Ford Contour SVT VS Contour SE Sport?
Sven Setterdahl
Slow down, slow down. The SVT is the same basic car including the engine.
The differences are more refinement than changes. Extrude honed intake and
a freer flowning exhaust are the major engine enhancements. Upgraded
springs, struts, and tires are the major suspension upgrades. Special
leather and white faced guages are the major interior upgrades. SVT does
not design totally different cars. They take an existing vehicle and give
it a bit more performance.
Mark C. wrote:
> This is an easy one - answer is YES!! The jump from the SE Sport to the
> SVT is like the jump in baseball from AAA to the Major Leagues. Not just
> the engine is different, but intake, exhaust, brakes, wheels, tires,
> suspension, seats, gauges, exterior appearance pkg., the list goes on &
> on, it is barely the same car. The finest domestic sports sedan & worth
> the extra $$.
>
> FORD SVT RULZ!!!
Gerald Wang
In article <2052-359...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Mark C. <EAT...@webtv.net> wrote:
>This is an easy one - answer is YES!! The jump from the SE Sport to the
>SVT is like the jump in baseball from AAA to the Major Leagues. Not just
>the engine is different, but intake, exhaust, brakes, wheels, tires,
>suspension, seats, gauges, exterior appearance pkg., the list goes on &
>on, it is barely the same car. The finest domestic sports sedan & worth
>the extra $$.
Agreed! However, even the non-SVT Contour with V6 and 5-speed is pretty
quick and nimble. You most certainly won't be able to find a better
performing sedan for that kind of money.
Gerald
Mark C.
SVT differences continued...The seats are exclusive to the SVT, totally
different. Where it counts, this car bears virtually no similarity to
lesser Contours. Go to the aftermarket and see how much all this trick
performance stuff would cost, a whole lot more than $4000.
FORD SVT RULZ!!!
Mark C.
Beg to differ. SVT Contours have eutectic pistons and lighter flywheels,
there may be other internal engine differences as well. The suspension
links may be the same (or they may not, considering the car rides 1"
lower) but changing the springs, struts, wheels & tires pretty much
makes it totally different where it really matters. The entire intake
system is different, not just the manifold. SVT's have conical K&N air
filters. The entire exhaust system is different (this is obvious if you
have heard the SVT's song, what a sweet exhaust note!) SVT's have tube
headers, not manifolds. The rear disc brakes are from a European Mondeo,
totally different (and totally visible through the beautiful 16" SVT
wheels)
Mighty Joe
the filter element) from the 3.0L Duratec used in the Taurus for
exceptional breathing ability. It's hollow super-alloyed camshafts also
add to it's revving ability by reducing recipricating mass, as does the
lightened flywheel. This car is an amazing car to drive and is really
worth every penny of it's cost, which is very reasonable to begin with.
Now if Ford would only combine all the technical innovations from the
original 3.0 Duratec, the 2.5 SVT and the new Lincoln LS-6 3.0 Duratec
into one engine/performance package in a moderately priced mid-sized
family sedan (al a Taurus), we would truly have ourselves a new standard
of performance by which all others would be judged!
Goodbye From--
Mighty Joe
proud author of
www.MTYJOE.com
AMERICA'S PATRIOTIC HOME PAGES©
Rmoburg
Joe) wrote:
>The Contour SVT 2.5L also uses the intake manifold and air box (save for
>the filter element) from the 3.0L Duratec used in the Taurus for
>exceptional breathing ability. It's hollow super-alloyed camshafts also
>add to it's revving ability by reducing recipricating mass, as does the
>lightened flywheel. This car is an amazing car to drive and is really
>worth every penny of it's cost, which is very reasonable to begin with.
>
>Now if Ford would only combine all the technical innovations from the
>original 3.0 Duratec, the 2.5 SVT and the new Lincoln LS-6 3.0 Duratec
>into one engine/performance package in a moderately priced mid-sized
>family sedan (al a Taurus), we would truly have ourselves a new standard
>of performance by which all others would be judged!
How about all the good stuff in the SVT but with 3.0 engine instead
of the 2.5?
The only thing the SVT is lacking, IMO, is bottom end punch.
Chad E. Purser
it. I do, however, agree with the statement that it needs more low end grunt.
But get it over 4500 rpm, and it hauls. It also handles beautifully (better
than the mustang, IMO), and don't even get me started on the exhaust note!
ball...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Timothy Drotar
Nice to see that you are so enthusiastic about SVT. I am to but I have to
say that the Contour SVT was a let down. Aside from the aesthetics, the
mchanicals are not that much different from the SE. Powertrain wise, Ford
could have done alot better by putting the 3.0L from the Taurus... but that
would mean that they would have to do MUCH more legal certification and it
wouldnt have made business sense.
