Rally Chat
Don\
Welcome! Log In Register

Advanced

Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?

Posted by espacef1fan 
darkknight9
Kirk Coughlin
Professional Moderator
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Join Date: 01/08/2006
Age: Possibly Wise
Posts: 493

Rally Car:
Dreaming of escorts and xrats



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 10, 2013 01:32PM
Also, at the moment, for the project I'm trying to get together the junkyards in the area (200 miles) I can get a 2.3 for $500 then it goes up quick. The 2.0 however starts at $245 and there's alooooooooooooooooot of them.



Kirk Coughlin
Woodbury, MN and River Falls, WI

Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
danster
Haggis Muncher
Junior Moderator
Location: Haggisland UK
Join Date: 01/04/2013
Age: Possibly Wise
Posts: 409

Rally Car:
VWs (for my sins)


Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 10, 2013 01:51PM
Quote
darkknight9
Also, at the moment, for the project I'm trying to get together the junkyards in the area (200 miles) I can get a 2.3 for $500 then it goes up quick. The 2.0 however starts at $245 and there's alooooooooooooooooot of them.

Just be careful when choosing a Duratec engine if it is from an accident damaged car.
Inspect it well for any damage as the last paragraph of this post explains.
http://www.rallyanarchy.com/phorum/read.php?5,77312,78026#msg-78026



Disappointingly not yet a Jackass
Please Login or Register to post a reply
mekilljoydammit
Elite Moderator
Join Date: 09/22/2010
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 336

Rally Car:
No rally car yet


Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 10, 2013 02:07PM
Quench in this context is a factor of how the chamber in the head is shaped vs. that of the piston. Think of a flat top piston; the idea of quench is that at TDC parts of the piston are almost kissing parts of the head around the combustion chamber (towards the edges of the cylinder and the like) which forces damnnear all the air/fuel mixture out of there; it quenches the flame front in that area. Because it's squeezing all the air/fuel out of those areas, what was there gets squirted really fast into the combustion chamber, which makes a lot of turbulence, which helps fight detonation in a bunch of complicated ways.

WRC did all sorts of exotic crap to run really high compression ratios (I think they got legislated down to 12.5:1 or something like that in the 2000s) and really high boost on unleaded gas. We're not WRC obviously, but I think it's interesting to have illustration of some things that are possible.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
john vanlandingham
John Vanlandingham
Mega Moderator
Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA
Join Date: 12/20/2005
Age: Fossilized
Posts: 14,152

Rally Car:
Saab 96 V4



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 10, 2013 02:14PM
Quote
john vanlandingham


christ things have been in the high 10s since the 90s and some are over 11.




Big factors are: 1) Gas octane 2) combustion chamber shape 3) quench 4) bore---how far /long does it have to go before a charge is done...5) cylinder head temp---iron? aluminum?


Quote

Well I, like a poorly written sci fi movie, have never left the late 80's early 90's. I still think my 95 escort is a spaceship. grinning smiley

There probably is an engineering limit that we haven't reached with chamber shape and materials used throughout... but no major manufacturer is going to ride too close to that edge given stupidity of humans and cost of fixing stuff. But I still think it could be used as a good approximation or at least a place to start.

Let's assume then that we're dealing with a duratec. Pump gas. Good chamber shape. 87.5 bore. Aluminum.

Before I ask how, I need to know what two things mean: What is quench (short of rapidly cooling something with water or oil) and "how far /long does it have to go before a charge is done"? Do you mean how far the piston travels on the down stroke until there is no more combustible material? Or just the time the exhaust valves are held open?

As always, thank you for the help.

Know those flat areas on ahead in the chamber?




They are relatively speaking much cooler than what's happening in the chamber---which is very hot when the gas burns.
If we bring the pistons up as close as we dare, flush or slightly out of the deck surface, and have say .030" to .036", the piston crown edge is close to the quench areas and doesn't get the full effect of all the fire-n-shit happening in the chamber.. If its cooler, it doesn't lose strength and bend from all the pressure on the crown ---the pressure big enough to move the car----and pinch the top ring..
Look at the piston in cross section:


The top groove leaves an overhanging bit that--in thos case is real thick cause this is some sick turbo diesel, but in modern cars is just asking to push down and pinch the ring---there's only .002 clearence....
So anything we can do to keep the edge cool means the piston lives better..

