2006, 09:05 PM

Logan Motorsports

01-31-2006, 11:42 PM

2.)More airflow at all rpms is definitely not the way to look at it. Too much airflow at any rpm means that it slows down the air velocity. You need to optimize your airflow velocity at all rpm for the best torque curve. Sometimes that means restricting the flow of air and is exactly why the duratec uses a split port manifold. If you have wide secondaries that open at the correct time then there is NO restriction to airflow!

3.) Not a clear question. Stability has nothing to do with it. You want to keep velocity up. A velocity versus rpm profile would ideally look like a flat table and would directly correlate with torque output, but in real life that doesn't happen

4.)Tuning. All this means for you is keeping the air fuel curve optimized for the highest, yet still safe, combustion temps. Calibration of your maf curve is the key. What the manufacturere deems safe for long term reliability is able to be sacrificed a little for shorter term high performance. We are talking in terms of half a million mile potential reliability for materials versus maybe only going 250K miles.
Tuning for timing, same thing, maximize power stroke, raise combustion pressure/temp.

All you really need to do is tune to the leanest air fuel that keeps temps under control, doesn't knock. Then add in timing as a component and balance more timing with more fuel to get the most safest power. A balancing act. THAT will yield more power, quite a bit more power without doing a damned thing to the engine.

2) I think you are using the wrong wording here. You ALWAYS want more airflow. Airflow is generally expressed (in America) by cubic feet per minute. Ideally you would have a very large intake tract/runner that also has incredibly high velocity. The large cross sectional area combined with the high velocity would enable the engine to eclipse 100% volumetric efficiency, in other words you would expierience slight cylinder pressure at BDC on a normally aspirated engine. In the real world however, an engine can only support a certain size runner at a certain RPM. I think it would be better to say, "you do not want an excessively large runner, as this would likely slow down airflow velocity". Likely is the key term here, because a properly designed intake with much larger runners can still produce more velocity and thus more torque. Old-school tunnel rams on V-8's are a very good example, as they produce more power everywhere in the curve due to high velocity (helps the low end) and large runner cross section (helps horsepower at high rpm). It is possible to have over 100% volumetric efficieny, it is just very difficult.

4) You don't want the highest combustion temps, you want the highest rise in combustion temps. Very high combustion temperatures merely make the piston/head/cylinder excessively hot, thereby negating any measureable increase in power due to higher temps. It's simple, just use:

pressure*volume = n*R*temp or PV=nRT

you have a starting temp, which is the temperature just before the spark plug fires, and then you have an ending temp, which is the temperature just after the spark plug fires. Volume is negligible in difference, and can be ignored, and n/R cancel (n is the number of moles, and the number of moles is constant once the valve is closed, R is the ideal gas law constant), leaving you with P1-P2=T1-T2. In other words the larger the difference between the starting and ending temperatures, the larger the increase in pressure, which then results in a larger force on the piston.

Also, you don't just want the leanest air-fuel that doesn't knock. Most well designed engines will run fine at a 14.0 air-fuel ratio and not knock. They make more power however, at a lower air-fuel, generally just under 13.0. Why do you think the Ford computer has an open loop and closed loop control? In closed loop the computer uses the O2 sensors to keep the engine at or around 14.7 air-fuel to maximize gas mileage. When the throttle is depressed beyond a certain point however, the computer switches to open loop commanding a 13.0 air-fuel ratio. The engine doesn't knock at 14.7, but when max power is needed they richen the mixture to make more power.

Thus, there is far more to tuning than just a "balancing act". If it were that easy everyone would be doing it. I don't just tune to make maximum horsepower, because sometimes the engine with the most horsepower gets beat by one with lower. How? There are many other things, like the engine's ability to rev, it's throttle response, the intended use of the vehicle, etc. I think you are on the right track, but just make sure you don't under-estimate the complexity of what is going on inside your engine. Men like Warren Johnson don't get where they are because they just know how to screw an engine together, they fully understand the dynamics associated with the combustion event.

nandalora

01-31-2006, 11:52 PM

Warmonger I thank you for that.

Given that I have the MAX etrude honed UIM and a fully knife edge and optimized LIM as well. It seems that going with this manifold setup will be most ideal with the SVT cams.
Duh!? I think this is old news GMK, but I'm glad you're planning on that setup....it is the best of course :biggrin:

warmonger

02-01-2006, 10:57 AM

2) I think you are using the wrong wording here. You ALWAYS want more airflow. Airflow is generally expressed (in America) by cubic feet per minute....................

What?? You sound like you are from the old school small block chevy generation. Not bad, just gotta add a few things. Your big block mentality just doesn't work on these engines, no offense to you on that part but everyone who has approached these engines with that mentality has given up in frustration and not had good luck.
As for the rest: Obviously you don't even pay attention to your own equations. Oh, and thanks for the grade school lesson in units and chemistry. :rolleyes: You left a bunch out that my teachers hit on though.

