LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently September 21, 2018, 3:59 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: February 11, 2013, 8:39 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 3937
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
As Mr. Hennessy so kindly pointed out, this question comes up quite a bit so lets make this the sibling to the Zetec/T5 thread.

Fill in the gaps I'm missing.


What is the Duratec/MZR?
It is the result of the goal to create a common all aluminum 4 cylinder engine used by both Ford (Duratec) and Mazda (MZR) starting in the early/mid-2000s (for the North American market). It is worth noting that Ford has used this name on other engines but those are not what we are talking about. Unless it is an all aluminum 4 cylinder engine measuring 2.0, 2.3, or 2.5L with the exhaust on the right side when mounted north/south, it is not what this thread is about.

The bottom ends are very similar between the Ford and Mazda versions but Mazda typically uses a head with variable valve timing. If you choose to go with the Mazda engine, extra care will be required however you will be rewarded with a little extra power. For comparison's sake, a 2.0 from a Focus barely puts out 140 hp in stock form while a 2.0 from a Miata is in the 160 hp range.

There are also pretty good Wikipedia articles on the Duratec (this outlines the different "Duratecs" including the ones we are not talking about) and the Mazda L series.

If it doesn't look like this, it isn't what we are referring to:
Attachment:
DSC03533.JPG
DSC03533.JPG [ 147.49 KiB | Viewed 35850 times ]

Attachment:
DSC03537.JPG
DSC03537.JPG [ 140.9 KiB | Viewed 35850 times ]



What RWD transmission bolts to a Duratec or MZR?
Two and only two production/off-the-shelf RWD transmission options exist; NC Miata or a 2001+ Ranger/B-Series pickup. If you use the Ranger transmission, be sure to get the flywheel, clutch, and starter as they seem to be a unique diameter compared to the rest of the Duratec installations. The NC Miata and Focus 2.0 (at least the 2007 one that I used) had the same diameter flywheel so the NC flywheel mated with the starter.

Several other places like Quads4Rods sell bellhousings to mate other transmissions to the Duratec but it will be more labor intensive and more expensive than the NC or Ranger option.


What is needed from the donor vehicles?
Aside from the complete engine with accessories and the transmission, you will need the driveshaft, flywheel, clutch, starter, and slave cylinder to match the transmission. From the engine donor, you will need the engine and chassis wiring harnesses, ECU, the key that matches the ECU (very important as the Ford ECU PATS will not start the engine without it), the PATS antenna located in the steering column near the key, O2 sensors, complete intake/airbox with MAF sensor and throttle cable, fuel pump driver module (FPDM), and the stock fuel pump (the ECU controls fuel pressure electronically so these are a must).

The Ranger ends up being the most economical and practical powertrain donor since everything comes from one vehicle. The NC Miata is a much more expensive donor and mixing and matching engines and transmissions will requiring sourcing parts from multiple vehicles and end up being somewhere between a NC Miata and a Ranger price-wise (I went this route; it is doable but more difficult).


What differs between the different engines?
All engines tend to share the same bottom end but as the displacement increases so does the stroke and the engine height. For instance the 2.3L Duratec is approximately 0.5" taller than the 2.0L so extra clearance is needed.

The compression ratios also vary slightly between engines:
2.0L Duratec and MZR - 10:1
2.3L Duratec (Ranger) - 9.7:1

(See Justin's post below for head flow) Also according to SB Motorsports' website, the 08+ 2.0L heads had higher flow numbers (RF3S4G and RF6S4E casting numbers) compared to the earlier 2.0L engines but these heads were likely not used in the US market.


Donors?
The 2001 Ranger/B-Series were among the first vehicles to use the engine (I believe this was a mid model year change). Otherwise if it is a Ford or Mazda made after 2005 and it has a 2.0, 2.3, or 2.5L four cylinder engine, it is more than likely a what we are talking about. In recent years direct injection, Atkinson cycle (used on hybrid installations), and some other technology has appeared so pay attention when getting an engine from a newer donor.


After Market Support and Common Mods
Cosworth (goes without saying)
Crower - they offer cams and a few other items.
SBD Motorsports - they offer some interesting performance products and have some good information
AT Power (also from the UK) offers fuel rails with 6AN fittings and some good other stuff
Raceline
Eagle Rod - connecting rods

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 11, 2013, 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 30, 2005, 1:28 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Sunny-Okanagan, Canada, eh?!
I'm in the (slow) process of adapting a 240SX transmission to the Duratec. If my measurements are correct:

9/16" adapter plate.
Focus Flywheel and Pressure Plate
Nissan Hardbody clutch disk
Ford Ranger pilot bushing, machined to 5/8" ID

And it all should work.

Theoretically.