Getting the piston that close also smooshes all the gasses into the chamber where is burns rapidly...not hanging out round the cylinder walls or a big gap tween head and crown like oh, say 1.7 Ford V4 for USA which ---to meet EPA NOX requirements long before Catalytic confusers-----had, like everybody in 71 o so, 8:1 comp.
Ford lowered compression by lopping 2mm off the crown leving piston down the bore 2mm+ 1 mm gasket thickness..
Those fawkers pinged their brains out

Bringing piston UP till it sticks out .004"/ 0,1mm and having a less than .0404/ 1mm gasket means I can do about 11.3:1 comp on 92 okt without ping--and a cast iron head.. Happily, the V4 has a compact combustion chamber and generous quench pads...

Everybody is not so lucky:
22R Toiletta:




Old Misterbitchi G32B like old Colts:


Nissan Z-20/Z-22 heads--see a trend going on?


Al least old L16 had a bit of quench:


But look at a modern Chevy V8 pushrod head:


The distance thing is "how many mm is the bore cause if its 81-86mm in X time the flame has burned completely and makes the heat and pressure enough to scoot the car along pretty good.....
But in X time in a 90 or 92 or 96mm bore, when its gone 81 or 86mm there's lots of heat and lots of pressure but it still has a way to go to burn everything, and we wanna burn..
Problem is temp is so high after say 86mm that the remaining charge wants to pop off on its own..Detonation...

Note the bore size on a shit-ton of modern 2.0 motors that have done well in last 20 years. A huge pile are 86 x 86: GM 2.0 XE; Ford F2 "RS2000" motor, Toyota 3GSET, Nissan SR20DE; the new Evo 10 motor, the new Subie 2.0 motor in the Toyoburu thing
, some---Misterbitchy 4G62 , some of the Renault/Peugeot and Citroen motors have been 85 x 90ish--and Ford themsellves reduced bore in the Fuckki WRC cars from 87.5mm to 85--and made it back up with stroke...

Contrast that with old 60s designs like the 1.5 and 1.7 V4s, and Saab OHC and DOHC motors at 90mm, Oldpiles at 93 for USA or 95.2 for 2.0 Ascona/Manta, Volvo at 92 for B21 or 96 for B23, Pintoid at 90,8mm so also YB Cossie likewise.. Sub-a-rat EJ20 at 92

well there more room for valves but harder to get the real bang out of them (you have to do everything right) without detonation..

More later.

I gotta go make chips fly.



John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2013 02:17PM by john vanlandingham.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
darkknight9
Kirk Coughlin
Professional Moderator
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Join Date: 01/08/2006
Age: Possibly Wise
Posts: 493

Rally Car:
Dreaming of escorts and xrats



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 10, 2013 07:27PM
This is the kind of info I've missed. I should have come back sooner. grinning smiley


So how many cylinder heads have some kind of cooling passages on them... better still, Why don't they come standard with heat sinks on them?



Kirk Coughlin
Woodbury, MN and River Falls, WI

Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
mekilljoydammit
Elite Moderator
Join Date: 09/22/2010
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 336

Rally Car:
No rally car yet


Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 10, 2013 10:10PM
For watercooled engines, pretty much all cylinder heads have all sorts of cooling passages. On the pics John posted, the 4-valve head at top is easiest to demonstrate - see all those oval and triangley shaped passages by the cylinders? Those all are coolant passages between the head and block. Not that overheating the cylinders is a good thing, but there's so much stuff that goes wrong if the heads aren't cooled right it's not even funny. It's why Porsche went to liquid cooled heads on some of the more advanced flat 6s in the 80s while still having air cooled barrels.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NoCoast
Grant Hughes
Mega Moderator
Location: Whitefish, MT
Join Date: 01/11/2006
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 6,818

Rally Car:
BMW



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 12:01AM
So, what's cars to look for with good Duratec engines?
Did the Escape and Ranger have RWD versions stock?

