74 replies to this topic

[SVTjeff]

BuckeyeSVT, on Jul 18 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

First off, lets not go there. His input isn't worth alot to me. I've spent $600 in dyno time proving this whole result. Having someone come in and "theroize" will only piss me off. I paid the money, I posted the graphs. I invited witnesses... You get the picture.

Second, are you refuting the SVT computer mod or the Fusion? The SVT computer mod NEEDS the injectors because it will set a lean code if not. Strange huh? Ask anyone with the mod done, they needed the injectors or the car set lean codes on both banks. Trust me, I did it - Others tried it. Everyone had the same result. If you don't believe - Find an SE/GL/LX V6 and install the SVT computer and injectors. Take it to the dyno and swap out the computer (just on the 17lb injectors) and you will get an immediate 10-12HP gain. Geez, a small gain for a $50-$75 price tag. Whats the SVT bits going for now? $300? $400 for everything used? What do you gain there - The same thing. And you still need the computer and injectors...

Lastly, if you are so certain the SVT to SE calibration is so close - Then why is it that it needs the bigger injectors and also makes more power? Apparently, the calibrations aren't so close are they? You can tell me all day till you are blue that the calibrations are close or same - And I will tell you everytime that your "assumption" is off. If you could plot the differences between spark advance, AFR and timing differences between the calibrations I may believe you more. However, I've done the tests - I've dyno'd the results, I've buried the "what-if's" and questions. If you are telling me my eyes, butt, car and the Dynojet were lying - You are stretching things pretty thin. Facts are facts, I have all the paper I need to backup my claim - Not "I don't see the difference". Where's the proof there is no difference? Sometimes people need "called out" when they have a point to make but nothing to back it up with. I laid down my cards... where are yours?

-Dom

Dom -
Wow! I guess you win.....

I sent you a PM about Dan, and I guess the Dan you are referring too is not the guy I work with........

Secondly, I have the cal comparisons. I will send them to you if you wish - you can look at them all day long, but unless you have the strategy code, the values are meaningless - as there are at least 100 functions/tables/modifiers and such which determine final spark - it is not simply x=32 degrees, therefore spark=32 degrees. I compared them back about two years ago when everyone was using stock PCM's, not SVT PCM for swaps and claiming HUGE hp gains...too many factors to simply caulk it up to the PCM and injectors...

In fact the base spark curves for the stock cal are more agressive than the SVT so that is fact. . ......I agree a tune is worth some HP, as stock cals are never tuned for HP, but a combo of emissions/drivability and power.

In reagrds to dyno's, I have a recent Hod Rod article which shows chassis dyno's are very incosistent run to run, let alone model to model. This should be no suprise either.....again too many variables.

By no means do I think I know it all, but I guess some do beyond a shadow of a doubt...more power to them.......

[BuckeyeSVT]

Jeff,

Sent you a PM, comparing specific calibrations (SE GYY2 and SVT RJL1) that were used in my test. Also cleared up the Dan issue.

I would think the timing aspect alone for the SVT being calibrated for premium fuel with a compression bump of only point doesn't require more octane in reality. The 3.0L's are running at 10:1 compression (2004-2005) models that I checked... and they are calibrated to run on normal 87 octane gas. So theoretically could tuning for 91 octane allow an engine to gain almost 40HP? Being that I have good data, I would say yes...

-Dom

P.S. As an afterthought of your timing comment about SE and SVT calibrations - You aren't looking at fueling either. Do you realize that if the SE calibration has my AFR dumping into the 10's on WOT till 6750 and the SVT holds it at 12.5... Do you think you would realize a nice power gain? I was never convinced that the timing overall was the issue, but better fuel control and possibly an optimized overall strategy cleaning up the standard calibration. However I am hypothesizing... I don't have the calibrations to study (which would be very hard to look at the total calibration differences without running them in the car and charting the differences.

