-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
New 3L option. No grinding or welding
- Thread starter todras
- Start date
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
What is funny is that the COP debate is played out too. I actually enlisted the help of an electrical engineer and we made our coil driver ignition modules to run the COP individually as they were desgined to be. You keep touting that Ford does it right, then why aren't they firing their COP in the twin wastespark method?
You think you are the only one that can figure out wiring the coils together off the stock coil driver circuit and firing them in the same pairs as the original wastespark coils fired won't work?
It will but the impedance is not the same as stock therefore you don't really know how much spark energy you create or whether you are going to burn out the pcm coil drivers do you? Did you even do any basic calculations of the systems impedance? And I don't mean a simple resistance check of the coils............
Why don't you search this forum where I broke down the pro's and con's of converting to a COP system while retaining the stock computer to drive it.
It all boils down to the fact that COP can eliminate plug wires, and that's it. The OEM benefits of COP is that since each coil is fired individually you have two whole revolutions to charge and fire the coil; whereas on a wastespark system your coil has to fire every single revolution. That basically doubles the operational rpm range of a true COP system because as you break the 8000rpm range on a wastespark system you have less and less time to fire the coil before you have to turn around and recharge it. The time to fully saturate the coil doesn't change with rpm so if it takes 20miliseconds to fire it and it fires two plugs then you can calculate the time in miliseconds between cylinder events (rpm) at high rpm and find the maximum useful rpm range of the coils.
Now back to your COP:
When you wire them in series you double the impedance and increase the amount of time it takes to charge one of those COPs, possibly longer than the original coils. Maybe not noticeable on the weak rpm range of a stock ovalport but significant from a higher rpm performance standpoint.
If you wire them in parallel then you cut the impedance of the single coil in half, and then the coil drivers on the PCM are probably going to burn out as well as the fact that you'll have weak spark again because of oversaturation34 and reduced voltage. This is why designing an ignition system isn't just about swapping a coil, it is about the whole circuit from the pcm where the coil drivers are, to the coil impedance, the impedance of the wires and plugs, and the air gap distance between the plug electrodes; which is also affected by the type of atmosphere existing between the plug gap.
If the end result is the same, and you have all the risks above, then it made sense to stick with the stock coils since all you have to do is change the plugs and wires every 50K miles in most cases.
Please search, I'm sure it will be in the old forums but don't come on here touting how brand new it is and how old Turbos and superchargers are on contours.
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
lol, nice. Go DevilDog!
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Ummmm....NO! Please reassess.
You hopefully have now seen where the graphs are not properly lined up and why you cannot compare the two unless you have the proper corresponding reference point.
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Thank you! thats what ive been trying to say, but lacked the technical knowledge to lay it all out like that.
Ps:
Yeah, this car is too much fun! It makes me smile almost as much as my old SVT does.
MapOfTaziFoSho
Hard-core CEG'er
Buckeye acting like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum...no way.
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Superimposed image of the same dyno sheet
Superimposed image of the same dyno sheet
Okay, as promised I went ahead and superimposed the two dyno runs over top of each other by lassoing one in photoshop and just dragging it over top of the other, then lined up the two at 5252 rpm, where the HP&TQ curves cross when the torque and HP scales are equal. All that required was a shift left.
Now we can compare the two graphs on the exact same HP/TQ scales, the only thing that is shifted is the time. This is the only verifiable point I can line up accurately. The only other rpm reference point you can reasonably show is the IMRC crossover point which on an SVT is 3800rpm. What you find is that the ovalport starts its dyno run at a higher rpm and when overlayed it is equivalent to a 1.3-1.5 second delay before it starts, meaning time is not a viable comparison here.
However, you can now compare rpm and the hybrid curve starts at approximately 2500rpm when you look at the known points and the grid lines and interpolate the starting rpm. The ovalport starts approximately 3000rpm.