Look, I see this as already turning into a "My car penis is bigger then yours" game. If you really want to, then be my guest, but I'd prefer not.
Also, you shouldn't overcomplicate something that should be simple, and oversimplify something that should be more complex.....
That is backward you see?? :banghead:

Airflow -- I mean what I said if taken in the right context. Once the piston moves down, there is only so much air volume that can go into the cylinder until it compresses. With N/A applications, that compression isn't going to happen until the piston speed starts to drop. There is a point where the piston will be moving fastest and will have created enough pressure drop to accelerate the air to its fastest speed with a given intake inlet size. When the piston starts to slow you want that air to have plenty of momentum to keep on pushing into the cylinder, ideally even after the piston has reached BDC and is on its way up. Simply put.
If you don't restrict the airflow then you will NEVER get the proper balance of air velocity (therefore momentum) and yet still get enough air volume in past the restriction. This is generally optimized by the designers (engineers), mess with this at your own risk. THE longer the column of air of a uniform size, the more moving mass and therefore more momentum. THe faster the air goes the more momentum. This velocity should be determined by piston speed and NOT by displacement. THe Volume req'd should be determined by displacement. THen you just change the size of the valve and intake passages accordingly to keep that velocity/volume ratio the highest you can.
I can think of many engines that exceed 100% VE at certain rpms, especially today, so it isn't as rare as you may think.
So yes, TOO MUCH air volume POTENTIAL may be a better word for it, but nothing I said was wrong.

As far as your air fuel ratios, you obviously haven't tuned enough of these duratecs yet.
The stock computer commands around 11.5:1
I've been compiling information on this engine platform in the contour for 6-7 years. I have hundreds of dyno's with air fuel and probably 50 of my own dynos with air fuel in Naturally aspirated and turbocharged form. I've also run nitrous on my 2.5L so I have experience there.
After compiling all this data, 13.2:1 seems to bet the safest N/A air fuel ratio that makes the most power and doesn't ping on 91 octane and using essentially the stock timing curve. Yes I've leaned it out as far as 14:1 under load without ping/det but then this engine has a knock sensor too.
The key is still to have the leanest air fuel ratio that causes NO timing pull (no knock/ping) which would reduce power, doesn't cause metal degradation, or injure the catalyst This is essentially the highest combustion temps allowed within the given constraints....what is so hard to understand about that?
So you go ahead and reinvent the wheel but this has already been proven multiple times. Any leaner does not make more power, any richer gives up power in exchange for combustion temps being lower.
All that said, you DO want higher combustion temps because you won't get your change in temp/pressure to be higher without that. There is a point that it is too hot and that is empiracly determined through power testing and changes in A/F while all else is held constant.
You also have to assume that those starting temps you are talking about are held the same by the coolant flow of the engine, no change in ambient temperature, etc. Those things are more or less constant enough that if you lean out the intake charge you will get higher combustion temps, a higher change in temp as you've so wonderfully illustrated.
I don't understand why you said I wasn't correct and then go about and add the math that helps lend credibility to what I said.
So: higher combustion temps that don't cause ping/knock/metals degradation are good. Yields more power.
Also, everything I stated is under load. YOU DO KNOW that Air fuel goes even leaner during drive, but did you also know that combustion temps can tend to go up as well? This if for BETTER FUEL ECONOMY, i.e. make more power on less fuel at a time when the engine can handle a leaner burn without melting anything. What if I told you that I measured EGT at the exhaust port outlet and found that at 15:1 A/F ratio average it is 550-650 Celcius continuous during cruise. That upon full throttle application the temps cool to about 500C then slowly climb upwards of 800C? This should tell you a lot. Convert those numbers to F if you are having trouble grasping the high temps that these engines can run at and suffer no damage.

Remember the CVCC Honda Engines? These were compound vortex controlled combustion. They were carbureted and ran an overall A/F ratio of like 16:1!
How did they do that?? Well they used good materials for the head and valves, but they would add fuel with a prechamber valve that was very rich, about 12:1 where they mixed a small amount of air with a small amount of fuel. THe rich a/f mixture vented right next to the plug allowing the plug to light it off easily. Then they used a normal intake and exhaust valve and ran a leaner mixture of around 16:1 in the primary barrel of the carburetor and through the main intake valve. This netted several things. Leaner burn, detonation resistant because the plug was kept cool by the incoming prechamber mixture, increased turbulence due to two intakes, one with cool charge and one with a hotter charge mixing, and overall higher combustion temps.
Power was very good for its day and fuel economy was something like 25/35 on a 1.8L engine.

This little story isn't to bore you, it is to tell you that nothing is carved in stone, there are mulitple ways to approach it, but that some basic principles always apply.

Use these little car-guy proverbs to help you out before you try to look smart at my expense:
1.) Adding more oxygen to a torch makes it burn hotter and hotter, more heat of combustion will give you your temperature rise,just don't go too high. :eek:

2.a) Drinking soda through a coffee stirrer as a straw is slow and painfull
2.b)Conversely, drinking soda through a piece of sawed off garden hose is equally bad as well (think of all that flow potential :eek: )
2.c) Drinking soda through a McDonalds straw is Just Right.... :cool:

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Tuning is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! It IS a balancing act of many components. There are different approaches true, but you must consider all effects if you want to have the best tune.
I choose to think that any normally intelligent person on this board who is given the tools and taught the right basic knowledge can easily become a very effective tuner.
All it is is a bunch of studying....on a subject that is really quite fun! :cool:

Logan Motorsports

02-01-2006, 12:47 PM

If you don't restrict the airflow then you will NEVER get the proper balance of air velocity

Again, YOU DO NOT WANT TO RESTRICT AIRFLOW. Increasing air velocity is still a manner of increasing airflow, so that is an oxymoron. You should have said, "If you don't restrict intake cross section, then you will NEVER get the proper balance of air velocity". This I could agree with, but watch the wording. More airflow is always better, no matter how you approach optimizing it. You talk about "a longer column of air weighs more so it has more momentum" stuff, but you neglect the fact that a really long column of air that has a large cross section weighs even more. Get it? The most velocity with the largest cross section always wins. Velocty is not completely dependant on size like you seem to think, it has much more to do with the shape and design of the runner/plenum combination. That was my point in using the tunnel ram example, it is an intake that has shorter and larger runners than any other type of conventional intake, yet it makes far more velocity. This is because of the shape and design. I have hand fabricated sheetmetal intakes, and have tested many different designs. If restricting size is so much better to velocity, then I'll show you plenty of cases where real world testing disproves that. And don't go and tell me that it's "different" on Duratec engines. An engine is just a big air pump, and air doesn't care if it's a honda or a ford. The same principles have applied since the first internal combustion engine was created.

