dai1983
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
Ford engines
Hi,
I'm looking for information on engines used in certain ford cars and how suitable they are for a seven replica (if they an be used with type 9,
suitable dimensions, power output compaired to other engines, availability + cost etc).
1990's rs2000
1990's and 1980's xr3i
escort gti
1.8 and 2.0 mondeo
Id also like to know which are zetec and which are cvh engines.
Thanks, David
|
|
|
|
|
JJM
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
Newer RS2000's had I4 dohc motors-150 bhp.
XR3's are cvh's i believe-110 ish bhp
GTi's-maybe Zetecs??
Mondeos are Zetec-2 litres are 130 bhp.
All Ford engines share the same gearbox bolt pattern so the type 9 (sierra 5 speed) will bolt to all.
Pintos are a good choice as they are plentiful-cheap and easy to tune-lots of go faster goodies available and good power can be had.CVH's are
crap IMHO-better with a Zetec or Pinto.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 05:00 PM |
|
|
Yep, agree with that JJM, only other thing is that the I4 engine is better for power than both, but also heavier than both!! It is easily tweaked to
the 190hp area by addition of carbs (or throttle bodies) and cams. Rally versions of this engine were making 200hp ish on a single throttle butterfly
standard inlet manifold, and multi-throttle body versions on the "kit car" rally class as was were making in the region of 280hp so it is
quite good, but unfortunately actually slightly heavier than the Pinto!
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 06:02 PM |
|
|
Really boils down to either fitting a CVH 1600 or pre 95 Zetec 1800, after mid 95 the emmission regs start to complicate things too much.
Fitting a carb CVH with a distributer is relatively simple and power can be stretched a low cost -- loads of CVH goodies cheap on eBay.
The later CVH engines get more complex to fit and don't give any more ultimate power. Because it needs some specialist parts fitting a Zetec
to rwd car is yet more complex expensive but it will give another 40bhp over the CVH.
The good news is if you fit a CVH replacing it with a Zetec is relative dwaddle as the Zetec bottom end is just a super heavy duty evolution of the
CVH, so problems like engine mounts and starter are already solved.
What ever you don't fit a Pinto a simply dreadful overweight over sized engine best left to the history books with 1172 Ford sidevalve.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 06:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
What ever you don't fit a Pinto a simply dreadful overweight over sized engine best left to the history books with 1172 Ford sidevalve.
Careful, you could alienate 75% of the people on this site with talk like that!
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
Tblue
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
Why? He is right about them, hideous things out of the seventies.
|
|
|
gjn200
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
Sometimes I think people forget this is the LOCOST builders site, If I had the cash yeah I'd get a zetec but that would be a min of £300 for a
manky install. My pinto was free.
<- Me!
|
|
|
zetec
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
Agree, set your budget then ask what engine is best, don't forget bike options.
|
|
|
dave1888
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
MK, LUEGO and AVON none of which are Locost or Lowcost get a mention on this site.
|
|
|
CairB
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 08:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
... only other thing is that the I4 engine is better for power than both, but also heavier than both!! ....280hp so it is quite good, but
unfortunately actually slightly heavier than the Pinto!
NSDev,
Are you sure that the I4 (Duratec) is heavier than a pinto? It's an alloy engine, around 93kg bare, I think that is about 50 kg lighter than a
pinto. I hope so anyway as I'm fitting one to my Indy, when I can bag a rascal.. I've nearly had 5 to date.. all fallen through..I think
their becoming popular, but definately not 'locost'.
Cheers,
Colin
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 08:17 PM |
|
|
You have been misinformed!!! The I4 is NOT the Duratec!!!!!!!
The I4 is the 16v version of the Sierra Twincam 8v engine, and is fitted to 2.0 Scorpio, 2.3 Scorpio, Galaxy and of course the Mk 5/6 escort
rs2000!!!!!!!
The Duratec is indeed much lighter, but not yet all that cheap (though I must admit it is cheap for a brand new engine!!)
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
Meant to mention, the I4 has the same cast iron block with cast in water pump and oil pump casings as the Sierra twin cam 8v engine.
|
|
|
Tblue
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
gjn200 what can I say, you paid what they're worth.
In terms of power output the Pinto is poor. I'd rather have a Crossflow, they're cheap to buy, cheap to fix and cheap to modify. They are
also small and easy to fit in a Seven rep.
|
|
|
CairB
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
NSDev,
I see where your coming from with the heayweight inline 4 engine, I was under the impression that I4 was the project name for the Ford/Mazda
globalised engine project as mentioned in I4 engine
Perhaps the name is being recycled...
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 08:37 PM |
|
|
Ahhhhh, now I am learning too!! Certainly the engine I am talking about was referred to years ago (before 2001) as the I4. Maybe the Duratec is an
alloy block version of the same engine? It did always seem strange to me, because the 2.0 16v I4 engine was launched in the UK in the escort RS2000 in
1992-93 (I think wasn't it?) which was at a similar time to the zetec 16v, so there always seemed to be a conflict to me somwhere!! The I4 was
certainly designed much more power friendly than the Zetec, apparently the I4's head design was based on the Cosworth BDA.
As you say, maybe I4 is just the name given to an engine until they can think of something else!! (Pinto was only that cos is was fitted in one
first!!)
Nice one!!
Nat.
|
|
|
JJM
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
Personally i still think the Pinto is cheaper to get power from-you'd need to spend a wedge of cash to get to a standard pinto output-110 bhp
ish. out of a x-flow.
But on the downside-which is a big downside-the Pinto is very heavy-which sort of defeats the object of power to weight.
Forgot to add theyre also a lot more torquey-which is more desirable than outright bhp.
[Edited on 3/5/04 by JJM]
|
|
|
AvonBelgium
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
A lot of people tells that the I4 ( RS 2000 ) engine is heavier and even the pinto.
Is there any info on the correct weight ??
Many thanks
AvonBelgium
|
|
|
gjn200
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tblue
gjn200 what can I say, you paid what they're worth.
In terms of power output the Pinto is poor. I'd rather have a Crossflow, they're cheap to buy, cheap to fix and cheap to modify. They are
also small and easy to fit in a Seven rep.
Err? ported head, kent rl22(?) cam, 38 dgas, as removed from mates rs 2000 donor 147 bhp (120@wheels) Pintos only cost if you want more than 150bhp
where you need a big v/v head.
<- Me!
|
|
|
dai1983
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:25 PM |
|
|
As i would like to get the kit running as quick and hasstle free as possible i might use the engine from the donor. Would a 1.6 cvh from a sierra be
the same found in the escorts, orions etc?
Also what power would this give as standard?
|
|
|
Metal Hippy
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
Ford...{snigger}
Running for cover...
 
Cock off or cock on. You choose.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:36 PM |
|
|
Yes the Sierra 1600 CVH is basically the same as the escort etc ones, except for the obvious RWD bits. Service bits etc are much the same, no need to
worry you won't come across nasty surprises with this engine, as a way to get up and running reliably and cheaply I cannot fault the idea.
BMW...........snigger........make sure you get some nice hard front springs!
|
|
|
jingle
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:38 PM |
|
|
Nuts to that...get a proper engine
Quaife 2 litre V8....made from two Yamaha YZF1000 engines on a common crank.
200bhp with a siz speed sequential 'box and it only weighs 70kgs :> :>
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
OK, well to be fair that is a pretty nice motor (take it you saw it at the Autosport show last year too!)
but a bit out of the price range of the average "locoster"!!!!!!!
|
|
|
jingle
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
yeah I know...but its sweet, and seems perfectly designed for a locost.....anyone got a spare £20k for an engine?
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 3/5/04 at 09:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Metal Hippy
Ford...{snigger}
Running for cover...
Yeah! Huh huh
And German engines... huh huh
[Edited on 3/5/04 by Liam]
|
|
|