This allows direct comparison of torque and horsepower curves. The
hybrid is actually 20ft-lbs torque higher at 3000rpm. The ovalport
breaks higher at abouts 4000rpm to the tune of 10ft-lbs higher than the
hybrid about4500-5000rpm, then drops down below the hybrid again at the
5252rpm crossover point.
Go up higher to approximately 6000rpm you will see the hybrid is still 180ft-lbs but the ovalport is down to about 145-148ft-lbs, about 40ft-lbs lower! The vaunted torque of the ovalport with escape cams amounts to abouts a 5hp gain over about a 500rpm range whereas it is dramatically lower both below and above, to the tune of 50 wHP @ ~6000rpm and 25 wHP @ ~3000rpm!!!
Amazing how erroneous the conclusions that were first drawn over a
simple scaling issue.
I just don't know how to put it any other way after spending a good 2 hours on analyzing and breaking out the scaling error. This honestly shows that the original manifold system, cams and tuning were far superior for their time if they can still allow a hybrid 3L with all that old technology to be so dramatically superior to the 2005 engines in production.
However, since this is again derived information we can only base it on how accurate the information was originally. Since BuckeyeSVT did say it was the same dyno, same operator, and the same day and the data was correlated in dynojet runviewer with HP/TQ layed out as a function of time, we have to agree that the data is pretty incontrovertible at this point.
I do want to add that this is only two cars and is not representative of every hybrid and every ovalport though.
Superimposed image of the same dyno sheet
Okay, as promised I went ahead and superimposed the two dyno runs over top of each other by lassoing one in photoshop and just dragging it over top of the other, then lined up the two at 5252 rpm, where the HP&TQ curves cross when the torque and HP scales are equal. All that required was a shift left.
Now we can compare the two graphs on the exact same HP/TQ scales, the only thing that is shifted is the time. This is the only verifiable point I can line up accurately. The only other rpm reference point you can reasonably show is the IMRC crossover point which on an SVT is 3800rpm. What you find is that the ovalport starts its dyno run at a higher rpm and when overlayed it is equivalent to a 1.3-1.5 second delay before it starts, meaning time is not a viable comparison here.
However, you can now compare rpm and the hybrid curve starts at approximately 2500rpm when you look at the known points and the grid lines and interpolate the starting rpm. The ovalport starts approximately 3000rpm.
This allows direct comparison of torque and horsepower curves. The
hybrid is actually 20ft-lbs torque higher at 3000rpm. The ovalport
breaks higher at abouts 4000rpm to the tune of 10ft-lbs higher than the
hybrid about4500-5000rpm, then drops down below the hybrid again at the
5252rpm crossover point.
Go up higher to approximately 6000rpm you will see the hybrid is still 180ft-lbs but the ovalport is down to about 145-148ft-lbs, about 40ft-lbs lower! The vaunted torque of the ovalport with escape cams amounts to abouts a 5hp gain over about a 500rpm range whereas it is dramatically lower both below and above, to the tune of 50 wHP @ ~6000rpm and 25 wHP @ ~3000rpm!!!
Amazing how erroneous the conclusions that were first drawn over a
simple scaling issue.
I just don't know how to put it any other way after spending a good 2 hours on analyzing and breaking out the scaling error. This honestly shows that the original manifold system, cams and tuning were far superior for their time if they can still allow a hybrid 3L with all that old technology to be so dramatically superior to the 2005 engines in production.
However, since this is again derived information we can only base it on how accurate the information was originally. Since BuckeyeSVT did say it was the same dyno, same operator, and the same day and the data was correlated in dynojet runviewer with HP/TQ layed out as a function of time, we have to agree that the data is pretty incontrovertible at this point.
I do want to add that this is only two cars and is not representative of every hybrid and every ovalport though.
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
Again, like your pal BurritaSVT just posted in another thread (what is this? A double whammy?) your graphs are incorrect. You really have no idea where 5252 is, I posted it in the other graph.