_________________
The Lethal Locost
The Lethal Locost 2 - Even More Lethalerer


Last edited by SkinnyG on February 12, 2013, 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 11, 2013, 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 19, 2009, 9:36 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: meadview arizona
to add to andrews notes above,

the ranger has an intake that extends above the valve covers which makes it almomost impossible to install without a bump in the hood that would need to be about 6" high, therefore a focus intake or an aftermarket manifold needs to be sourced, together with a focus throttle body.

a word about throttle bodies, the ranger has a smaller throttle body than a focus, there are different focus throttle bodies, cable as in the ranger, cable as in focus and drive by wire, later focus, the iac motor only works one way up and must be kept that way, if you have a dbw throttle body a hole must be drilled inside the iac mounting for this to work with a cable operated throttle body, both cable throttle bodies will except a cable from a ranger or focus with a suitable reaction bracket.

the focus manifold had a set of butterflies which are designed to cause the air to "tumble" at certain throttle settings and are operated by a solenoid valve which pulls a vacuum can to move the butterflies, the computer controls the solenoid if this system is not working correctly it will set a code and mil. the ranger has a similar setup and the electrical plugs are present on the ranger engine harness, the vac canister has a choice of two positions for the sensing plug and it will work in either position.

when fitting the focus manifold to the ranger, the coolant pipes from the thermostat housing to the rear of the engine needs to be modified for clearence, this pipe runs to the header tank via the egr valve and heater so prior to installation i made a 1/2" copper manifold with all the connections that ran tight to the block, be careful about where it passes the starter terminals.

whilst talking about water pipes, the top hose is attached to the head at the back and there are variouse makers of replacement pipes to bring it to the front, i would recommend using the ranger parts that the factory designed for this purpose, it comprises of a casting which bolts to the head and a steel pipe that plugs into it which can be modified to suit your application but the heater and vent connections should be maintained in the pipe somewhere.

the header tank must be the highest point on the cooling system but will need an overflow catch can for competition use from the header tank as the factory and aftermarket header tanks all vent.

just a note about pcv valves, the ranger pcv valve is straight and the focus one is 90 deg. and the hose to the manifold is different so if you use a focus manifold you will need a focus pcv valve and hose.

more to follow but being as i am resigned to being a house husband, i have to cook the dinner for "she who must be obeyed" before she gets home or she won't fund my new build.

_________________
this story shall the good man teach his son,
and chrispin chrispian shall ne'er go by,
from this day to the end of the world.
but we in it shall be remembered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 11, 2013, 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 19, 2009, 9:36 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: meadview arizona
o.k the chicken is in the oven, literally,

the ignition on earlier duratecs is by double ended coils which are mounted on the top of the valve covers, this would stick out of a hole in the hood if there was one so it must be moved, i put mine on a bracket at the rear of the valve covers and used a set of plug wires from a ZETEC, i just had to modify the boots a little to get them to fit in the holes in the valve cover.

there are several different valve covers for the duratec with the oil filler and breather pipes in diferent locations, i used the stock ranger valve cover but modified the breather pipe to be an elbow rather than straight up, this cannot be blocked as the engine requires this to draw air from the pipe that runs from the maf sensor to the throttle body which, it passes through the engine crank case and into the intake manifold via the pcv valve so that it is measured air.

fuel rails on the ranger are fed from the front of the engine and they are round, they have one connection and a thing that looks like a prv in the middle, this is not a prv it's a pulse dampener to prevent surging, i believe that if this is removed no noticable change will occure but i don't know for sure, the focus fuel rail has the feed from the rear in a noth south config and is square with a higher volume, so can replace the ranger fuel rail, the fuel on the ranger setup is a constant pressure single line type but the focus has a sensor in the fuel rail to regulate the speed of the fuel pump for variouse reasons, if you have this part, it can be left in place to block the hole in the fuel rail, enabling the one line ranger system to be retained, if you do not then braise a plug in the hole with a small threaded hole in it to take the test port from the ranger fuel rail. if you do experience pulsing in the fuel system, then a remote damper can be made from the center section of the ranger fuel rail and placed in the line close to the fuel rail.

a word here about the weard connectors on the fuel system, they can easily be replaced by 3/8" and 5/16" compressoin fittings and standard steel fuel line, i have done this at the fuel tank and the filter, this can also be done at the fuel rail but i would recommend that some flexible line is used betwen the chassis and engine, 3000 plus miles later there are no leaks, i prefer steel fuel line to plastic.

there is more to come but i must keep an eye on my benifactors dinner, or she will make me stand in a corner with a dunces cap on all day tomorrow.

_________________
this story shall the good man teach his son,
and chrispin chrispian shall ne'er go by,
from this day to the end of the world.
but we in it shall be remembered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 12:14 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 3937
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
SkinnyG wrote:
I'm in the (slow) process of adapting a 240SX transmission to the Duratec.