Dont get me wrong, the SVT is a nice package... Just not worth the extra
money over the already pleasing SE V6.
I'll keep my '96 Probe GT 5sp thank you!
ball...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6pu1d3$g1d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
rmoburg
<tdr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Nice to see that you are so enthusiastic about SVT. I am to but I have to
>say that the Contour SVT was a let down. Aside from the aesthetics, the
>mchanicals are not that much different from the SE. Powertrain wise, Ford
>could have done alot better by putting the 3.0L from the Taurus... but that
>would mean that they would have to do MUCH more legal certification and it
>wouldnt have made business sense.
>
>Dont get me wrong, the SVT is a nice package... Just not worth the extra
>money over the already pleasing SE V6.
>
>I'll keep my '96 Probe GT 5sp thank you!
>
Exactly what I thought ..... 500 more cc's would have helped a too
soft bottom end torque curve. We have a V6 and really like everything
but it's lack of off the line hustle.
ray mcnairy
rmoburg wrote:
> On 1 Aug 1998 14:58:08 GMT, "Timothy Drotar"
> <tdr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nice to see that you are so enthusiastic about SVT. I am to but I have to
> >say that the Contour SVT was a let down.
> >
> >Dont get me wrong, the SVT is a nice package... Just not worth the extra
> >money over the already pleasing SE V6.
> >
> >I'll keep my '96 Probe GT 5sp thank you!
> >
>
> Exactly what I thought ..... 500 more cc's would have helped a too
> soft bottom end torque curve. We have a V6 and really like everything
> but it's lack of off the line hustle.
Guess I humbly disagree. The SVT is still making power at redline where the
"normal" V-6 starts to drop at just over 6K. Check out the dyno runs at the
CEG page: http://www.contour.org/FAQ/dynoruns.html
All depends on what you want in the car.
--
Delete either one of the 2's from my address to reply
Ciao, Ray (Boomer) McNairy
"624"
"So many fools, so few comets!"
rmoburg
<mugw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>rmoburg wrote:
>
>> On 1 Aug 1998 14:58:08 GMT, "Timothy Drotar"
>> <tdr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Nice to see that you are so enthusiastic about SVT. I am to but I have to
>> >say that the Contour SVT was a let down.
>> >
>> >Dont get me wrong, the SVT is a nice package... Just not worth the extra
>> >money over the already pleasing SE V6.
>> >
>> >I'll keep my '96 Probe GT 5sp thank you!
>> >
>>
>> Exactly what I thought ..... 500 more cc's would have helped a too
>> soft bottom end torque curve. We have a V6 and really like everything
>> but it's lack of off the line hustle.
>
> Guess I humbly disagree. The SVT is still making power at redline where the
>"normal" V-6 starts to drop at just over 6K. Check out the dyno runs at the
>CEG page: http://www.contour.org/FAQ/dynoruns.html
>All depends on what you want in the car.
Ray,
I think you can have both.... Just think of the 3.0 Duratech with the
same treatment the SVT 2.5 got. The 3.0 certainly has good top end
now, and with a little polishing and FI changes, you could have your
cake and eat it too.
There is still no replacement for displacement <G> particularly from
800 RPM to 3000.
Mel H.
discuss it? The current SVT Contour beats the tar out of the SE Sport
(and all other competitors in its class). I have driven both - no
contest, the SVT is better everywhere that it counts. I have also driven
both a 3.0 Taurus and an SHO and the SHO does not justify its premium.
As for the Probe, it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath
with any SVT product, all of which represent Ford very well at the top
their respective classes. The enthusiast press never even bothered to
include the Probe in its coupe comparos near the end of its production
run.
Mel H.
1998 Contour SVT
1993 Ranger
Formerly 1985 Merkur XR4Ti
Timothy Drotar
more HP and some fancy dress does not do it for me. Slap some low aspect
ratio 16" tires, some Billstiens and some Performance Fiction pads on that
SE and you've got yourself a nice setup... and save your cash for a real
SVT product, like the new Mustang Cobra or the rumored Lightning F150.
The SVT contour is no Jetta VR6!
I agree about the Taurus 3.0 vs SHO. The 24v V6 Taurus is a fine package.
The SHO w/o a stick does no justice to that fine V8
By the way, don't hold your breath for a 3.0L SVT Contour!
I love my Probe GT V6!!!!!!!!!