If you'd like to read my response about your COP comment - look in the other thread, I really don't feel like reposting it. If you are on a witch hunt, I think you better come prepared with more than "I think" and "I adjusted this and that". Hard proof and data is always better.
I do have to add one thing though to your COP comment about researching it... Yes. I did the research, I did it a year ago when I first tried and couldn't get the system to work properly. Then since I had some time this week (vacation from day job) I sat down and did the hard work (yes, it's called research). Once I put all my ducks in a row I drew up a revised diagram for the COP setup. I rewired my ignition system and installed the COP units (and guess what - It works). I can't see how your "PCM driver, and overcurrent issues" are true if the impedence of the COP units is halved vs. doubled in the factory configuration. If you try to use the factory harness direct and tie just the 2 coils together through the negative switching of the PCM - It won't work. Try it some other ways that halve the load - Guess what? Works just peachy. Don't get in a huff about it, I know deep down you are so happy I made it work. You don't have to tell all your peeps you conceded an idea to me...
Yes, I'm taking everything you and your "pal" say with a grain of salt. It's really entertaining actually - As hard as you try to make points (or BS rather) there are very simple explanations to your "theories and questions".
-Dom
If you'd like to read my response about your COP comment - look in the other thread, I really don't feel like reposting it. If you are on a witch hunt, I think you better come prepared with more than "I think" and "I adjusted this and that". Hard proof and data is always better.
I do have to add one thing though to your COP comment about researching it... Yes. I did the research, I did it a year ago when I first tried and couldn't get the system to work properly. Then since I had some time this week (vacation from day job) I sat down and did the hard work (yes, it's called research). Once I put all my ducks in a row I drew up a revised diagram for the COP setup. I rewired my ignition system and installed the COP units (and guess what - It works). I can't see how your "PCM driver, and overcurrent issues" are true if the impedence of the COP units is halved vs. doubled in the factory configuration. If you try to use the factory harness direct and tie just the 2 coils together through the negative switching of the PCM - It won't work. Try it some other ways that halve the load - Guess what? Works just peachy. Don't get in a huff about it, I know deep down you are so happy I made it work. You don't have to tell all your peeps you conceded an idea to me...
Yes, I'm taking everything you and your "pal" say with a grain of salt. It's really entertaining actually - As hard as you try to make points (or BS rather) there are very simple explanations to your "theories and questions".
-Dom
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Sorry but you just didn't say anything of value there. Lets get back to the real information. You stated on your own website "Guess which one is faster" AND posted that link to the very same dyno sheet that I just used!
Now you come on and post "I have no idea where 5252 is"?
My God, it is a mathematical relationship between torque and horsepower and when you set the torque/HP scales equal then the graphs ALWAYS cross at 5252.
I just took your graphs that were aligned according to time and the superimposed them at the crossover point where the torque and horsepowers cross. How can you even dispute that fact when it was YOUR data that you posted and your implications as to how much faster your 3L oval is than that guys hybrid was.
Well if you line the rpm ranges up you see that it's truly smoke an mirrors. You car would be stomped both at low rpm and high rpm and only for the short time in the middle would you be able to hang.
You mentioned the peak 210ft-lbs of torque but you fail to mention that the SVT hybrid held onto 200ft-lbs for more than twice as long and never fell below 175 ft-lbs. What did yours fall to again????? 135 ft-lbs? :shocked:
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
Again, more info posted in the other thread you obviously failed to read.
Let's get this straight so the people in the cheap seats can clearly hear what I am saying.
If you pull a time graph between 2 3.0L engines on the same dyno with the same final drive and one finishes almost 2 seconds before - That's faster. That was a 4th gear wide open throttle run on both accounts and overlayed with WinPEP software. There is no cheating, I am not making this up. If you don't like the results, stop this silly "you liar, you cheated" crap. You can download WinPEP from DynoJets website and I can send you those 2 files. You can sit there all night long and play with it, the files are locked - I cannot change how they ran, nor can I skew the numbers to make one "faster" than the other.