I'm sure the Nissan transmissions are a million times easier to source than the NC Miata. Do you have any pics of the progress?


john hennessy wrote:
the focus fuel rail has the feed from the rear in a noth south config and is square with a higher volume, so can replace the ranger fuel rail, the fuel on the ranger setup is a constant pressure single line type but the focus has a sensor in the fuel rail to regulate the speed of the fuel pump for variouse reasons


When I was buying spare parts on Ebay for the upcoming MS install, I accidentally discovered that Ford eliminated the fuel rail pressure/temperature sensor in 2008. I have both styles sitting downstairs and they are identical aside from the sensor port.

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 2964
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
If you don't have a line on a great deal for a Ranger 2.3L engine/trans combo from a single donor truck, it's probably going to be cheapest to get a Ranger transmission and a Focus 2.0L. I recall being able to get a Focus 2.0L and Ranger transmission for not much difference than just the Ranger engine, probably since there were less of them produced and they're generally in contractor/commercial use trucks rather than disposable cars.

Regarding transmissions I just want to note that while they are only available from 2 vehicles, there was both a 5-speed and a 6-speed 06+ Miata transmission that work in addition to the Ranger 5-speed. Basically the Miata transmissions are 'better' for our application, but cost appreciably more as well. Again, think 2.0L engine and Ranger trans for in the same ballpark as just a Miata trans. Cost and availability was even worse for the Miata transmissions before, but have been getting better as the NC Miatae continue to age. The Miata transmissions place the shifter further back such that you may be able to use it in its factory location, while the Ranger transmission places the shifter much further forward on the case and will require fabricating a remote linkage to operate the shifter in a Locost.

On to the engines, the only engines that got the higher flowing head were the 2003-2007 2.3L Focus engines. The Ranger 2.3L has the same head as the Focus 2.0L. However the Ranger 2.3L bottom end does have two advantages over the Focus 2.3L. The Ranger (and 2.0L) lacks the balance shafts of the Focus 2.3L, and the Ranger (and 2.0L) has a lighter 4 counterweight crank vs the heavier 8 counterweight crank in the Focus 2.3L.

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 1:42 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 3937
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
I had them backwards - I'll edit my post to avoid confusion. Very good point on the balance shafts.

The two cylinder head casting numbers I listed above seem to be higher flow for the 2.0 and it appears at least the RF3S4G is from the ST150. I guess I have to wonder if this isn't a European only thing? :BH:

My ultimate goal is around 200 hp which seems doable with cams, injectors, and a tune but if I'm going to buy a spare engine I was hoping to get the "best" bang for the buck available. Assuming the higher flow 2.0 heads are not in the US, I guess this leaves putting a 2.3 Focus head on a 2.0 block as the cheapest way to build without getting into up-sizing valves and porting.

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 19, 2009, 9:36 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: meadview arizona
the focus engine and pan baffling, if the focus engine is from an east/west config, how addiquate is the baffling in the pan for a north/south config?

if i were to do it again, then i would also buy a focus engine and a ranger trans.

the only thing is that i managed to fit the rad in such a way that i can use the ranger viscouse fan, the timing covers are different on the focus but if you use an electric fan then it's no problem.

_________________
this story shall the good man teach his son,
and chrispin chrispian shall ne'er go by,
from this day to the end of the world.
but we in it shall be remembered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 31, 2012, 12:49 pm
Posts: 1484
Location: Louisville KY
So this motor might be considered?

http://wot.motortrend.com/ford-announce ... z2Ki1PMM8N

Quote:
Ford Racing will now offer a 2.0-liter four-cylinder with direct injection in its lineup of crate engines. Pulled from the 2012 Ford Focus, the engine makes about 160 horsepower and 145 pound-feet of torque, thanks mostly to its Ti-VCT twin independent variable camshaft timing and direct injection. The engine will be available in the spring of 2012, and will formally kick off a line of small crate engines.

That Ford will sell an I-4 crate engine isn’t news–it currently offers a different 2.0-liter four from its old Focus, for use in midget racers, but Ford says it intends to offer this engine at some point in the future in EcoBoost guise, which means adding a turbocharger.

Under the hood of the current Explorer crossover, the 2.0-liter EcoBoost makes 240 horsepower and 270 pound-feet of torque, so the crate engine should make a great motor for anything from small race cars to mid-size boats, according to Ford.

Considering that the motor is also going under the hood of the upcoming Focus ST hot hatch, we can also imagine the tuning scene for this car is going to grow quickly, so we wouldn’t be surprised if 240 horses turns out to be just a baseline figured.

Ford hasn’t announced availability of the EcoBoost crate engine yet, so stay tuned.