You have obviously never tuned a Duratec, or any Ford computer for that matter. I said that the computer COMMANDS a 14.7 air-fuel at idle and cruise, and then a 13.0 at wide open. I am completely right, and will prove this to you any time you want. Commanded air-fuel is hardly ever actual air-fuel however, and that is why you don't see that air-fuel on the dyno. In Ford computers there is a base fuel table, where you command the air-fuel. Then with the MAF curve, you try to match the commanded air-fuel. Do not try to imply my ignorance, I would never come on here and lie about things I do not know when I have a reputation to uphold. It is insulting that you would assume I can just make things up.

Also, you seem to think that 13.2:1 is "optimal" for a Duratec engine with a near stock timing curve. I have never tuned a Duratec that made the most power with an air-fuel like that. Duratecs don't even like to have the same air-fuel across the curve, they like to be alittle leaner at low RPM (12.9-13.0), and then get more rich as RPM goes above 5000 (12.2-12.5). If you had ever tuned a Duratec yourself you would know this.

As for an engine running at 14.7 for idle and part throttle, this is JUST to increase gas mileage. There is simply a smaller amount of fuel molecules for a given amount of air, and therefore the engine uses less fuel. It has nothing to do with increasing combustion temp, or anything complex like that. It is very simple.

warmonger

02-01-2006, 11:29 PM

Whatever. I see you have a reputation to uphold and maybe that's why you jumped in and tried to find fault in my post.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting why you put in five paragraphs of stuff, just to say that you think my using the word "restriction" was wrong?
But the point is you are arguing semantics, you just don't like my wording so you jump in guns blazing and assume I don't know what I'm talking about???? And lead off with a kids chemistry lesson.
Well, the facts are in my post. Any more argument is now pointless because I can't make it any more plain than I have.
Anyone who has a rudimentary college education in hard science, or does a lot of self-study about fluid dynamics and thermo applied to engines will understand what I said. And let me reiterate, restriction is GOOD in the right context!!!!
Think about it, why is the stock throttle body only 60mm when the bore of ONE piston in the engine is 89mm?
If we follow your logic we should have an 89mm throttle body while we are at it, after all it feeds six cylinders.......... :confused:

OH, and here is food for thought, a big piece of steak to chew on:

Here is a portion of the Factory commanded base fuel table for 98/99 SVT contour, sample under max load, assume WOT (six rpm numbers correspond to the six lambda numbers roughly below them):
RPM ------ 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7500
Lambda -- 0.78125 0.75781 0.75000 0.75000 0.75000 0.71875

Refer to the chart below to reference under lambda and Gas/petrol to correlate the lambda number above with the corresponding air fuel ratio.
You will see that even at 4500 rpm and max load, the PCM is COMMANDING an air fuel ratio of less than 11.5:1
By the time you hit 6750 redline the lambda is approximately 0.739 which corresponds to a Commanded air fuel of 10.86 :eek: :eek:
In fact, anything above 50% load and 4500 rpm is 11.5:1 or LESS!
AND WOW, that is mysteriously exactly what we see on the dyno of an unaltered SVT............wow?? Anybody else raising eyebrows out there now besides me? You ask why I say 13.2:1, from experience with this engine, that's where.

But you're right, I've never tuned a duratec....... And what were you saying about a commanded 13:1 A/F???? :rolleyes:

Lambda and Air Fuel:
Lambda Gas/Petrol LPG Methanol Diesel
0.686 10.08 10.63 4.39 9.94
0.696 10.23 10.79 4.45 10.09
0.706 10.38 10.94 4.52 10.24
0.716 10.53 11.10 4.58 10.39
0.727 10.69 11.27 4.65 10.54
0.739 10.86 11.45 4.73 10.71
0.750 11.03 11.63 4.80 10.88
0.762 11.20 11.81 4.88 11.05
0.774 11.38 12.00 4.95 11.23
0.787 11.57 12.20 5.04 11.41
0.800 11.76 12.40 5.12 11.60
0.814 11.96 12.61 5.21 11.80
0.828 12.17 12.83 5.30 12.00
0.842 12.38 13.05 5.39 12.21
0.857 12.60 13.29 5.49 12.43
0.873 12.83 13.53 5.59 12.66
0.889 13.07 13.78 5.69 12.89
0.905 13.31 14.03 5.79 13.13
0.923 13.57 14.31 5.91 13.39
0.941 13.84 14.59 6.03 13.65
0.960 14.11 14.88 6.14 13.92
0.980 14.40 15.18 6.27 14.20
1.000 14.70 15.50 6.40 14.50
1.037 15.25 16.08 6.64 15.04
1.078 15.84 16.70 6.90 15.62
1.121 16.48 17.38 7.17 16.26
1.169 17.18 18.11 7.48 16.95
1.220 17.93 18.91 7.81 17.69
1.276 18.76 19.78 8.17 18.50
1.337 19.66 20.73 8.56 19.39
1.405 20.66 21.78 8.99 20.38

Logan Motorsports

02-02-2006, 12:06 AM

That isn't what my readings are using my software. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a commanded air-fuel that low on a supercharged Ford or otherwise. I don't know what program you are using to determine that, but certainly that isn't what my SCT software reads, or interprets the stock code as. Also, we've had SVT contours on the dyno, and not one of them reached that rich of an air-fuel ratio at that RPM. We use the latest MOTEC air-fuel datalogging, so I find it hard to believe that something is wrong with our equipment. Did the dyno you use have a tailpipe sniffer? We take all of our readings in the exhaust before the cats, because the cats alter the air-fuel readings. If you want me to post an air-fuel graph from a Contour SVT, I'd be happy to.