In a race, the car who gets through one gear faster than the other with the same engine and transmission (including final drive) will beat the other one. If you want to play Johnny Stupid - Go ahead. But unless YOU have a more valid point perhaps it would be best to quit now.
-Dom
Let's get this straight so the people in the cheap seats can clearly hear what I am saying.
If you pull a time graph between 2 3.0L engines on the same dyno with the same final drive and one finishes almost 2 seconds before - That's faster. That was a 4th gear wide open throttle run on both accounts and overlayed with WinPEP software. There is no cheating, I am not making this up. If you don't like the results, stop this silly "you liar, you cheated" crap. You can download WinPEP from DynoJets website and I can send you those 2 files. You can sit there all night long and play with it, the files are locked - I cannot change how they ran, nor can I skew the numbers to make one "faster" than the other.
In a race, the car who gets through one gear faster than the other with the same engine and transmission (including final drive) will beat the other one. If you want to play Johnny Stupid - Go ahead. But unless YOU have a more valid point perhaps it would be best to quit now.
-Dom
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
One more thing....
One more thing....
I have one more question to ask...
When you are doing all this "oval port sucks" theory - What engine are you comparing it to? Give me specs, and the total build cost (minus labor). I'm sure for the same amount of money you have in this "killer hybrid" I could make the straight 3L go the same. I have a "High Power" 3L sitting in my shop right now, I know the owner well and I built his engine. It's a 228FWHP/203FWTQ engine.. The same in that above graph. He has $4000 invested in it.
Do you think your "oval port sucks" comparison has much weight when it requires more $$$ to get there? Any engine that has that much money can "get there".
-Dom
One more thing....
I have one more question to ask...
When you are doing all this "oval port sucks" theory - What engine are you comparing it to? Give me specs, and the total build cost (minus labor). I'm sure for the same amount of money you have in this "killer hybrid" I could make the straight 3L go the same. I have a "High Power" 3L sitting in my shop right now, I know the owner well and I built his engine. It's a 228FWHP/203FWTQ engine.. The same in that above graph. He has $4000 invested in it.
Do you think your "oval port sucks" comparison has much weight when it requires more $$$ to get there? Any engine that has that much money can "get there".
-Dom
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
amuse yourself by going over to the other thread and see the other dynos so you can match up that moster build you have your shop to the 234whp last dyno sheet....hmm
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Yeah, it is when you start the dyno 1000rpm higher than the other car!
If you start the race with a handicap ahead of the other car you will look just as fast. :shrug:
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
LOL
LOL
I couldn't resist after talking to Mark, as this is pretty bad.
First off, you are a tuner correct? If you answered yes, I feel sorry for everyone on CEG. Let's look at my graph a little more closely (The time difference graph). Let me point out to you that this is a "TIME DIFFERENCE' graph - Not engine speed graph. Perhaps, you are a little fuzzy on what a time difference graph does vs. a normal graph.
Some "real" tuners also tune for "time difference", which basically means that in one gear at the same RPM pulling from 2200RPM to 6800RPM (limiter) comparing the time it takes for each motor to complete the run. It is a timed event, not cross examined by engine RPM. Perhaps it may be that I'm the only smart one here (as it is my graph - I posted it on FCO, not here), but time difference will not make things line up at 5252RPM. Changing the time graph for them to both point to 5252RPM was funny - But pointless. It's not the comparison of horsepower and torque over RPM - But time.
Let's look at the graphs (unmolested) by photoshop. Below you can see 2 graphs, the one on the left is a normal dyno run graph between the 2 cars. Do you see where we "fudged" the numbers? No cars were run 1000RPM before the other - That was you and BurritaSVT's misunderstanding of what you were reading. The second graph is a repost of the same graph you posted here (minus your nice photoshop work that completely invalidated the data on it). The point of the second graph shows the straight 3L is 1.5 seconds faster getting the engine from 2200RPM to 6800RPM vs. the Hybrid. This is no joke, you can play with your photoshop all night..
