LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently March 28, 2024, 4:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: May 11, 2010, 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 19, 2009, 9:36 pm
Posts: 2199
Location: meadview arizona
so i typed exactly what to do to fit a ranger duratec int one of these cars but it timed out and i lost it so you are on your own

_________________
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: May 11, 2010, 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 6, 2008, 11:15 am
Posts: 1047
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
BBlue wrote:
Do you know of a 50-60 pound system that uses barnyard engineering friendly construction? By that, I mean hose barbs or equivalent simplicity in the regulator hook ups.

Bill


Bill,

I believe the inline fuel pump off of a Ford Econoline Van with the fuel injected 5.4 runs at 70-75 PSI.

Tom

_________________
Sometimes, I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar.

My short term memory is absolutely horrible and so is my short term memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG16m2e4O6I


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 11, 2010, 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
john hennessy wrote:
so i typed exactly what to do to fit a ranger duratec int one of these cars but it timed out and i lost it so you are on your own

Damn! If you'd have done that a year ago, I'd make you retype it.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 11, 2010, 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Off Road SHO wrote:
BBlue wrote:
Do you know of a 50-60 pound system that uses barnyard engineering friendly construction? By that, I mean hose barbs or equivalent simplicity in the regulator hook ups.

Bill


Bill,

I believe the inline fuel pump off of a Ford Econoline Van with the fuel injected 5.4 runs at 70-75 PSI.

Tom

Gadfrey! Those regulators are 1200 bucks from Rock Auto. I'm thinking that may be a little too much pressure, my guru says at around 70 psi the injectors have trouble opening against the pressure.

Thanks.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 11, 2010, 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Mucking around on the 'net, I discovered the Chrysler turbos run 55 psi systems and the early ones used barbed fittings. Hot damn! They are exactly like the 40 psi unit on the car. It will be a remove and replace operation. About time I got a break. In addition, I found instructions to "adjust" them up a tad, say 5-10 psi. Rock Auto has a unit on closeout for twenty and some change, I ordered two of them.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 13, 2010, 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Posts: 137
Location: Louisville Ky
FWIW those stock injectors are running at approximately 24lbs at 40psi instead of the 27 they are rated for at 53 psi. So at that rate they are good for about 173 BHP while running at a 90% duty cycle and .5 BSFC. 27 lb injectors are good for about 194 BHP.

I suggest either running the stock injectors at their rated PSI or running some 32 lb injectors and tunning for them, which shouldn't be an issue for your tuner. If it is then a problem for him then, no offense meant, you should find a better tuner. Ther are a couple guys who are good at tunning Focuses, including those with the duratec engine.

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: October 31, 2010, 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Here are some videos shot today of the Alpine accelerating. Just got through doing some timing and WOT adjustments and in the process picked up some drivability issues which are evident at the start of each clip. Anyway, this is the current result of the home made (and designed) header and intake. The car weighs in at 2660 in the videos. Temperature is about 55, the road is what passes for level in this area.
Here are today's videos.

First gear:
Image

Second gear:
Image

Third gear:
Image

Fourth gear:
Image

Bill
__________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: January 24, 2011, 11:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
The Ranger Duratec has a deep sump, leaving me with minimal ground clearance. That's a 2 X 4.
Image
To help save the aluminum sump (this is a road car and it goes everywhere on all kinds of roads), I ran the exhaust pipe a little lower to sort of clear the way. Here is the resulting road rash.
Image

So I purchased a high clearance sump kit from: http://www.customworkshop.co.uk/page4.html
This is what it looked like when received.
Image
And the finished sump. The concave area on the left is a modification to allow the exhaust to crossover.
Image

Here is a comparison with the stock sump. The machinist's jack is extended to 2 7/8".
Image

Here is the final result.
Image

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 28, 2011, 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Some more trivia that others might find helpful.

Here is pic of the remote shifter I made for the Ranger transmission. This is the mark II version. Mark I did not have the braces. The unit was strong enough, but rocked on the bolts. This one is quite sturdy. The extension is 6".
Image
The Ranger transmission is working out okay. The 2nd gear synchro was bad. It is a high tech, three piece affair with two sets of cones and carbon fibre synchronizers. $307 at Ford, not available in the after market. I have another M5, this one for the 2.3 Lima. The guts of it will go into the Duratec transmission. Not all parts are interchangeable, better plan on swapping out everything. I didn't, takes a lot longer if you go the job two or three times.


The oil pan has been finished and installed. As you can see, the result is an overall height of 24". I cannot see any point in using a thinner pan, this one is 3/4" above the bottom of the bell housing.
Image
Hard to see, but the level is level and is resting on the "710" cap.

For those wondering how much height is required to "go over the top" with the intake, here is how much is used.
Image
Well crap. Looks like everything is in focus but the yardstick. The magic (but not legible) number is 27.