[Gar]

Terry and Dom,

I've spoken to both of you in the past. I'm the guy building the mid-engine Kelmark. My original donor engine and trans are from a peppy 95. I've come a long way with the chassis, and while busy with this part of the build, an SVT came my way. I started using non-garage time to research the 3.0 I'd need for my super motor meld. The plan was to use the original engine with just headers and a high flow filter intake, drive the car, and build the super motor. I respect both your opinions, and now feel that I have an sVT engine I'd like to unload. High miles 97 build date on the door post, but running well when parted out. Make offer :)

Gar

[Terry Haines]

...good luck with the 3.0 super motor.I'd put the 2.5 on the for sale list.
On the initial subject ,I think we have got a little side tracked here!..I'm as guilty as any!(Sorry Dom!)..but I think the initial questions on 'hybrid' engine failures has slipped to the background.Can I ask ,of the owners we have here,who is running a 'hybrid' and some build details etc?Maybe a poll? Thanks

[Rikk]

Terry Haines, on Jul 19 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

I think we have got a little side tracked here!

X2
Thanks I am curious as well!!

[Rikenbomb]

I am.

2004 Taurus block
SVT 'Tour heads PnP'd with 3L valves fitted.
DMD
SVT cams
Max Ex. honed SVT/ST200 UIM and optimized SVT TB.
SCT tune chip (Akron Horsepower) - 224 hp 200 ft-lbs torque

If you need any more info let me know.

Edited by Rikenbomb, 20 July 2007 - 03:05 AM.

[Icefury]

Hybrid (my Engine as well as Rikenbomb's were assembled by Dan G)

2003 Sable block (extra oil passage welded closed)

Kinger PnP SVT 2.5 heads (ST220 Valves)

SVT cams

Max Ex. honed SVT UIM and optimized SVT TB.

Clevite Rod Bearings

Revised (5L8Z-6675-AA) Escape Oil pan

Oil Filter relocation kit with increased oil filter size FL-1A (adds about an extra quart of oil to system)

DMD

ADC Tune chip (XGT1)

15000+ miles and still running strong!

[Rikenbomb]

Icefury, on Jul 20 2007, 12:35 AM, said:

Hybrid (my Engine as well as Rikenbomb's were assembled by Dan G)

Sorry Icefury but I blew up the engine DanG built a while ago. This is a different one.

[Icefury]

Rikenbomb, on Jul 20 2007, 05:11 AM, said:

Sorry Icefury but I blew up the engine DanG built a while ago. This is a different one.

Oh, I see. What caused it to go? Did Dan G build your new motor?

[D's nuts]

Holly shiz. All that work and not much power. I did a straight 3L wiht only headers and a tune and it made 203 hp and 210tq. It would have made more power had I hadnt had a vac issue when it as tuned....

[Rikenbomb]

Hey thanks for rubbing it in.

[BuckeyeSVT]

Icefury, on Jul 20 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

Oh, I see. What caused it to go? Did Dan G build your new motor?

Catastrophic failure of the bottom end. Basically from what I was told (car showed up to me without the block installed) it let go. However, the heads and everything else were salvageable.

I built his replacement motor and installed it for him (and took it to get tuned). Turned out nice at 224FWHP....

-Dom

[spridget]

Here's how I sealed the oil feed. 8mm x 8mm set screw. It threads in without tapping, but it's a loose fit. JB Weld (not generic or fast-dry stuff) around the hole and on the threads. I used a toothpick to apply it, fill the screw head, and a razor blade to clean up.

before someone rants about using JB Weld... this is hobby stuff, I would have this professionally welded if I were selling these.

Attached Files

•  08020006.JPG   321.21K   27 downloads
•  08020007.JPG   347.2K   27 downloads
•  08020008.JPG   341.39K   32 downloads

[BuckeyeSVT]

That's why I use the 3/8" set screw with liquid teflon around the threads. It's nice and tight, and doesn't make me look at it twice after installed.... However - there are numerous ways it could be done.


-Dom

[Terry Haines]

....this 3.0 injector issue Re spray angle etc,fitted in a reworked 'oval port' or a 2.5 split port is still not a good idea at all.Take a look at this site/pdf and see from one pic ,how injector spray angles are NOT all the same and will not match an oval port injector fitted to a split port location.I will try to get some 'contacts' within the Fuel Injection guys I know,to set up a 2.5 Vs a 3.0 spray pattern in a rig to show how they differ.This is the FI site with the pics...


www.lindertech.com/docs/efibook2005v2.pdf



;) ;)