That old corker: Which engine shall I fit ?

[conibear]

Apparently, the 2.3 in standard guise will make something similar as the 2l, so I thought wrong

FWIW, When I asked Raceline for more power from my 2L, they tried to tell me to upgrade to the 2.3. But as you know you can't tell me nothing    

[JohnCh]

If you want maximum power and plan to open up the engine, then I think the 2.3L is clearly the way to go.  However, if you don't want to open up the engine, or aren't looking for over 250hp, then the picture becomes a little cloudy.  Comparing the stock Ranger 2.3L to the Mondeo 2.0L, the Ranger has milder cams designed for low-end torque, and it also has a lower compression ration (9.7:1 vs. 10.8:1).  Comparing stock engines as fitted to the donor vehicle, you can see the difference in the tuning:

             HP                      TQ

2.0L:  145 @6000      140 lb/ft @4800

2.3L:  140 @5050      155 lb/ft @4200

The displacement difference is all in the stroke, so in theory the smaller engine should be a little sweeter from a willingness/happiness to rev perspective, but that doesn't mean a 2.3L engine is coarse.  Another interesting fact that could account for differences seen on the dyno between 2.0L engines is that Ford upgraded the head around 2002.  Apparently they opened up the port immediately over the valve and also changed the shape of the squish area so that it is more wedge than dome shaped.  I first learned about this change from Walter Marcy, a US Focus tuner and later confirmed it with Ammo at Raceco.  According to Walter, these changes account for 15-20hp differential in a modified motor.  Ammo, in turn told me that he feels a stock older head is good for about 220hp, vs. 250hp for the newer head or a modified older one.   The older heads are identified by a head casting number suffix of either BR, BS, BT, or BU (look for the number above the #2 and #3 exhaust ports).

When I rebuilt my car, I went for the 2.0L because I didn't want to open up the engine right away and I didn't think that I would ever want more than 220-230hp.  I'm finally reaching the point where I would like a little more power -- particularly at the top of the rev range -- so I am probably going to put in some mild cams and have a little work done on the head (it's an early BR).  Below is a dyno graph of the engine (stock internals + the usual bolt-ons).  Here in the States, dyno operators don't do coast down measurements so these are SAE corrected figures at the rear wheels and so should be taken with a grain of salt, but the shape of the torque curve should be accurate.  (for those interested, the dyno was a Mustang MD-500 which is an eddy current design.)  BTW although the stock cams start to lose power on top, the engine does not feel like it falls on its face at 6500 rpm as shown in the trace.  I suspect that my sequential shift lights were causing the operator to lift a little early.

-John

[davebo]

Thanks John and others.

One last question (bearing in mind that I'm not after the dogs bits just yet, just something that's good with potential for mods later):

I've seen lots of threads about the cost of fitting a Duratec and I know I should expect to pay more to get Duratec and fit it. But if you're starting from scratch you'll have to buy all the bits such as TBs, water pump, plumbing, this that and lots more.

I figure (and given that I aint bought an engine yet and could be wildly wrong) the main extra costs with the Duratec itself will be because of needing:

Modified bellhousing,

and perhaps a different sump, and maybe clutch.

Or is that a hideous oversimplification ?

[conibear]

You could get a 2nd hand Duratec for as little as £600.00 I'd guess. The starter is lightweight as standard so your want to reclaim that with it.

You probably guess I done the Duratec route and I would say that the important issues, that will cost a bit more than normal is:

1). Sump

2). Bellhousing

3). Crank keying

4). Oil filter housing

Apart from that you utilise the standard crank sensor, water pulley and CRB. You can use a standard clutch and water plumbing. Although upgraded parts are always available, should you wish. There is no reason why you can't use a cheap alternator and no need to go down the expensive route, but a bespoke bracket would be required.

ECU, TB's, linkage kit, filters, injectors, fuel fail, fuel regulator, fuel pump, exhaust, silencer and lightweight flywheel would cost the same whatever engine you install.

HTH

Ian

[Westfieldman]

ECU, TB's, linkage kit, filters, injectors, fuel fail, fuel regulator, fuel pump, exhaust, silencer and lightweight flywheel would cost the same whatever engine you install.

I have said this for months and months

You only need to keyway the crank if you remove the front pully

But you will need a flywheel

[detailer]

Or get a nice little BDA if you want something a bit different.  Not cheap mind!

[johnsubaru]

I wish i hadn't stumbled across this post. I am about to start a build of a Duratec engined car and assumed that 2.0 was the way to go. Now i don't know which is the best route. I know 2.3's can be picked up a lot cheaper than 2.0 (Due to supply and demand). I mainly want the car for fast road/trackdays. Any comments greatly appreciated.

Cheers