• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

New Taurus 3.5 Duratec!

95pgt-t said:
yeah,not that insane. chrysler was using the 3.5L HO since the late 90's similar output. to say ford is late to dinner is a understatment. the taurus should've had this enigine while the svt had the 3.0 hindsight is always 20/20 though.:shrug:
Click to expand...

If the SVT had the 3.0L, it would have been faster than the current mustang GT at the time. I think thats partly the reason why it kept the 2.5L.
 
SVTDawg said:
Well it's not all that insane imo. svt's got 205hp out of a 2.5L 10 years ago. 82hp/L. New 3.5 is 263 is 75hp/L.
Click to expand...

Comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.

The SVT motor was tuned for performance and premium fuel.

The 3.5L in it's currently available form is tuned for regular unleaded and a compromise between fuel economy, broad power band, and emissions. A customer for a Taurus or Edge has very different priorities than than a customer for a CSVT.

The 3.5L can and will make much more power but other things must be compromised to do so.
 
Your points are valid and true. Yes the svt was low production special engine with higher output/L. I was just responding to someone who said 263hp was insane for a 3.5 stock engine. How long has Nissan had a 3.5 making that power?...a while now, and that motor started as a 3.0L too, if memory serves. My point is it's not a ton of power for that size motor, but it is decent. It's on par with everyone else out there in the V6 sedan arena.

Anyway, I hope Ford sells a ton of them and to actual people, not just rental fleets. They're in major trouble and the Malibu is getting great press....
 
ford now has the 3.7L in the lincoln mks making 270hp and 295torque, they also are planning within the year to have a direct-injection turbo charged version of the 3.7 making 350hp. Ford is stepping things up.
 
beyondloadedSE said:
If the SVT had the 3.0L, it would have been faster than the current mustang GT at the time. I think thats partly the reason why it kept the 2.5L.
Click to expand...
Nope, Contour chassis did not use 3.0L and using that motor would have required new safety/emissions cert. for use in the Contour, which was out of budget for SVT.
-J
 
biminiLX said:
Nope, Contour chassis did not use 3.0L and using that motor would have required new safety/emissions cert. for use in the Contour, which was out of budget for SVT.
-J
Click to expand...

What Jim was saying is that "IF" the SVT guys or Contour in general put the 3L in that it would be faster or too close in performance to the heh hmm "fast" Mustang at the time.

Also, no offense but where are you getting your info? Is that your opinion or fact that it was out of budget to put a 3L in? From what I read at the time, it was more for space constraints and warranty/maintanance work issues.

For the record, this is my speculation: For SVT it probably would have cost the same. Start with a 2.5 or 3L block..both readily available. Hipo pistons/rods/crank for a 3L. Bolt on same parts as the svt 2.5. So where's the production cost increase?

A new new cert? sure, but the 3L was already in production. Companies increase Car's engine volume all the time. 3.0 to 3.5, 3.5 to 3.7, 1.8 to 2.0, 2.3 to 2.5....
 
if they went 3L they wouldnt of needed to do the svt bits. as 200hp was the number they were looking for. there was a magazine article from way back about this. the interviewer asked the director of svt questions about why only 16's,why not the 3L. his response was more along the lines of wanting to make more power from the smaller engine.
how would it be space issues?? its the same block!!:shrug:
i'd lean towards the cost of having to recrash test and certify,plus i'd imagine they knew the limits were being pushed on the mtx75 dif w/the HO 2.5,throw in another 30ftlbs of tq and they'd have to retool the diff or offer a lsd from the factory(more $) they didnt want to spend on this platform. imho
 
Last edited:
SVTDawg said:
What Jim was saying is that "IF" the SVT guys or Contour in general put the 3L in that it would be faster or too close in performance to the heh hmm "fast" Mustang at the time.

Also, no offense but where are you getting your info? Is that your opinion or fact that it was out of budget to put a 3L in? From what I read at the time, it was more for space constraints and warranty/maintanance work issues.

For the record, this is my speculation: For SVT it probably would have cost the same. Start with a 2.5 or 3L block..both readily available. Hipo pistons/rods/crank for a 3L. Bolt on same parts as the svt 2.5. So where's the production cost increase?

A new new cert? sure, but the 3L was already in production. Companies increase Car's engine volume all the time. 3.0 to 3.5, 3.5 to 3.7, 1.8 to 2.0, 2.3 to 2.5....
Click to expand...
I got my info from interviews with O. John Coletti when researching the Contour and the SVT book I've got. I agree with you the use of the 3.0 in place of the 2.5 would not cost more in and of itself....it was the cost of having to certify the Contour chassis with the 3.0 that was out of the budget. That was my interpretation of what he said.
I did understand what Jim was saying (kind of how Chevy keeps the Corvette's power/performance as their benchmark) but that is not the reason.
The space/maintainence issue you mentioned would not have been any different 2.5 vs. 3.0. Yes, companies do increase engine sizes, but when they put a different motor is a chassis it must be recerted.
-J
 
95pgt-t said:
if they went 3L they wouldnt of needed to do the svt bits. as 200hp was the number they were looking for. there was a magazine article from way back about this. the interviewer asked the director of svt questions about why only 16's,why not the 3L. his response was more along the lines of wanting to make more power from the smaller engine.
how would it be space issues?? its the same block!!:shrug:
i'd lean towards the cost of having to recrash test and certify,plus i'd imagine they knew the limits were being pushed on the mtx75 dif w/the HO 2.5,throw in another 30ftlbs of tq and they'd have to retool the diff or offer a lsd from the factory(more $) they didnt want to spend on this platform. imho
Click to expand...