I think I have every right to nitpick over wording, because restriction is misleading. Restrictions are bad, you want a balance of runner size to runner velocity. I'm not saying you were wrong, because sometimes smaller runners are better, but you seem to think that Duratecs only run good with smaller inlet, runners, etc. I find that hard to believe, because that would make the duratec unique to every other engine on the planet. Have you ever honestly made your own intake with larger, short runners and a large plenum to find out if I'm wrong? Until you try every combination of size and design, I think you shouldn't be so quick to say that "restriction" is better. You and I both know that your comparison of six 89mm bores to one 60mm throttle body is misleading as well, because the engines take turns drawing air from the plenum, so in reality there is never a time when there are 6 cylinders trying to pull through one throttle body. Also, the intake valve surface area isn't anything near the surface area of an 89 mm hole, so again that was misleading.

As for questioning my education....I didn't question yours so don't question mine. I had 3 semesters of college level physics (including quantum) and two semesters of college level chemistry completed by the time I was 19. Not to mention Calc 1, 2, 3, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. I would appreciate it if you would back off on that front, I worked hard for what I have and worked hard to get where I am. Argument over engines is one thing, but that is personal.

warmonger

02-02-2006, 07:12 PM

Well, I don't remember saying that you were uneducated or anything, I just stated that I felt a rudimentary knowledge of those subjects would make clear what I was saying. If I implied you were uneducated then that wasn't my intent, sorry about that one.

As far as the A/F ratios, that is pulled right out of SCT's advantage software code, and yes I have full use software. Those are untouched lambda vs. rpm values at loads of .7-.8 with gradual richening of the commanded lambda values as the load climbs up above 50%, to the end result of a mind boggling 10.8:1 if your engine is really a deep breather.

As far as dyno's of A/F, I think I can list on one hand all the dyno's I've seen on stock contours/cougars that were ABOVE 12.5:1 in higher rpms. I'll even post one at random out of my collection if you like, or email a few of them to you.
Factory calibration on multiple base tables seems to have the engine running noticeably leaner below the IMRC opening point, yielding A/F values in the 13-14s ranges but once IMRC opens or for sure by 5000 rpm, it dips well below the low 12s, most often landing in the 11's:1 range.

After this I'm done talking about restrictions, as misleading as some may find it!
The throttlebody example is actually good because there are actually 2 cylinders drawing in air at any one time during the same engine revolution, probably two on compression stroke, and 2 on exhaust stroke......for simplification purposes since we know that it takes 720 degrees for the engine to complete all four cycles on all six cylinders.
It was a gross example of size to illustrate just what would happen if you took the restriction out of the intake. Velocity falls on its face. If you raise the valve sizes too much, or over-port your intake, the same thing happens. So this is what is meant by choosing the proper restriction, but ONLY in reference to what the cylinders are capable of drawing in....keeping the WHOLE intake tract in mind. Granted, leaving valve size alone will still tend to help keep velocity high, but not as much as if the whole intake tract were designed with this principle in mind and with the wide range of rpms the engine is expected to perform at were also kept in mind.
DemonSVT will come on here and be the first to tell me to dump the secondaries, but he desires to keep his operating rpm range in the 4000-7500 rpm range. I choose to optimize two areas, 2000-3500, and 4500-7500rpm ranges. Without the dual runner system and controlled restriction of intake flow, which is EXACTLY what the IMRC system is designed to do---restrict airflow on the secondary runner until rpm is high enough to accept the air without a drop in velocity---, then I CANNOT expect to optimize such a wide RPM range.
Now I can band-aid the removal of the secondaries by using a higher initial displacement (2.5 up to 3L) and by ramping up the timing, improve scavengine with headers, and perfecting the A/F curve. However, one has to ask the question:
If I chose to optimize every aspect listed above yet keep the IMRC system, couldn't I increase the low end torque with no sacrifice to high rpm power?

Obviously the manufacturer thought so because they spent YEARS in development and MANY different manufacturers used it in the past and still do. It seems that it makes a smaller engine act more like a larger engine but costs more to do, therefore cost reduction requires that it be removed and a simple 0.5L increase in displacement can make up the difference.

So in conclusion: If the manufacturer took that much effort to perfect that system on a small engine, a system designed to restrict airflow at certain rpms, then it must have merit! This means that bigger is not always better and leads me back full circle to the first argument, if poorly written in your eyes, that altering and controlling the restriction is the right answer.

Just to show you that we are probably talking about the same thing:
Controlling the amount of airflow and increasing it where possible while still maintaining flow volume and flow velocity over as wide a range as possible is the answer.
See, this is kind of like arguing that the glass is half empty/half full thing. Both viewpoints are focusing on the same goal but stated differently.

Take it for what its worth.

StealthyWeasel

02-02-2006, 07:55 PM

good lord

Logan Motorsports

02-02-2006, 10:23 PM

You have some processor codes for those vehicles? I'm interested in this, I'm beginning to wonder if Ford has different calibrations on different processor codes. Also, we've never had a contour SVT reach 12.5 at higher RPMs, but never as low as 10.8. In our expierience it seems to hover around 11.5-11.9 near redline on those cars. Again, that could be discrepency on dynos, that's why I asked if you use dynos that have sniffers instead of sensors before the cats.

Let's talk about this more scientifically, I'm done arguing, but I'd still like to hear your opinion on this. For example, compare these two cars.

http://photobucket.com/albums/b379/jaged/mtang/?action=view&current=jageddynoplot.jpg

This car has a complete Escape 3L.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/LoganMotor/RyansDynoPlot.jpg

This car has a 3.0L hybrid with SVT cams and intake.

Now, if you'll notice, the escape engine has a much fatter torque curve, but doesn't carry the torque to a high RPM. This seems logical because the Escape is a truck engine, so torque is needed. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the Escape has no IMRC's and a much lower compression ratio than the 3.0L hybrid. The 3.0L hybrid has IMRC's, and you can clearly see the switch over point in the graph. Now, even though the Escape engine has no IMRC's, or "restrictions", why does it produce so much more power down low? I know that some of the blame can be made on the Escape camshafts, but certaintly they don't make that large of a difference. I believe that much of it has to do with the design of the intake, despite the fact that it has less restriction than the SVT intake when the SVT intake has it's IMRC's closed. I mean, you have to remember that the Escape engine has a point and a half less compression than the hybrid, and that should kill alot of torque. Not to mention that it has "open" runners at all RPM's. Clearly restriction isn't the only answer for velocity then, because it must have more velocity down low to make more torque. I'm not saying that this is a perfect example, because of course there are many things that could be varying this, but hopefully it'll give us something to talk about without fighting.

jaged

02-02-2006, 11:58 PM

i thought i knew a lot about motors, but my head hurts now.

and i threw a CEL for a vaccum leak that i think i have tracked down just need another set of ears and some time so those numbers might be a bit low *crosses fingers*

GrandMasterKhan

02-03-2006, 12:32 AM

Warmonger's point of being able to optimize two rpm ranges vs only 1 when you keep the IMRC has me thinking some more. Too bad I dont have withen a fathom of the knowledge you 2 have.

Logan Motorsports

02-03-2006, 12:41 AM

Warmonger's point of being able to optimize two rpm ranges vs only 1 when you keep the IMRC has me thinking some more. Too bad I dont have withen a fathom of the knowledge you 2 have.

Lol, don't be fooled! I'm a novice, I just read lots of magazines and quote whatever they say as often as possible. :rofl: :rofl: Seriously though, what we are talking about isn't as complex as it seems, I guess I spent too much time at Purdue learning how to BS like proper a Engineer......:banghead:

DemonSVT

02-03-2006, 01:08 AM

BigBalledOX

02-03-2006, 01:19 AM

Logan if you are arguing with Tom you must not know of what you speak.

The thing that makes it worse is you openly admit you are a novice and ignorantly blast someone who is far from a novice. I strongly suggest you get off the floor, dust yourself off, and then actually learn something because Tom posted a wealth of very valid or correct information. It's up to you to move up from your novice position.

How's that for kindler and gentler Tom? I find these half assed retorts by internet thugs just humorous now. No sense getting mad about their ignorance and gross misconceptions.

:rolleyes: DeWayne is far from an e-thug. He was making a joke to try and lighten the mood a little bit. And from what I read, it looks to me like they basically agreed they were talking about the same thing and it was more an issue of semantics they were disagreeing on. But I suppose DeWayne gets cast aside because he's not afraid to think outside the box a little instead of just throwing in the towel because someone has a different perspective then he is.

Yeah, he's a total novice, tuning cars is only what he does for a living. But he wouldn't know anything at all about what he's talking about.

warmonger

02-03-2006, 08:29 AM

Okay guys, Dewayne and I both agree, and agree to disagree on those other points....

All is well.......... :cool:

Okay, as far as your dyno plots:

First one is straight escape motor? Yes, those cams make a huge difference in the low end especially when coupled with the 3L intake plenum; the difference is most certainly the cams. The reason is that the intake runner length is optimized for a 3L around 3800 rpm. The cams cause a peak in the 4000s rpm range.
Those same cams on an SVT will not do quite as well in the low end due to timing differences and the intake system, but the SVT intake shifts the torque curve peak up to about 4800rpm, making it fairly broad and extending the range the cams have a bit. It turns out to be a pretty potent camshaft combined with the SVT manifolds in the upper range for performance.

I have to ask what is wrong in the low end though? THe top end for those cams is exactly what I'd expect. The low end is too low. Is the engine using a cougar pcm still? The escape cams should have a beautifull FAT torque curve starting just under 3000 rpm, and of course dying pretty fast by 6000 rpm. There seems to be a problem, see that dip right at 2800 rpm? Is it pulling timing? Since the intake and cams on this engine are matched, I'd expect that his graph should continue to slope upwards, towards that maximum point. For example, he may make 195 ft-lbs of torque around 3800 rpm if everything was right. Oh, that reminds me, you named it jaggeddynoplot.jpg
IS the smoothing turned up really far on the graph? If it is, it may be covering up a misfiring or stuttering issue caused by poor ignition from bad plug wires. Typically over the past 5-6 years we see that the only major problem on the contour/cougar ignition system is the plug wires break down and when the resistance changes it goes haywire. It usually manifests itself at lower rpm and part to full throttle. By 4000K rpm it clears up and you get back your power. If nothing else seems wrong, and air fuel seems good, I'd look right there at the ignition system on that car.

For the next dyno plot:
Is this hybrid a low or high compression engine? Does it have 2.5L heads with normal valves or 3L valves, and is the head ported or not? Or does it just have a 3L block and heads with SVT cams and intake?
I need more info...

Logan Motorsports

02-03-2006, 07:54 PM

No, I didn't have the graph heavily smoothed, actually that particular plot is raw data from the dyno. If you want to see the timing plots, I posted them here http://newcougar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=89789 . Most likely the small dip in Jason's timing curve is due to engine coolant temp. We make all our dyno runs at full operating temp (190+) because we feel that an engine spends most of it's time at that temp, and so it should be tuned where it will spend it's time. The dip is small however, and I doubt that 1 degree of timing will really heavily affect the power, maybe 5 lb-ft. We did try raising the entire timing curve of the escape engine by a couple of degrees, and nothing happened, and needless timing seems like a waste to me. The timing curve that we did use was designed for a high performance escape engine, and because that motor was a complete escape engine we felt that was the way to go. I actually loaded every PCM value possible from the Escape, and it worked quite well in Jason's case. Overall I think 186 whp from an engine that was factory rated at 200 is pretty good considering it only has exhaust/cold air bolt-ons. If you go here http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/ford/30escape-tribute/30escape-tribute.htm you can see that Kenne Bell dyno tested a completely stock Escape, and it made 143 whp and 155 lb-ft of torque. I understand that the transfer case and AWD hardware do suck power, but I can't imagine that they draw any more than 10 percent. 10 percent of 200 is obviously 20, but even if you add that to 143 you still only arrive at 163 whp. 186 is 23 more than that, and so I'd say he's in a pretty good state of tune at this point.

Ryan's Hybrid has 11.1:1 compression, 2.5L head, and I believe he still has the 2.5L valves in it. As I said before it has SVT cams, SVT UIM, headers, exhaust, and cold air. I think that covers it, at least for now.....

warmonger

02-03-2006, 09:57 PM

Well,

The escape engine definitely has some issue between 2500-3500 rpm. I don't know what it is without seeing it on the dyno or the code, but it is suffering below 4K! :eek:
As far as it making 186Hp, that is really about average for the engine on a 2wd manual platform. The AWD escape sucks way more than 10%. Try more like 20-22% for the ATX and AWD!!! I'd expect that around 155-160 at the wheels is what an average escape AWD would put down, maybe a tad more for the factory freak out there. Changing to 2wd ought to buy him a few more percent, and with a MTX he ought to get between 15-18% drivetrain loss. So 186 at 15% loss is close enough. With better exhaust such as headers, I'd expect that the 200 HP engine would be worth about 220HP.
On CEG, the average ovalport with SVT cams and intake is dropping mid 190's to around 205 wHP, with no added work. There have been multiple straight 3L dyno's versus ovalport longblock hybrids with SVT intake/cams now to illustrate the advantage.

As far as the second engine, it is right on par with what most decent Hybrids utilizing 2.5L heads/valves put down at the wheels. He is being restricted by his 2.5L valves a bit. (this is the case where the restriction is too small!!) THe higher compression makes it harder to use more timing so timing advance is limited by knock. Higher compression with bigger valves would have been key in this case. Still, it is hard to complain since he has good numbers with a fairly flat torque curve. He can make more power out of that platform depending upon what the octane of the fuel is and how much timing he runs.
I didn't see any A/F data, but again, based on previous experience I would shoot for low 13s:1 on the AF and see what kind of power that makes on SVT intake/cam equiped engines. You won't be dissapointed.

Why don't you look at my website at what a 3L hybrid with 2.5L heads and big valves is capable of.
Hopefully you will stop thinking that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and take a little of my experience so you can use it on future tunes for the Cougar boys. I don't mean that in a bad way, but why reinvent the wheel when myself and others have already been there and done that with most of these engine combinations.

BigBalledOX

02-03-2006, 10:19 PM

Here, copy pasted from the 3L registry because I'm lazy.

BigBalledOX: Hybrid 3L w/PNP 2.5L heads/3L Valves/ST220 valve springs/SVT Cams, 19# injectors, SCT Chip, SVT UIM, LIM & TB, MSDS Headers, Custom Y-Pipe w/Magnaflow cat, Trubendz dual exhaust, Performance Designs Underdrive Pulleys, SVT Radiator, Centerforce Dual Friction Clutch, Fidanza Flywheel

BTW Tom, you're missing a "g" in your link Warmoner. ;) But your website is extremely informative.

StealthyWeasel

02-03-2006, 10:29 PM

all in the tuning

^point and case

Logan Motorsports

02-04-2006, 03:51 AM

Yea, I did forget to mention that our dyno isn't your typical roller dyno. We have a dynapack, for alot of reasons, but mostly for safety and portability. It reads lower than a comparable dynojet, but is about on par with superflow eddy current dynos. For example we had an '03 Cobra that put down 445 on our dyno and with everything exactly the same (including tune) put down 468 on a dynojet. That's not a ton, but certainly worth noting. For example that Escape that Kenne Bell had was dyno'd on an eddy current superflow dyno. Notice the 143 hp at the wheels, which may seem low. Also I didn't mean the AWD as a whole draws 10%, I meant it draws 10% percent MORE than a typical 2WD setup. So let's say that a Cougar looses 15% through the drivetrain, then the Escape looses 25%. So if the engines in both vehicles were rated at 200 flywheel horsepower, then the cougar would have 170 and the escape would have 150. See the 20 hp difference like I stated before? So if the Escape on Kenne Bell's dyno made 143, then let's assume that the Escape has 10% more drivetrain loss than a MTX Cougar. So the cougar with the same engine would make 163, like I said before. Therefore his car is making 23 more horsepower than that. I know this is merely speculation, but I doubt that the AWD Escape draws more than 10% extra over the Cougar.