_________________
***************
Geek49203 aka
Tim Wohlford
Louisville, KY
Hayes front, S10 +2 rear, Lalo body.
Girlfriend thinks I'm nuts for building this....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 2:22 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 3937
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
john hennessy wrote:
how addiquate is the baffling in the pan for a north/south config?


There really isn't any baffling in the stock pan but there is sort of a "sump" shape where the pick-up is located. This area has a capacity of one or two quarts. For reference, the pick-up is located right over the hole in the picture.

I've had a pressure gauge on mine from the start and I've never noticed pressure issues (well except for that time I dumped four quarts on a local road....) but mine was also shortened about 1.75" after the "incident". If anything mine is probably worse since the "sump" area is shorter than stock. The pick-up being located in the center of the pan and the pan being narrower than long seems to keep cornering G's from pulling the oil away from the pick-up.

Attachment:
DSC04751.JPG
DSC04751.JPG [ 165.55 KiB | Viewed 35760 times ]

Image

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 2964
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
Alternatively Raceline in the UK makes both a low profile wet sump and a single stage dry sump system, specifically aimed at high performance longitudinal installations, that will make the bellhousing flange the lowest part of the engine. The wet sump is available in both vertical and 10 degree tilted versions, to match either standard installations as on the ranger or tilted installations as on the Miata.


geek49203 wrote:
So this motor might be considered?
Sorry but all mention of the 2.0L DI/Ti-VCT engine that was supposed to be released last year appears to have been removed from the Ford Racing website. However SEMA 2012 revealed their plans to go straight into selling 2.0L and 3.5L Ecoboost crate engines. You don't want to know the price shown on the website, as you'd be far cheaper going with a 5.0L Coyote than even the 2.0L Ecoboost. I don't know if this is just being used as a place holder until engines are available, or if that's actually going to be the MSRP. To the best of my knowledge it has also not been confirmed that the Ti-VCT/Ecoboost 4 cylinders uses the same transmission interface as the previous Duratec engines.



Speaking of which, another advantage to the Miata transmissions is the availability of aftermarket lightweight flywheels and high performance clutches. The Rangers are currently limited to stock replacement cast iron flywheels that are ill-suited to high performance use. However, in most of our applications the stock replacement clutches are likely more than adequate. For anybody that might be interested, I do still hope to gather enough interest in a lighter/stronger Ranger flywheel to have a smallish run of them made, possibly later this year. This could potentially also require using a different clutch and/or starter as well. For more information on that click here or shoot me a PM.

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 30, 2005, 1:28 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Sunny-Okanagan, Canada, eh?!
a.moore wrote:
SkinnyG wrote:
I'm in the (slow) process of adapting a 240SX transmission to the Duratec.


I'm sure the Nissan transmissions are a million times easier to source than the NC Miata. Do you have any pics of the progress?


Nope. Other than a CAD drawing of everything, showing that it should theoretically work. Other things in life have gotten in the way, hindering my progress.

I looked a couple years ago for a 5-speed NC tranny (works better with my 4.30:1 rear gear than the 6-speed would), and there were 2 (two) listed at wrecker's in Canada. They wanted something like $1600 or $1800. I picked up a 240SX transmission for $50. I'm sure I can make it work for a lot less than $1750.

_________________
The Lethal Locost
The Lethal Locost 2 - Even More Lethalerer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1283
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Don't know if it traces to Redline, but my (sourced from the UK) low profile wet sump's windage tray would not clear the 2.3 crank.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 12, 2013, 11:01 pm 
Offline
The voice of reason
User avatar

Joined: January 10, 2008, 4:47 pm
Posts: 7550
Location: Massachusetts
I thought I got this picture in the engine weight thread, but couldn't find it. Perhaps I didn't take enough notes. It shows a Duratec that had just been run on a dyno stand. The scale is showing just under 200 lbs., about 198. It's in running condition for the dyno and the cardboard box is holding the ignition parts. I think the intake is on the motor and on the other side.

We used that same scale on a Zetec and it came in around 270, that picture and weight is in the engine weight thread. I think the difference is less, obviously. I remember the Zetec still had it's Caterham motor mounts on it.


Attachments:
IMG_1304.jpg
IMG_1304.jpg [ 150.04 KiB | Viewed 35718 times ]

_________________
Marcus Barrow - Car9 an open design community supported sports car for home builders!
SketchUp collection for LocostUSA: "Dream it, Build it, Drive it!"
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 13, 2013, 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 19, 2009, 9:36 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: meadview arizona
Bill, was your duratec 2.3 from a focus or a ranger?

Andrew, how deep is the pan with the hole in it?

my ranger pan sticks out of the bottom of the car for about 1 1/2 inches.

_________________
this story shall the good man teach his son,
and chrispin chrispian shall ne'er go by,
from this day to the end of the world.
but we in it shall be remembered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY