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

    You can register to join the community.

New 3.5L V6 Swap

Some beefy 265mm r compound tires would cure some traction issues at the track. I already have spare fenders to hack up, and I also know where to find wheels to support those kind of tires. Peopleonly complain about traction issues here and never do any real mods to cure it. So yes. A 400+ hp 2.3 would sit a contour chassis nicely and would work well if you can afford it. I brought up the idea so people could constructivley talk about it. But if you want to disreguard it like most other new ideas that get shot down so quickly around here, go for it. I wouldn't put that much money into a contour though. I would agree that a 3.0 swap is the best perfomance per dollar value. I would wait a while if I were somebody who would want to swap a 3.5/7 into a contour just because of cost alone. The more available the new engine is, the cheaper it will be. You can find 2.3 duratec engines in mazdas and fords all over though. They also bolt up to the mtx75 with the proper bell housing. I could go on. But in short, I think a boosted 2.3 is a better swap than the new cyclone engine.

Edit: I also forgot to say that even though I would love to have an all wheel drive car and that it is possible in a contour, it's not really worth the cost. I think I would spank some subarus if my car did have it though. Anyone want to donate some money into my race car fund?
 
Why use the Duratec 23 instead of the new Duratec 25 found in the escape... Most of the parts that are available for the 2.3L would work on the 2.5 4cylinder.

It would be cool to turn the 2.3 into a cosworth engine.
 
The 2.5 just came out like 5 minutes ago. That's why I talk about availability. The 2.3 is available everywhere in large numbers. Plus the aftermarket internals are for the 2.3 bore and stroke. Besides engine internals, most everything will work for the 2.5 also. But a stout bottom end is essential for big power.
 
lolz, this thread is funnay

does anybody know how contact patch works? wider tires dont increase contact area, they only change the shape of it.
 
KAOS_2.5M said:
lolz, this thread is funnay

does anybody know how contact patch works? wider tires dont increase contact area, they only change the shape of it.
Click to expand...

Do YOU know how contact patch works? Rim width, sidewall size and stiffness, and air pressure change the shape of it. Tire width mostly changes the width of it. The weight of the car must also be taken into account. If you put wider tires then the ones already on a wheel, it will change the shape. But I was never suggesting that. That's why I said that I know where to get the proper wheel to support a massive tire size. Carefully read my posts. They normally have more in it than meets the eye at first glance.
 
thats right, weight and tire pressure. I could give a crap about the rims.

did you know you can determine the weight of the car by measuring the length and width of the contact patch on all four corners?

the real benefit of a lighter engine would be better weight distribution. also, exactly how much lighter IS this 2.3? I'm guessing it weighs a little more than your thinking.
 
I don't care if you give a crap about rim width. It doesn't change the fact that it affects the contact patch shape. If you take 245/45/17 tires and put them on a 7 inch wide wheel, it will have a different contact patch shape than if you put that same tire on a 8.5 inch wheel at the same psi. They will certainly both drive differently. Your focusing on contact patch a standstill, when you need to account how it's going to be under acceleration, brakeing, and cornering. You have read somthing somewhere, and you are now trying to recite it without an understanding of it. I will politely awnswer any questions that you may have about tires. If I am wrong about something, I will be the first to agree.
 
I didn't say rim width didn't affect the shape of it, I said it won't affect the contact AREA.

now Mr. Bill Nye the genius guy, why don't you tell the class how to calculate roll center... since you know so much
 
Okay then. Suspension is kinda my thing. But first, are we talking about strut, multilink, or a solid axle? Not only can I recite what I've read and learned about suspension geometry, I understand how it works. Do you also want me to explain how just knowing roll center alone isn't good enough without knowing the center of gravity? Do you want me to explain how they work with each other and that the front and rear of each are at different heights? Do you want me to explain that there's an imaginary line between both the front and rear roll center and gravity center? Even better yet. Don't try me. You'll loose badly. I definitely don't have as much contour specific knowledge as some around here. You'll be hard pressed to find someone with more racing knowledge.
 
Last edited:
well unless your a circle track hillbilly, the center of gravity should be on the center line of the car. and we're going to discuss mcphereson struts, since that is how most road cars are made.

as a rule of thumb, the roll center is usually 1/3 the distance from the LCA's pivot point and the ground. lower the car, lower the roll center. unless of course you have a solid axel (mustang rear, big jeep with live front, ect ect) in that case the roll center is smack dab in the middle of the diff housing, unless you have a watts link, mumford link, ect ect. with a mumford link, you can even set the roll center below ground level.

the front roll center should be around 1/2-2/3 the height of the rear roll center, which means if you have something like a mustang, lowering the car will make it handle like a shopping cart. in that case your going to have to get a watts link or something like it.

camber is another important factor here when we're trying to determine cornering power.
 
ok guys let try putting our heads together instead of banging them together. You both obviously have an understanding of setups... look forward to hearing about what worked and what didn't in your experience ...G.
 
Your a moron and I'm calling you out on it now. Center of gravity would mean in relation to the ground. Not left right on the car. And center of roll can be calculated to an exact location. About wont work. You sir, don't know nearly as much as me on this topic and you need to be quiet now.
 
the truely knowledgeable and experienced people i've met, were calm and measured folk... what gives ?... G.
 
SCC did a baisic suspension geometry series of articles. You should read them. If you think that you understand them, I can learn you on some more advanced stuff. Stop digging yourself into a hole.
0508_sccp_02_z_+suspension+roll_center.jpg
 
gorman said:
the truely knowledgeable and experienced people i've met, were calm and measured folk... what gives ?... G.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I tried being nice and informative and that diddn't work. I will be unsubscribing from this thread and not talking to mr kaos any more. He insists that he's right, and there for he must be. No one can correct him because he knows everything. I must be the fool.
 
that image you gave is pretty usefull, though it's not telling how to determin the roll center or center of gravity, it is useing both to determine the theoretical point that the center of gravity shifts to in a corner.

calculating the roll center requires a bunch of measuring that is crazy to do, like, measuring the length of the struts under load, measuring and marking out the center line on the ground, the oem center of rotation for the ball joints, height of center of rotation from the ground, height of the strut towers, which takes a level and a yard stick, height of the lca pivot point at the center of rotation, the distance of all these points from the center line, ect ect
 
Goumba said:
I agree with you. I tried being nice and informative and that diddn't work. I will be unsubscribing from this thread and not talking to mr kaos any more. He insists that he's right, and there for he must be. No one can correct him because he knows everything. I must be the fool.
Click to expand...

correct away man, I only jumped your :censored::censored::censored::censored: in the first place because you were making it out as though wider rims somehow magically made a larger contact area, which they dont. the only way to get more rubber touching the road is with less air pressure, or more weight. well, to an extent anyway. i suppose if you could get tires wide enough were they exceed the amount that the contact patch can be shorter, and continue to get wider, you would get more rubber on the road, but that would be a very large tire.
 
And all this has what to do with the OT?

Kaos... if you're just learning this in school, please don't taunt it and regurgitate from your books. There are several people here that actually work in the field and are very knowledgeable. Do not put them off.. you might actually learn something from them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top