Also, you should note the fact that factory horsepower ratings are "BHP", or brake horsepower. This is a completely different rating from a tradtitional sweep horsepower test like you would see on a chassis dyno. A BHP test is performed by holding the engine steady at it's peak hp RPM, thus negating the flywheel effect of the engine internals. This makes BHP tests read higher than traditional HP tests, and that is why the factory quotes BHP instead of HP. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

warmonger

02-04-2006, 11:59 AM

....

Also, you should note the fact that factory horsepower ratings are "BHP", or brake horsepower. This is a completely different rating from a tradtitional sweep horsepower test like you would see on a chassis dyno. A BHP test is performed by holding the engine steady at it's peak hp RPM, thus negating the flywheel effect of the engine internals. This makes BHP tests read higher than traditional HP tests, and that is why the factory quotes BHP instead of HP. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Yes, I wasn't sure if you meant 10% total or added on for the power loss. I agree that 25% loss is probably more accurate for an ATX AWD.

Far as the BHP versus wHP, yeah, I understand that....

What I meant is that a 200 BHP factory 3.0 escape motor becomes about a 220BHP motor with the addition of a set of MSDS type headers, better filter & intake, and exhaust with no additional work to the heads or intake manifolds. This really excludes any tuning too.

So I don't remember if this escape drop in motor has headers or not, but I would expect that it is right on par with a drop in with light mods and a good tune.
By comparison, the same motor with the addition of SVT cams and intake, SVT PCM (stock svt tune) good exhaust, and no tuning nets probably 235-240 BHP.
With a good tune on top of that number gets as high as 240-250 BHP, maybe more if extensive tuning is done.
Essentially, expect anywhere from 200 wheel HP to 225 wheel HP just with a tuned SVT hybrid with the latter high number being made with an excellent intake and exhaust.

It doesn't matter if the dynoing is done on a dynapack or a dynojet as long as the dyno runs are consistent on that type of dyno, i.e. baseline and subsequent runs all done on the same type of dyno, hopefully in calibration too.
Now with your dynapack you may back calculate a slightly different % to get BHP but we can compare based on % improvement.

So 20 HP increase is good and acceptible.
However, I still maintain that there is significant degradation in torque on that escape motor in the range I spoke of earlier. He needs to start tracking down why it is doing that.
Maybe it is actually too lean in the lower range? THere is such a thing as just not enough fuel to make more power, irregardless of combustion temps and such that we were discussing earlier.
If he doesn't have any ignition wire/plug issues (and I'm still not sure), then I'd start playing with varying the fuel in that range to see power changes, and then the timing.

warmonger

02-04-2006, 12:11 PM

Logan Motorsports

02-04-2006, 03:53 PM

yea, I agree with you about the dyno thing. Far too often people just look at the numbers, but sometimes the before/after change and the way the car drives is so much more important than arguing over who made a bigger number. You wouldn't believe how much trouble we have trying to explain that to customers....magazines always quote these ridiculous power gains from simple upgrades and then our customers are always dissapointed that their cars don't perform like the "magazine" cars. Heh....in some ways I feel that magazines are very good, but it's almost like you need a BS filter to learn anything from them.

Oh yea, on that Escape engine it was running at a 12.9-13.1 air-fuel in the 2500-4500 range. I just checked it to make sure. I generally let the air-fuel to slope down to 12.3-12.5 at high RPM (6000+), but Jason's car didn't seem to like that, and so it stays in the high 12's all the way to redline. Ryan's car (the Hybrid) liked to be at 12.3 at very high RPM, because when I leaned it out any more it lost power. I thought that maybe it was because I didn't have enough timing or too much, so I tried both, and still nothing. The same thing happened with Rob Kopala's hybrid that I tuned yesterday, it liked to be alittle more rich at very high RPM. Again I tried to tune that out, and it didn't respond either. The obvious thing to point to would be the higher compression ratio of the Hyrid vs. the Escape engine, but I'm sure there could be other things such as combustion chamber design of the two heads, not to mention the different port configuration. Have you expierienced this? It seems that most people seem to think that these engines run best in the low 13's at all RPM's, and certainly Jason's Escape motor did, but neither of those Hybrids seemed to. Of course I'm talking about miniscule power differences (I think Ryan's Hybrid lost like 3 hp when I leaned it from 12.3 to 12.9), but I'm sure there is a logical explanation.

warmonger

02-04-2006, 07:32 PM

Just a thought, are you measuring your O2 data before the cat or after?

I've been doing both and sometimes I get them mixed up when quoting an A/F value.

The 13.2:1 recommendation is a tailpipe, after the cat number so that could be a bit more rich before the cat, perhaps 12.9:1?
In my 3L NA I found that I was making power increases up until the tail pipe sensor was reading around 13.7, but I dropped it back down to about 13.5 and just left it there. The cat was new then so I think cat efficiency can vary quite a bit.

