Dommo Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 The 1.6 would also be class A wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Yes, as mentioned earlier in the thread it's a turbo engine. It's also direct injection with variable valve control. The Ecoboost series is a pretty advanced (at time of launch) series of engines from Ford, BUT, it's also a complex series of engines. As I've said Ford US, really want the 2.0 Ecoboost to be the tuner/builders engine of choice when it comes to four pot engines, they also seem to be pushing it as a V6 replacement this means they've bent over backwards to make parts available so that it can fit into anything, in particular engine looms that are not car specific and ecu's, don't underestimate the complexity of them, controlling not just the variable cams, but variable fuel pressure etc for the direct injection (at 100's of psi!) Ford in this country did a few one offs with the 1.6 IIRC, but there's was no real Ford support for anything other than the 2.0, unless things have changed recently. However as the 1.6 Ecoboost does have appeal in Europe, there seem to be a few Independants working on it. The first hurdle is the ecu, a complicated/advanced ecu is required, we're a long way from budget ecu's at the moment! Life Racing have one and SBD have been very busy working on the engine using an MBE ecu. Other makers are starting to announce parts to - Titan are launching a dry sump kit at Autosport for instance. Several Westfield owners are working on their own 1.6 conversions. Will the factory offer a 1.6? Who knows, but unless it was significantly cheaper than the 2.0, then there's hard to see a benefit. The biggest appeal for someone like Westfield with the 2.0 currently is that they can buy off the peg Ford stuff that's tried and tested. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (Oh and I know for Sprinters/competitors then the 1.6/2.0 issue is a big difference). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Oxfordshire Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 its an interesting debate this one. The 1.6 is based on the sigma, so it is lighter than the 2.0...around 85Kg I believe. The other advantage I was told for the 1.6 was the exhaust manifold isn't as restrictive as the "built in the head" one of the 2.0 My main concern at the moment is keeping charge temperatures down, which in a seven based car isn't easy. I've gone down the chargecooler route, but would be kean to know what they have done with the factory car?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dommo Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Used the RadTec unit from the Sport Turbo I'd have thought, assuming they could persuade them to build one in a reasonable time frame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 The radtec isn't used in the S2000 Supercharged car, so not necessarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Oxfordshire Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 The radtec isn't used in the S2000 Supercharged car, so not necessarily. Any ideas Dave on what they use on the Supercharged car. Must have some kind of intercooler...doesn't it? Is it an air to air jobbie in front of the rad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Oxfordshire Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 http://www.sbdev.co.uk/EcoBoost/EcoBoost_information.html https://www.facebook.com/SBDMotorsport/posts/401100653414017 More on the SBD dev side. I'm not using their hybrid turbo but a Garrett 2860 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 its an interesting debate this one. The 1.6 is based on the sigma, so it is lighter than the 2.0...around 85Kg I believe. The other advantage I was told for the 1.6 was the exhaust manifold isn't as restrictive as the "built in the head" one of the 2.0 My main concern at the moment is keeping charge temperatures down, which in a seven based car isn't easy. I've gone down the chargecooler route, but would be kean to know what they have done with the factory car?? Interesting, I knew the 1.6 was compact without any of its plumbing/ancillaries, but not that there was so much weight difference! It's possible as the parts needed to fit the 1.6 become more main stream that they may look at it again. I know one of the big appeals of the 2.0 was that everything was ready to go, off the shelf from big OEM level suppliers, so it's very simple for them just to buy a package ready to bolt in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It's a bespoke air to air, currently in its second generation, mounted between engine and rad at quite a flat orientation, hence the big triangular cut outs in the S2000S's nose cones. Not my favourite position for it, but the best compromise they could find at the time, I believe. I'll see if I have a picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Oxfordshire Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Having gone through putting the 1.6 in my westy, its not that bad. The ECU mapping and exhaust manifold are the biggest pains as the standard manifold means some heavy steering column and maybe even master cylinder "adjustments" are needed to make room for the exhaust side of the turbo.....hence I am having a custom exhaust manifold made to raise the turbo and rotate it through 180 degrees. It also seems the mapping of such a complex engine with HP fuel pump control, VVT, direct injection plus turbocharging is proving very time consuming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Oxfordshire Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It's a bespoke air to air, currently in its second generation, mounted between engine and rad at quite a flat orientation, hence the big triangular cut outs in the S2000S's nose cones. Not my favourite position for it, but the best compromise they could find at the time, I believe. I'll see if I have a picture. Yes please Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Not a great pic, and I've a feeling it might be the mark 1 design - I'm sure the mark 2 had end plates on to guide the airflow through it, but this is where the S2000S has it: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Personally, I'd be interested in investigating more (on the Honda), what TTS came up with for a Westfield Duratec conversion, see here - http://www.tts-performance.co.uk/#!Example%20intercooler%20setup..JPG/zoom/c1amx/imagevsz Though I'm really interested to see how they've done the new Sport 250. I know Mark (Walker) had designed a really clever intercooler arrangement originally for the first charged Honda, but when costed out at Radtec, (or whoever was going to make it), it was too expensive for the customer. So the simpler arrangements were used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Oxfordshire Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 That TTS setup looks similar to whats on the Caterham 620R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.