Didn't Eric Burmeister post lots of details on a build thread on SS back when he was building his Mazda 3? Seems like a decent build to immitate.



Grant Hughes
Please Login or Register to post a reply
john vanlandingham
John Vanlandingham
Mega Moderator
Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA
Join Date: 12/20/2005
Age: Fossilized
Posts: 14,152

Rally Car:
Saab 96 V4



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 01:27AM
Quote
mekilljoydammit
For watercooled engines, pretty much all cylinder heads have all sorts of cooling passages. On the pics John posted, the 4-valve head at top is easiest to demonstrate - see all those oval and triangley shaped passages by the cylinders? Those all are coolant passages between the head and block. Not that overheating the cylinders is a good thing, but there's so much stuff that goes wrong if the heads aren't cooled right it's not even funny. It's why Porsche went to liquid cooled heads on some of the more advanced flat 6s in the 80s while still having air cooled barrels.


Actually blocks would love it to be as hot as they can stand it...but heads need to be cool or detonation shows up, and its not fun..
Years ago i read a long detailed feauture in some Germanski magazine looking at an egine set up that VW engineers had come up with to meet emissions then current (around 1992) with using the 3-way cataclysmic convergence which the Krautskis are not fans of since they love their forests and lakes and cathedrals....
What they did was to run 2 stock radiators: 1 running ATF for the block, the other running normal 50/50 water/glycol. Block temp they kept at a nice 150C or about 300F; head they kept at 95-97C, around 200F.. Injectors were stock injectors for a KE Digifant--VWs glorified CIS and injectors were moved away from the head by X cm.
The said the block could be warmed to "just short of cylinder wall distorsion".

They passes emissions but said there was so much inertia in the Cats as cure all and the additional costs of 2 rads and pumps sort nixed the idea/



John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
Andrew_Frick
Andrew Frick
Senior Moderator
Location: Greenville, SC
Join Date: 05/18/2007
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 684

Rally Car:
Rally Spec Ford Focus


Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 08:26AM
Quote
NoCoast
So, what's cars to look for with good Duratec engines?
Did the Escape and Ranger have RWD versions stock?

Didn't Eric Burmeister post lots of details on a build thread on SS back when he was building his Mazda 3? Seems like a decent build to immitate.
\

Ranger is the only RWD platform in the US with the Duratec. Everything else is transverse mounted.

If we are looking at Duratec motors why no also include the 2.5L motor. It was used a much larger install base than the 2.3L motor. Since basically every I4 ford in the last few years came with this motor. No mater which block you go with I would try and get at least a 2.3L head if not a 2.5L head since Ford did a great job increasing the flow in the head.

Burmeister's build while great took advantage of his Dad's machining business. I know he went with a custom engine angle that required several specially machined bits in the motor.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
phlat65
Sean Medcroft
Ultra Moderator
Location: Edmonds, Washington
Join Date: 02/12/2009
Age: Possibly Wise
Posts: 1,802

Rally Car:
Building a Merkur


Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 09:32AM
But now with modern electronics and direct injection we have zero emissions engines from startup. Volvo and BMW both use a coating on the outside of the radiator that turns it inito a big catalist, therefore cleaning the air that does not pass through the engine....
Please Login or Register to post a reply
darkknight9
Kirk Coughlin
Professional Moderator
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Join Date: 01/08/2006
Age: Possibly Wise
Posts: 493

Rally Car:
Dreaming of escorts and xrats



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 01:52PM
The Duratec 20 is a 2.0 L (122 CID; 1999 cc) version built in Chihuahua, Mexico.
It is used in the US/Argentinian Focus, US Transit Connect (engine built in Valencia, Spain)...

The Duratec 23 comes in two flavors. The 23EW was built in Chihuahua, Mexico for transverse installation, The 23NS is built in Dearborn, Michigan for the Ford Ranger and North American market Mazda B-Series. These engines are tuned for torque-bias making them suitable for light-truck use and are not equipped with iVCT or VICS.