I tune my turbo engine for 12.3-12.5:1 with the wideband sensor BEFORE the Catalyst. Going from 12:1 to 12.3:1 netted 20 wHP on the dyno and didn't affect reliability at all...proven because this was 2003 and the car purred like a kitten since then. With all the horror stories of high temps and being too lean blowing a motor, I didn't have the balls to lean it out above 12.5:1 at boost pressures above 6psi.

Well, however you do it, if there are no more power gains in back to back runs then there is no point in going leaner as you pointed out, within reason of course and assuming you are already in a "lean" range. By this I mean that if you were at 11:1 and leaning it out made no more power, I might still lean it out more anyway, but if I were already at 12.5:1 and going leaner did not good, then I'd leave it.

Again, I really will be talking out my ass if I were to say exactly what was wrong, or better put as "not as right as it could be", with the escape, so I won't. I can assure you that there should be more power available in that range though.
As far as fun to drive, yeah I'm sure it is still fun and of course customer satisfaction is #1.
BUT, like a craftsman, I would want to make a perfect product and that means I would let the customer know that I felt he wasn't reaching full potential in that area, and then give him the option to decide whether he wanted to continue to spend the cash to keep on chasing down the problem.

Logan Motorsports

02-04-2006, 07:47 PM

Yea, we always put the wideband before the cat, mostly to avoid variances due to different types of cats, as you said.

I completely understand what you said about making sure the car is absolutely right. I totally agree. Not only do I want the customer happy, but I sleep better if I know that I did everything in my power to do things right, and if I can't, I'll find someone who knows how.

Quick question though, what kind of spark plugs do you run? We've had really good luck with NGK in our boosted engines, mostly the TR6, sometimes the TR7 for heavily boosted engines. If NGKs aren't available then we usually use autolite, with the same heat ranges. We've tried those Denso Iridium plugs, and even though some people swear by them, we've either melted the electrode on boosted engines or have problems with blowing the spark out due to the small electrode. They seem to work fine in NA applications, but I was just curious if you've tried them.

warmonger

02-05-2006, 01:38 PM

I ran NGK TR6s for about a year and a half, this past year, or most of it since last March. They run really good.
However, I've been running Autolite double platinums in the stock size and heatrange and I think they run better to be honest, definitely NOT worse.

If you look at my dyno posted in the 3L dyno plots thread, you will see how well they perform. No spark issues whatsoever.
Oh yeah, gap I chose is like 0.045" IIRC so that I can get plenty of spark energy. And I'm running craptastic Autozone Duramag lifetime wires, which are not having ANY issues at all.... :cool: surpisingly.
I picked 'em up so I could ditch my old wires and figured if they ever went bad I could get another set free while I ordered better wires like magnecores. Well they've been good, since July/Aug and no problems.
I personally recommend using the Double Plats, even the Lightning runs Motorcraft double plats on its 8-10psi boost.

I did my dyno on a dynojet with a tailpipe mounted O2 sensor after the cat. I've verified with my Wideband that I am running a very safe A/F ratio. I have a permanently mounted Wideband in the car that I can datalog with my laptop whenever I want and under normal conditions it drives the GReddy Air Fuel gauge I mounted in my coin tray.
So given all the above information, pushing that kind of power with a catalyst, normal plug wires and plugs with a more normal plug gap, I think it is an excellent job that I am proud of and that breaks a lot of myths about about turbocharging these cars and even the idea of having to pull out the catalyst to make power.

Logan Motorsports

02-05-2006, 09:23 PM

wow, .045 gap! That ignition must be working quite well! If we run any more than .025 in our cobra it has spark issues, and we have an MSD digital-6 box along with a kenne bell boost-a-spark. We usually run our NA motors at .045! That must really help power to be able to get away with that sort of gap, that is really interesting. I'll have to try those autolite plugs and see how they work.

warmonger

02-06-2006, 08:56 AM

Yeah, the spark on these cars is really good if you have good wires. Contrary to popular belief, the coil packs almost never go bad, but the wires go bad CONSTANTLY!
The wastespark method is good except that it eats up the electrodes of non-Doubleplatinum plugs on one of the banks, either front or rear....I can't quite remember. Even single plats.
I don't know why the wires suck so bad, you can usually barely get 40K miles out of a factory set.

However, I do know why the misfires start happening though, if you are interested.
I and a friend hooked the coil primaries up to a regular elctronics oscilloscope, on the lines that go from the coil drivers in the PCM to the coil packs. Anyway, the coils have +12v constant with the key on and the PCM grounds them with mosfet chips.
The resistance and inductance in this system must always be the same to prevent oversaturation on the coils. As the wire resistance changes this causes serious spikes to appear and the coils don't fire well anymore. The coils are energized for a longer period of time at lower rpm like idle and below 3K rpm, enough to oversturate the coil and create higher voltage spikes, and basically a very Noisy circuit. This isn't good for spark energy.
As the rpm goes up, the time to saturate the coils gets less and less, where it becomes optimum in the 5-6K rpm range and the coils get a good clean firing signal.
This is why people will get a misfire at moderate throttle positions that will clear up as they increase in RPM.

Just FYI I ran 0.040-0.043" gap on the NGK TR6 plugs as well, I still have them downstairs though only maybe 15-18K total miles on them. They look really good and never had a spark issue.
Stock is like 0.053" If I Recall.
Of course the bigger the gap, the better the spark energy if all else is equal.
If I were you, I'd run 0.050" on NA engines and 0.040-0.045" for boosted duratec engines.....under 14psi. Above 14psi I haven't tested and you will have to figure out if the gap needs tightened.