Perhaps here all this time you were trying to make me look like an ass, you both wore it all over your face. Good for you, it's about time you get humbled for something. It took alot not to call both of you worse - But I'm not about that anymore. You also got owned on NECO as well - Perhaps instead of just posting graphs of various configurations maybe you should list what is done to them as well. I know they are not base hybrids with 2.5L valves and stock precats. The car in the comparison here is mine, and it has stock precats (gutted) and a short ram air intake. Other than that - Nothing done to it. I spent $1300 (including SCT chip and dyno tune) which netted me more power. That's it. You provide me evidence you can help a Diy'er build a hybrid or oval to split port for $1300 and match my numbers - Well, I'll lend some credibility back your way. Because right now, you have zero with me. Any dyno guy should know that graph and the principle - Especially if you tune. Since you are master Contour tuner - I would've thought you "knew it all". Maybe you just learned something from someone you never expected.
Good night!
-Dom
LOL
I couldn't resist after talking to Mark, as this is pretty bad.
First off, you are a tuner correct? If you answered yes, I feel sorry for everyone on CEG. Let's look at my graph a little more closely (The time difference graph). Let me point out to you that this is a "TIME DIFFERENCE' graph - Not engine speed graph. Perhaps, you are a little fuzzy on what a time difference graph does vs. a normal graph.
Some "real" tuners also tune for "time difference", which basically means that in one gear at the same RPM pulling from 2200RPM to 6800RPM (limiter) comparing the time it takes for each motor to complete the run. It is a timed event, not cross examined by engine RPM. Perhaps it may be that I'm the only smart one here (as it is my graph - I posted it on FCO, not here), but time difference will not make things line up at 5252RPM. Changing the time graph for them to both point to 5252RPM was funny - But pointless. It's not the comparison of horsepower and torque over RPM - But time.
Let's look at the graphs (unmolested) by photoshop. Below you can see 2 graphs, the one on the left is a normal dyno run graph between the 2 cars. Do you see where we "fudged" the numbers? No cars were run 1000RPM before the other - That was you and BurritaSVT's misunderstanding of what you were reading. The second graph is a repost of the same graph you posted here (minus your nice photoshop work that completely invalidated the data on it). The point of the second graph shows the straight 3L is 1.5 seconds faster getting the engine from 2200RPM to 6800RPM vs. the Hybrid. This is no joke, you can play with your photoshop all night..
Perhaps here all this time you were trying to make me look like an ass, you both wore it all over your face. Good for you, it's about time you get humbled for something. It took alot not to call both of you worse - But I'm not about that anymore. You also got owned on NECO as well - Perhaps instead of just posting graphs of various configurations maybe you should list what is done to them as well. I know they are not base hybrids with 2.5L valves and stock precats. The car in the comparison here is mine, and it has stock precats (gutted) and a short ram air intake. Other than that - Nothing done to it. I spent $1300 (including SCT chip and dyno tune) which netted me more power. That's it. You provide me evidence you can help a Diy'er build a hybrid or oval to split port for $1300 and match my numbers - Well, I'll lend some credibility back your way. Because right now, you have zero with me. Any dyno guy should know that graph and the principle - Especially if you tune. Since you are master Contour tuner - I would've thought you "knew it all". Maybe you just learned something from someone you never expected.
Good night!
-Dom
Attachments
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
I'm keeping a civil tone but I'm telling it like it is....
I'm keeping a civil tone but I'm telling it like it is....
Again....I didn't change the data in your graph, I shifted the curve over so that rpm lined up since that is the only common reference....we had to have something to compare them to each other with.
It's not my fault you committed at least two gross errors or cardinal sins when posting your dyno data. You compared something based on time with all different starting variables. One, you used seconds without standardizing the starting rpm, nor the wheel diameter. Two, you keep publishing it in STD correction factor which makes it look like your car could break 200wHP when it can't when compared fairly in SAE like everyone else does. Either use SAE or use no correction, either one is more valid than STD.