Mel H.
few aftermarket add ons and an expertly engineered and refined total
package, which is the difference between this "modified" SE Sport you
proposed and the best American made sports sedan, the SVT, which was
billed by Car & Driver as the best handling sedan in the world for less
than $25000. The Jetta is so good they didn't even bother entering it in
the contest. It's a non-competitve late '80s design that they tossed a
good engine into. As a total package, it's a loser. Throwing on some
Bilsteins doesn't cut it and suggesting that it does is an insult to the
fine Engineers at SVT. I suggest you stick to your Probe and leave the
real cars for those who know one when they drive one.
rmoburg
(Mel H.) wrote:
>Ford doesn't offer the 3.0 in the SVT (at least not yet) so why even
>discuss it?
The reason to discuss it is because this is a NG to discuss such
things. And IMO the 2.5 SVT still has a soft bottom end to it's torque
curve. Something the 3.0 could help a great deal. It's the same
dimension motor, so why not discuss it?
kewlbeanz
Mel H. wrote in message
<2282-35C...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
You should check the ZX2 post done below:
"My secretary needed an inexpensive sporty coupe and after looking at
everthing out there, she bought a '98 Neon R/T. Yes it has Viper
stripes, most people think they are pretty cool, plus a bunch of other
R/T specific stuff. This car beats the %$*^ out of the ZX2 performance
wise, and costs $1000's less. No problems at all, she absolutely loves
it. I have an SVT Contour, and I'm not sure it could beat that little
thing in a road race, It's a real goer. I regard the ZX2 as something of
a poseur, like a Dodge Avenger..."
mark copeland
the Contour SVT are kindred spirits (so is the BMW M3 for that matter).
These cars are all expertly tuned by highly educated Engineers who know
how to get the maximum reliable performance out of them. Joe Blow
slapping aftermarket parts onto the base cars they originated from does
not compare. The other thing these cars have in common: they are worth
the extra money because they are the best performers in their various
classes. BTW, this thread is really about current reality: the 3.0 is
not available in the SVT, we would then be comparing a theoretical car
vs. the SE Sport. My guess is the 3.0 is not available with SVT tuning
because Ford doesn't have a tranny that could handle it and still fit in
the Contour (just a guess).
Gerald Wang
Mel H. <sierra_...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Ford doesn't offer the 3.0 in the SVT (at least not yet) so why even
Apparently the upcoming Euro version of the SVT Contour (called the
Contour SHO) will feature the 3.0L Duratec. Now only if us North Americans
could get one!
Gerald
rmoburg
You'd better get a quick E_Mail to Ford in Ghent Belgium then before
they make a terrible mistake!
rmoburg
(Mel H.) wrote:
>It is obvious that you do not know the difference between tacking on a
>few aftermarket add ons and an expertly engineered and refined total
>package, which is the difference between this "modified" SE Sport you
>proposed and the best American made sports sedan, the SVT, which was
>billed by Car & Driver as the best handling sedan in the world for less
>than $25000. The Jetta is so good they didn't even bother entering it in
>the contest. It's a non-competitve late '80s design that they tossed a
>good engine into. As a total package, it's a loser. Throwing on some
>Bilsteins doesn't cut it and suggesting that it does is an insult to the
>fine Engineers at SVT. I suggest you stick to your Probe and leave the
>real cars for those who know one when they drive one.
I also respectfully suggest you learn how to use a news reader so
people will know what, and who, you are replying to....
pssftrey...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35ce0fd3...@enews.newsguy.com>,
rmo...@sickofspam.interaccess.com (rmoburg) wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:18:20 -0500 (CDT), sierra_...@webtv.net
> (Mel H.) wrote:
>
> >Ford doesn't offer the 3.0 in the SVT (at least not yet) so why even
> >discuss it?
>
> The reason to discuss it is because this is a NG to discuss such
> things. And IMO the 2.5 SVT still has a soft bottom end to it's torque
> curve. Something the 3.0 could help a great deal. It's the same
> dimension motor, so why not discuss it?
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Mel H.
get, just have to try to put 2 & 2 together. If there is a 3.0 SVT
Contour in the works - 1) Contour is not a European nameplate, it's
Mondeo over there (Contour SHO???). 2) It would be for the next
generation Contour, not the current one and if form holds true, it will
be a slightly bigger car, allowing a 3.0 to fit. 3) Ford has a history
of building high performance stuff for Europe, then not sending it to
the U.S. (see Ford Sierra Cosworth, a car I would have bought the day it
got here). I hope Ford builds it so I'll have something to trade my SVT
for in a few years. Then again, maybe the new smaller Jag rumored to be
built on the next Contour chassis (not refering to the LS8 based Jag)
will be here by then. It would be even faster yet. Hmmm, better save up
more money.
Reinier
(Gerald Wang) wrote:
>In article <17949-35C...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>Mel H. <sierra_...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>Ford doesn't offer the 3.0 in the SVT (at least not yet) so why even
>>discuss it? The current SVT Contour beats the tar out of the SE Sport
>
>Apparently the upcoming Euro version of the SVT Contour (called the
>Contour SHO) will feature the 3.0L Duratec. Now only if us North Americans
>could get one!
Really ?? and where did you get this information from ? I doubt they
will. The Contour is sold in Europe as Mondeo btw.... and they hardly
sell the V6 model, I think 95+% of the models being sold in Europe is
the 2.0l. Would be strictly niche market (the 'SHO')
>
>Gerald
>
Gerald Wang
mark copeland <sierrac...@webtv.net> wrote:
>vs. the SE Sport. My guess is the 3.0 is not available with SVT tuning
>because Ford doesn't have a tranny that could handle it and still fit in
>the Contour (just a guess).
There were some prototypes running around with the 3.0L Duratec. I think
the reason why they ended up going with the tweaked 2.5L is because they
figured it wasn't worth the trouble and cost having to go through the
crash-test and certification process if they'd chosen to go with the
3.0L.
Regards,
Gerald
Gerald Wang
Reinier <rruite...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Really ?? and where did you get this information from ? I doubt they
>will. The Contour is sold in Europe as Mondeo btw.... and they hardly
>sell the V6 model, I think 95+% of the models being sold in Europe is
>the 2.0l. Would be strictly niche market (the 'SHO')
Yeah, I let that one slip. You are definitely right that it's called the
Mondeo. I heard about this through someone on the Contour mailing list
(www.contour.org), and that person read about it in "Car" magazine I
believe.
Regards,
Gerald
Mel H.
3.0 if the Jag project is approved. Ford wants Jaguar to be a full line
car maker and that means a BMW 3-Series competitor. The only reason Ford
hasn't approved it already is the fwd vs. rwd dilemma, this Jag would
probably have to be fwd (big tooling $$$ to make the new chassis rwd
compatible) and Ford hasn't decided if it wants to do that. Jags are
always going to be at the top of the Ford food chain when it comes to
power if they share a chassis with a Ford product. If a 3.0 SVT gets
say, 220hp (likely) then the Jag would get 250hp (different engine
though, Jags don't share engines with lowly Fords). M3's have 240hp and
do 60 in 5.6sec. We are looking at a mid/low-5sec sedan here (probably
mid/low-6sec for the 3.0 SVT). We can only hope these awesome cars get
built.
Hector
Reinier wrote in message <35cddacf...@news.impulsedata.net>...
>On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 06:17:49 GMT, gtw...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
>(Gerald Wang) wrote:
>
>>Apparently the upcoming Euro version of the SVT Contour (called the
>>Contour SHO) will feature the 3.0L Duratec. Now only if us North Americans
>>could get one!
>
>will. The Contour is sold in Europe as Mondeo btw.... and they hardly
>sell the V6 model, I think 95+% of the models being sold in Europe is
>the 2.0l. Would be strictly niche market (the 'SHO')
>
There is rumor that Ford will be putting a 3.0L Duratec into the SVT
Contour.
The Mondeo in the U.K. is available with 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0 liter 16 valve
Zetec engines. Also available is a 1.8L turbo diesel. The 24V Duratec V6 is
also sold. An ST24 variant is the equivalent of the SVT Contour.
Of note: the Duratec is a 100% U.S. design, the Zetec is based on Yamaha
input.
In Europe, the Mondeo is sold as a 4 door, 5-door (hatchback) and wagon
(Estate).
Check out:
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~hmachado/Mondeo/mondeo.html
Gerald Wang
Mel H. <sierra_...@webtv.net> wrote:
>always going to be at the top of the Ford food chain when it comes to
>power if they share a chassis with a Ford product. If a 3.0 SVT gets
>say, 220hp (likely) then the Jag would get 250hp (different engine
>though, Jags don't share engines with lowly Fords). M3's have 240hp and
>do 60 in 5.6sec. We are looking at a mid/low-5sec sedan here (probably
>mid/low-6sec for the 3.0 SVT). We can only hope these awesome cars get
>built.
Yes, I want one very badly. :-) It'd be nice if it had all-wheel drive
too.
Gerald
Mel H.
$30,000". The Audi and Acura weren't even entered. A Honda Prelude won
and the BMW 318ti finished 2nd. They are coupes. The SVT finished 3rd,
It is a sedan. The test you are refering to had a pre-production SVT vs.
several sedans from Europe and Japan, not the handling test I am
refering to, which used a production SVT.
Reinier
Nope, I know all about them. Drove them all, and owned a 2.0 mondeo
when I lived in The Netherlands. Great car, and unfortunately because
of the taxes over there the V6 was out of my price-range. Drove one
when I had my car in for service. Didn't mind taking the V6 as a
loaner ! :-)