The Duratec 23 is used in


23EW — FWD/AWD
2003–2007 Ford Focus
2005–2008 Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner/Mazda Tribute
2006–2009 Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

23NS — RWD
2001–2011 Ford Ranger
2001–2011 Mazda B-Series
2010– Thoroughbred Motorsports "Stallion" Trike
2010- BAC Mono (developed by Cosworth)

The Duratec 23E is a version of the Duratec 23 with California PZEV emissions.



Kirk Coughlin
Woodbury, MN and River Falls, WI

Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NoCoast
Grant Hughes
Mega Moderator
Location: Whitefish, MT
Join Date: 01/11/2006
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 6,818

Rally Car:
BMW



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 04:40PM
So is the 03-07 Focus 23EW a 2.3L? Which ones have the 2.0L?



Grant Hughes
Please Login or Register to post a reply
darkknight9
Kirk Coughlin
Professional Moderator
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Join Date: 01/08/2006
Age: Possibly Wise
Posts: 493

Rally Car:
Dreaming of escorts and xrats



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 05:17PM
Quote
NoCoast
So is the 03-07 Focus 23EW a 2.3L? Which ones have the 2.0L?

From The duratec wiki

The Duratec engine was first introduced in a Focus mid-2003 as a 2.3l PZEV engine for the "Green States" (California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Maine) and states bordering "Green States". It became the only engine available in those states, and was found in all body styles and trim levels, excluding the SVT Focus. In it's PZEV tune, it produced 144hp @ 5750 and 149tq @ 4200.

In 2004, the same engine became available in all 50-states; it remained the standard engine in the "Green States", and in the rest, it was optional on the Comfort trim levels of the ZX3, ZX5 and SE, and standard equipment on the ZTS, ZTW, and Premium trim levels of the ZX3 and ZX5.

2005 saw the introduction of the 2.0l Duratec engine. Becoming the only engine in all Focus models and trim levels, excluding the ST, the 45-state version produced 136hp @ 6000 and 133tq @ 4500, while it's PZEV equivalent made 130hp @ 6000 and 129tq @ 4000. The ST sedan was equipped with the 2.3l Duratec engine as the only engine option. It shed it's PZEV rating, and it's power rating increased to 151hp @ 5750 and 154tq @ 425. This engine configuration will stay this way all the way through the 2007 model year.

For the 2008 model year, the 2.3l was dropped all together. The 2.0l Duratec engine received a mild increase in power to 140hp @ 6000 and 136tq @ 4250, while the PZEV version remains the same.

2009, along with some styling changes, the coupe's horsepower is upped to 143hp, and the automatic transmission gets a new 4.2:1 final drive ratio (up from 3.73:1).



Kirk Coughlin
Woodbury, MN and River Falls, WI

Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
espacef1fan
Adam Escott
Professional Moderator
Location: Fort Campbell,KY
Join Date: 02/04/2011
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 89

Rally Car:
Don't have one.


Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 11, 2013 09:06PM
The plot thickens.

2.3 for about $600 shipped

----OR------

2.0 for $350 shipped.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NoCoast
Grant Hughes
Mega Moderator
Location: Whitefish, MT
Join Date: 01/11/2006
Age: Midlife Crisis
Posts: 6,818

Rally Car:
BMW



Re: Building a Turbo Duratec. 2.0 or 2.3?
February 12, 2013 07:00PM
Quote
john vanlandingham
Hell he could just get one of the 2 2300 cores I already have----if a certain somebody hasn't lost everything or left them out in the rain.

Uh oh. Is he having troubles? Makes me wonder about the deposit I sent a year ago for a set of arms and rear beam. I've been leaving him alone regarding them since I understand how projects like that can take a long time and considering I've been waiting and dreaming of a square rear beam since back in the Patrick McVeigh days... When was that that Paddy was out there and you guys did some rear beam stuff. I'd guess March of 2006. So I've been thinking it was just around the corner for going on seven years now. It's just money after all.
Hope everything's okay.



Grant Hughes
Please Login or Register to post a reply
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login