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

    You can register to join the community.

200hp vs 200hp? Why swap to 3L?

K

Kresnik

CEG'er
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
212
Other than needing to replace a worn or dead motor, why even both with a 3.0L swap when the SVT motor makes damn near the same HP?

I've asked my self that recently, and can only seem to find minimal reasoning. The 3.0Ls are less likely to have oil starvation problems under hard cornering. The heads have a higher flowrate. Damb heads have less torsional resistance -- slightly increased performance and fuel economy.

3.0Ls with VVT aren't able to use the Better SVT cams, which of course, is a downside. 3.0Ls are able to utilize the better designed, better looking though lower-volume plenum intake manifolds which are stock on the SVT. Due to the small plenum volume, these are often times not seen as the more ideal IM.

Particular builds aside as well as the notion of a lower mileage / well functioning motor, why else * should * one consider a 3.0L swap? What does or did attract you to performing this swap?


This is more of a probing and pondering question, than anything else. Perhaps I'm missing something from the discussion, stickies and various posts through-out the interwebs.
 
Silly you - the WHEEL HORSE POWER of a 3L swap should be right around 190-210hp. The SVT 2.5L is about 170-180hp at the wheels.


The wheel horse power of my '95 2.5L V6 was like 132hp. I swapped in a 2005 Taurus 3L and now have 190hp at the wheels ;).



3.0L DOHC motors are the cheaper and have more HP than a SVT 2.5L. Pretty easy to see why people go with the 3L vs the 2.5L.



VVT 3L engines will not run in our cars without a STAND ALONE FUEL MANAGEMENT AND TIMING SYSTEM! Stay away from VVT, they are not for our cars.



Yes, you have missed A LOT of discussions on this topic. Maybe 100 different threads on 3L vs 2.5L, pros/cons, prices, how-to, etc..... look around a bit.
 
I forgot to mention.......
Torque.
Torque.
Torque.
Torque.

:laugh:


Like I said, a 3L swap should net you about 190-210hp AND 190-210tq!
 
blu_fuz said:
Silly you - the WHEEL HORSE POWER of a 3L swap should be right around 190-210hp. The SVT 2.5L is about 170-180hp at the wheels.


The wheel horse power of my '95 2.5L V6 was like 132hp. I swapped in a 2005 Taurus 3L and now have 190hp at the wheels ;).



3.0L DOHC motors are the cheaper and have more HP than a SVT 2.5L. Pretty easy to see why people go with the 3L vs the 2.5L.



VVT 3L engines will not run in our cars without a STAND ALONE FUEL MANAGEMENT AND TIMING SYSTEM! Stay away from VVT, they are not for our cars.



Yes, you have missed A LOT of discussions on this topic. Maybe 100 different threads on 3L vs 2.5L, pros/cons, prices, how-to, etc..... look around a bit.
Click to expand...

From the varied sources that I pooled from, including here, both the SVT 2.5L and the normal 3.0L are ~200 BHP, thus the base range isn't much more at all. Torque, on the other hand, I've noticed about 30btq difference -- so that is a good selling point to this case.

In regards to VVT, I will most likely pursue that root by either using a stock ECU from the donor car or by adding the drivers, circuits and code to my MegaSquirt to control 'em. Kind of a mute point and not directly relevant as I'm more trying to see why others look into the 3.0L option when the bhp is negligibly different - save cases of necessity (blown engine, etc). :)

Thanks for your input!
 
Kresnik said:
From the varied sources that I pooled from, including here, both the SVT 2.5L and the normal 3.0L are ~200 BHP, thus the base range isn't much more at all. Torque, on the other hand, I've noticed about 30btq difference -- so that is a good selling point to this case.

In regards to VVT, I will most likely pursue that root by either using a stock ECU from the donor car or by adding the drivers, circuits and code to my MegaSquirt to control 'em. Kind of a mute point and not directly relevant as I'm more trying to see why others look into the 3.0L option when the bhp is negligibly different - save cases of necessity (blown engine, etc). :)

Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...


No, you either didn't read or didn't understand, bhp is BEFORE drivetrain loss, it takes power to spin the gears in the trans, whp is actual power after loss. Therefore those 3L's are running around 200whp, whereas the regular SVT motor is running around 170whp. See a difference? I don't know how you didn't understand from that first post, but maybe you will now, I'm not holding out hope though as that first post was about as simple as you can get.
 
Yeah Dan, it doesn't seem that he understood the post at all. :nonono:


I'm outta here.



PS, stay away from the VVT like I stated. You really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to using a VVT and what it would take to use it in our cars. Do more research.
 
Well it's certainly not your fault Blu, that was the most simple and accurate response anyone could have asked for.
 
The stock SVT motor puts out around 160-170 wheel horse power. A stock 3.0L will put down around 195-205 wheel horse power. A stock non svt 2.5L will put down around 140 wheel horse power.

I wouldn't even try with the VVT engines...unless you like sleepless nights and odds are lots of money being flushed down the toilet.
 
DanMyers said:
No, you either didn't read or didn't understand, bhp is BEFORE drivetrain loss, it takes power to spin the gears in the trans, whp is actual power after loss. Therefore those 3L's are running around 200whp, whereas the regular SVT motor is running around 170whp. See a difference? I don't know how you didn't understand from that first post, but maybe you will now, I'm not holding out hope though as that first post was about as simple as you can get.
Click to expand...

Hi. I'm an engineer, I well understand the difference between brake horsepower and wheel horsepower thanks.

The common builds on here, are like you suggest, of a non VVT or CTA heritage -- mostly for the sake of simplification, it would appear.

SVT Contour,
~200bhp, ~165btq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_SVT_Contour

3.0L Duratec 30 :: RFF
~200bhp, ~207btq

VVT + Direct Acting Mechanical Buckets Tappets
3.0L Duratec 30 :: DAMB
~232bhp, ~220btq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo_V6_engine


CTA :: iVCT + Direct DAMB
3.0L Duratec 30
~240bhp, ~222btq
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ford/2010-ford-fusion-ar67130.html


So in response to my original question, the increased torque is a good answer. What other advantages are there, as clearly HP isn't one of them, though I might digress to negligible - at best.

Thanks!

Btw, we engineering types use the word 'energy' not 'power' to describe the transfer of both rotational and reciprocal natures. Power is used most properly and usefully in electrical applications when referencing amperes. Let's calm down and discuss this nicely, yes?
 
my 2.5 with svt lite and I/H/E with 220k miles put down 156 hp/150 ft/lbs (not sure on ft/lbs) at the wheels. when my 3L was just a full 3L with 65mm tb H/I/E it made 195hp/200 ft/lbs with an iffy tune at the wheels.

if you ever have the chance drive a csvt back to back with a 3L csvt and you will see HUGE differences
 
Kresnik said:
Hi. I'm an engineer, I well understand the difference between brake horsepower and wheel horsepower thanks.

The common builds on here, are like you suggest, of a non VVT or CTA heritage -- mostly for the sake of simplification, it would appear.

SVT Contour,
~200bhp, ~165btq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_SVT_Contour

3.0L Duratec 30 :: RFF
~200bhp, ~207btq

VVT + Direct Acting Mechanical Buckets Tappets
3.0L Duratec 30 :: DAMB
~232bhp, ~220btq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo_V6_engine


CTA :: iVCT + Direct DAMB
3.0L Duratec 30
~240bhp, ~222btq
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ford/2010-ford-fusion-ar67130.html


So in response to my original question, the increased torque is a good answer. What other advantages are there, as clearly HP isn't one of them, though I might digress to negligible - at best.

Thanks!

Btw, we engineering types use the word 'energy' not 'power' to describe the transfer of both rotational and reciprocal natures. Power is used most properly and usefully in electrical applications when referencing amperes. Let's calm down and discuss this nicely, yes?
Click to expand...

You may be an engineer, but you're daft as ••••
 
lol I know. On a positive note, I think I have finally found an appropiate use for this smiley


:hang:
 
Haha whatever my friend, you can't understand the difference in whp between a 2.5L and a 3L even with a simple explanation. Also, can we all stop saying "horsepower", it's obvious from Mr. Engineers post that it should be called "horseenergy" as it refers to mechanical, rather than electrical, energy.

I'm calm but the difference was explained simply once, and you even quoted the reply, yet here you are asking the same question.
 
jaged said:
my 2.5 with svt lite and I/H/E with 220k miles put down 156 hp/150 ft/lbs (not sure on ft/lbs) at the wheels. when my 3L was just a full 3L with 65mm tb H/I/E it made 195hp/200 ft/lbs with an iffy tune at the wheels.

if you ever have the chance drive a csvt back to back with a 3L csvt and you will see HUGE differences
Click to expand...

Yea? That's interesting, because the dyno plots that people have posted on here, as well as other sites, usually come up with ~200whp on a 3.0L with IHE and a tune - which, of course, puts ya league with typical results. This is, of course, building upon / improving its reported base of 200bhp. Your 2.5L baseline seems pretty low (perhaps by as much as 30whp, at least compared to the few others that I've seen). Then again, that's a reasonable number when considering the mileage.

I've seen dynos of both 3.0L and 2.5LSVT, and have seen 'em both around the 180whp range, though the 3.0Ls tend to be ~20 or so whp higher - but this, of course, is after modification and tuning. Even a tune on a stock SVT will yield a few ponies of gain. =)

I can well understand the differences between both motors; however, they are both quite well reported to produce the same hp -- which is why I had thought about this topic.
 
Kresnik said:
Yea? That's interesting, because the dyno plots that people have posted on here, as well as other sites, usually come up with ~200whp on a 3.0L with IHE and a tune - which, of course, puts ya league with typical results. This is, of course, building upon / improving its reported base of 200bhp. Your 2.5L baseline seems pretty low (perhaps by as much as 30whp, at least compared to the few others that I've seen). Then again, that's a reasonable number when considering the mileage.

I've seen dynos of both 3.0L and 2.5LSVT, and have seen 'em both around the 180whp range, though the 3.0Ls tend to be ~20 or so whp higher - but this, of course, is after modification and tuning. Even a tune on a stock SVT will yield a few ponies of gain. =)

I can well understand the differences between both motors; however, they are both quite well reported to produce the same hp -- which is why I had thought about this topic.
Click to expand...

His 2.5 is a base 2.5 with SVT add ons. Most of the power from from SVT came from the cams and tune. You have to remember, a 190 whp SVT isn't common....same thing with TRickers 219 whp 3.0L There are a couple of hand fulls of NA 3.0L on here that in the 220 whp range
 
alls i will say is go drive a stock 2.5 then drive a 3L & see for yourself. that should answer your own ?. since ur not understanding what the numbers people are telling u, go drive & feel the difference yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top