Gotcha...That's true, the blocks wouldn't pose any different packaging issues.

I think you might have hit it right with the trans/diff. I bet Ford told the SVT guys they had to use a regular MTX, no money for lsd or axles or whatever.
 
Last edited:
biminiLX said:
I got my info from interviews with O. John Coletti when researching the Contour and the SVT book I've got. I agree with you the use of the 3.0 in place of the 2.5 would not cost more in and of itself....it was the cost of having to certify the Contour chassis with the 3.0 that was out of the budget. That was my interpretation of what he said.
I did understand what Jim was saying (kind of how Chevy keeps the Corvette's power/performance as their benchmark) but that is not the reason.
The space/maintainence issue you mentioned would not have been any different 2.5 vs. 3.0. Yes, companies do increase engine sizes, but when they put a different motor is a chassis it must be recerted.
-J
Click to expand...

Makes sense now. That whole business and profit side of things!
 
SVTDawg said:
Makes sense now. That whole business and profit side of things!
Click to expand...
Yep, I hear ya. The Powered by SVT book I have really makes it seem like the original SVT really had to walk a tight budget line to bring their products to market. Now, if it would have cost $500 per car to get the 3.0, would you have paid the extra? :shrug:
I'd like to say yes, but its 10 years later and I never bought one new.
-J
 
I did buy mine new. Even as a dealer employee with exceptional credit, it was more difficult to buy an SVT. There were no factory incentives like on the other Contours. It also did not get as nice of an interest rate on the loan. At the time I determined that I paid an additional $5,000 over what I would have paid for a comparably equipped SE, and that did not take into account the higher interest rate.

Another $500.00 for a 3.0? Absolutely. That would have made the rest of the premium easier to swallow.
 
biminiLX said:
Yep, I hear ya. The Powered by SVT book I have really makes it seem like the original SVT really had to walk a tight budget line to bring their products to market. Now, if it would have cost $500 per car to get the 3.0, would you have paid the extra? :shrug:
I'd like to say yes, but its 10 years later and I never bought one new.
-J
Click to expand...


Great question and I tell you what, I bet that amount of money was a deal breaker for Ford. I bought mine new too. I tell ya, I think I got about the best deal I've heard of for a new SVT. It was December 1998 and the dealer had 2 SVT contours. A 99 and a 98 that they were desperate to get rid of and I could smell blood! I kinda played dumb at first saying I didn't know about the svt. It had 240 miles on it..so I knew they had it a while. When I saw it, it was in the showroom to keep more miles off it I was guessing. Anyway, they were having a $500 under invoice sale, of course their invoice price. Well long story short, after and hour of negotiating and hearing "I have to check with my sales manager" about 8 times, I walked out of there paying $19,300. Plus tax and title of course. It had both options of sunroof and cd player. sticker $23,650 iirc. BTW they were also giving away TV's with the left over 98s. So I got a $1500 50 inch tv with the car too! ha It was my first year out of college so I was pretty pumped about that. When I came to pick up the car a salesman offered me $1000 cash for it. In hindsight I should have taken it! WOuld have brought it down to 18,300!

Anyway, to answer your question...hell yeah I would have paid another $500 for a 3L! Add it to the loan. Ha

But in Ford's defense, who else would have? I know they had to have made very little on my sale. I believe they still have the system of paying a percentage of sticker price to the dealer like most. They had to sell a few F150's to make up for me!
 
well if they lost money on every regular contour sold like has been said in the past,i can imagine how much they lost for every svt they sold:blackeye:
 
I can't wait till someone crashes one of the new Taurus's so i can stripe one out! (i live beside a lot of junk yards and chop shops) I know there would be a lot of modification with the ecu, wiring, and stuff, but i would love to be one of the first CEGers with one. :cool:
I hope others shine some new info on this later when they try!
 
drivebymashing said:
89 sho is 6.6 o to 60 15.2 quarter and 7.35 at 15.43
89 gt v8 is 6.5 15.2 quarter another website said 7.17 at 15.2
i was close....
Click to expand...
I've seen an article that had an 87 LX 5.0 5-speed, racing a GN, both were running low 14's stock. The Mustang ended up nicking a high 13, and that was bone stock with 2.73 gears. An LX with less options is faster than a fulley loaded GT. I know what you are saying though. My 93 SHO ran a 15.08. But it was not nearly as fast as my 89 GT. Which would run mid 14's spinning on stock tires. But the mid 90's GT's were slower, and were in the 93-95 5-speed SHO range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top