tuning with/or out secondaries

[FastCougar]

My arguement is in the very narrow minded blanket statement that Ford couldn't do VVT at the time and thus relied on the secondaries solution. That statement couldn't be further from the truth. Ford's VCT was implimented in the ZETEC engine's for the Escort as far back as 1997 IIRC ... last I checked, the Cougar started production in May, 1998 and guess what ... the I4 Cougar had VCT. It could have been applied to the Cougar's V6 easily, but at a cost and well, we all know that FORD is cheap. So, it had nothing to do with "the secondaries were used cause they hadnt really figured out the vvt thing yet" and more to do with "applying VCT to the Duratec platform was cost prohibitive".

[fordrule]

so basically get a PRP and tune the xcal, another project when i get home lol

[fordrule]

i was throwing a code for the secondaries always open, but they were not opening at all. so now they are pinned

[nandalora]

Originally Posted by FastCougar

"....prohibitive".

Nice word usage

First off, VCT isn't much of a power adder or used to add low end torque, it's more of an emissions ploy if anything. So thank god it's not on our 2.5L's.......or 3.0L's . Also, for future reference, don't be so freak'n "narrow minded" with your "blanket statements." So maybe if CougarGuy had worded his statement more like: "the secondaries were used cause they hadnt really figured out how to make the vvt thing affordable yet," then you wouldn't have jump'd down his throat?

Peace,

Nick A.

[warmonger]

Originally Posted by nandalora

Ok, and what do you think VVT was invented for???

Improved emissions on ULEV cars. And if used for performance to broaden the usable power band. SAME THING IMRC is used for but one doesn't replace the other. They can BOTH be used on top of each other for even more improved performance at the expense of increased motor complexity, and design costs. Some of the engines that use exhaust cam VVT for emissions and torque also use variations of IMRC systems on the intake.

So I guess I'm saying one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

IMRC is a benefit unless it malfunctions. It has a purpose.

One reason I don't buy the whole "no secondaries increases the high rpm horsepower..." thing is this:

If the engineers calculated that their 2.5L engine needed intake runners with a total cross sectional area of a^2 for optimum performance, then they would not have just thrown IMRC on top of that and reduced cross sectional area and maybe airflow. The logical thing they would have done was calculated the cross-sectional area lost by the IMRC plates&shafts and then just added that to the total calculation to account for it; for example A^2+S.
I mean come on, that is an easy calculation considering some of the math that goes into engine design right? You really think they shot themselves in the foot with IMRC or that they designed the manfold to work well with it?

Now granted, if you changed the whole characteristic of the engine, displacement, rpm operational range, cams, etc. then you may want to remove it. For all other engines excluding forced induction, you could conceivably make improvements to the system and retaining the IMRC system that would outperform a car that did not have it.

[FastCougar]

How did I jump down his throat ... he made a blanket statement that was incorrect and then you came along and made an equally inaccurate assumption about the use of VCT vs. IMRC. As Tom has pointed out, these two strategies are pretty much mutually exclusive. I was trying to dispel misinformation. Please forgive me if I offended anyone, but I refuse to be closed lipped when I see a factually inaccurate statement. After all, the point of these boards is to share information (see accurate), not propagate misinformation.

[nandalora]

Fastcougar: I'm not argueing the use of IMRC, I am argueing how you said they used VCT in the 2.0L and how they were too cheap to put it on the 2.5L. We got IMRC and that is way better. The VCT on the 2.0L is no where near the technology of the VVT in the Mazda 6. That's a more useful form.

Warmonger: You had IMRC working on your turbo 3.0L, correct? If so, did you change the secondary's opening point to match the turbo application better?

[fordrule]

wow this all went way away from what i was asking .....

[RodneyBur]

Originally Posted by fordrule

and also i thought it would be a good topic starter in here rather than 3L section.

[fordrule]

guess i was crazy