And then make comments in the other thread about:
"who cares if it has a flat torque curve when it has 20ft-lbs less torque.." paraphrased of course. And you are really talking about comparing your STD correction graph against my SAE corrected graph. When you convert mine to STD in WINPEP the numbers are significantly higher. I'm quite confident that your's would be showing around 190 HP and maybe 195-200ft-lbs of torque were you to use the same correction factor as anyone else. Not only that you keep talking about the low end torque when your own graph is showing that the hybrid has superior low-end torque to the ovalport! :shocked: Is no one else seeing that but me??
We all see how badly it destroys the ovalport in the top end but no one notices how much higher it is in the low-end?
If anyone tunes a car based on time alone....they are a fool. The time difference would be the product of proper tuning of air fuel and timing and therefore is a second order effect here. You can't tune for time because you would still have to change one of the primary variables to get a change in time. I have no idea where you'd be going with that point but maybe its because I'm not REAL....I'm corpoREAL. lol:laugh:
Obviously I tune and whether I'm a "real" one or not is just a moot point after all.
What is really Rich is that all this debate started over a fuel mod comment and you brought in a bunch of stuff about your straight 3L swaps to support your supposed skills. Well you leave me no choice but to analyze your work and when you start posting up examples of your work deliberately skewed with normally unused correction factors and conditional comparisons using time references with a million unknown variables contributing to the variations...it just doesn't lend more to your credibility to your arguments.
I'm all for debating the viability of an affordable straight 3L swap but I'm about doing it fairly and accurately.
And if you haven't figured it out by now, I've been doing rigorous comparisons for a long time now and I've posted proof positive of the advantages of both systems.
I'm keeping a civil tone but I'm telling it like it is....
Again....I didn't change the data in your graph, I shifted the curve over so that rpm lined up since that is the only common reference....we had to have something to compare them to each other with.
It's not my fault you committed at least two gross errors or cardinal sins when posting your dyno data. You compared something based on time with all different starting variables. One, you used seconds without standardizing the starting rpm, nor the wheel diameter. Two, you keep publishing it in STD correction factor which makes it look like your car could break 200wHP when it can't when compared fairly in SAE like everyone else does. Either use SAE or use no correction, either one is more valid than STD.
And then make comments in the other thread about:
"who cares if it has a flat torque curve when it has 20ft-lbs less torque.." paraphrased of course. And you are really talking about comparing your STD correction graph against my SAE corrected graph. When you convert mine to STD in WINPEP the numbers are significantly higher. I'm quite confident that your's would be showing around 190 HP and maybe 195-200ft-lbs of torque were you to use the same correction factor as anyone else. Not only that you keep talking about the low end torque when your own graph is showing that the hybrid has superior low-end torque to the ovalport! :shocked: Is no one else seeing that but me??
We all see how badly it destroys the ovalport in the top end but no one notices how much higher it is in the low-end?
If anyone tunes a car based on time alone....they are a fool. The time difference would be the product of proper tuning of air fuel and timing and therefore is a second order effect here. You can't tune for time because you would still have to change one of the primary variables to get a change in time. I have no idea where you'd be going with that point but maybe its because I'm not REAL....I'm corpoREAL. lol:laugh:
Obviously I tune and whether I'm a "real" one or not is just a moot point after all.
What is really Rich is that all this debate started over a fuel mod comment and you brought in a bunch of stuff about your straight 3L swaps to support your supposed skills. Well you leave me no choice but to analyze your work and when you start posting up examples of your work deliberately skewed with normally unused correction factors and conditional comparisons using time references with a million unknown variables contributing to the variations...it just doesn't lend more to your credibility to your arguments.
I'm all for debating the viability of an affordable straight 3L swap but I'm about doing it fairly and accurately.
And if you haven't figured it out by now, I've been doing rigorous comparisons for a long time now and I've posted proof positive of the advantages of both systems.