The overall length of the engine is 21 7/8" from the back side of the water rail to the head of the crankshaft bolt. Width is the overall width of the intake manifold, 18".

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: June 29, 2011, 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
While the oil pan kit seems desirable, I'm thinking it is not.

First of all, it is thinner than necessary. Just don't see any reason for it to be significantly higher than the transmission. Second, I am unhappy with the quality of the kit. The lazer cut, U-shaped rail that bolts to the engine is not properly cut. The bolt holes do not align with the holes in the block. Some of them had to be elongated about an eighth of inch in order to fit. The front piece is cut to clear the oil pump, which is good. But the cut is so deep that it is a leaker. After three tries, (thought it was my fault) I discovered the problem, built up the area, ground it smooth. Solved THAT problem. The stock oil pan is part of the engine/transmission interface, so the engine and trans must be parted in order to install the pan. This pan is not a part of the interface, but it is still long enough to be. As a result, the pan could not be installed with the engine in the car. Had to grind clearance on the pan rail. The windage tray interfered with the crankshaft. This is on the Ranger 2.3 version, may not be an issue on the other sizes. What a hell of a racket THAT was! Lastly, there are small parts in the kit that are inserted into baffles and are welded in place. They are welded on the back side. Well, they don't extend through the baffle, so must be plug welded. A relatively minor point, but a needless pain in the ass.

I think anyone using this kit should be aware of the pitfalls up front, it will save a lot of time and aggravation. All in all, I'm thinking I would have been better off to shorten the stock pan.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: October 24, 2011, 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
The engine has undergone some "upgrades". I put that in parentheses as I'm unsure of how effective they were. 34 lb/hr injectors and new fuel rail. Image
The injectors appear to be mostly a waste of time and money. Last year, running the (supposedly) 27 lb/hr injectors the injectors were running at 94%. The new ones are running 60%. Well, 60% of 34 is NOT 27. Maybe the old ones were 18 pounders. Can't believe everything you read on the internet. The fuel rail came about because I decided to reroute the fuel line and the old rail just was not configured correctly. The new one does look nice. The old was make do and looked the part.
Image

#2 upgrade was a larger (stock!) throttle body.
Image
The new one is on the right and caused throttle issues. WAAY to sensitive off idle. Had to use the cable snail off the old TB. That helped, but was not enough. Made a new bell crank with a slightly different orientation. It has the same overall ratio, but now is quicker at the end of the stroke.

When I made the intake manifold I was concerned about the impact the long (19") narrow (1.5") runners would have on power output. Here are the 3rd gear performance results. I offer them as evidence of the power curve, not to impress.

These are acceleration times as recorded by the data logger. This is not the end all timing method. The computer seems to be capable of logging a max of ten lines per second and most of the data points come out between logged rpm's. But it is a pretty good representation of the engine power curve.
twenty mph = 1576 rpm
20-25 mph- .9sec; 1970 rpm
25-30 mph- .9sec; 2364
30-35 mph- .8sec; 2750
35-40 mph- .9sec; 3152
40-45 mph- .8sec; 3546
45-50 mph- .9sec; 3940
50-55 mph- .9sec; 4334
55-60 mph- 1.0sec; 4720
60-65 mph- 1.2sec; 5122
65-70 mph- 1.5sec; 5516
70-75 mph- 1.6sec; 5910
75-80 mph- 2.0sec; 6304

As you can see, acceleration is very linear from 1500 to 4300, then drops off pretty quickly. It does not feel that way. It feels like the power maxes from about 2700 to 4000. So much for the butt dyno! If I use 6K as the shift point, the engine is well past its power band and acceleration is not good. Shifts are best made at about 4500. That gives much better acceleration as well as axle hop in 2nd and 3rd!

Total elapsed time for 20-80 is 13.4 seconds. That is a very solid number as it is taken directly from the log. I am pretty sure the drop in power is due to the long 1.5" I.D. intake runners. While there is little I can do about the length, it is possible to make up an intake with 1.625" diameter runners. That would be a very interesting exercise and is something I am considering.

A person can very legitimately say this is a mismatch with a torquey engine in a sports car, but I must say that is not all bad. 40 mph in 5th is 1845 rpm, which is the bottom of the power and extends to 4300, 104 mph! It does not run out of the power band in 4th until 80 plus. While not well suited to the racer crowd, it really is a cruiser's delight, especially in hill country. I recently took a friend for a ride. He commented that he kept expecting to hear the dump valve. I took that as a compliment.

In short, if you must use very long intake runners, don't make them out of 1 1/2" I.D. tube unless you are not interested in top end.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: October 25, 2011, 9:40 am 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 4074
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Great data. I love what you have done with the engine part of the build.

To add more fuel to the fire - the stock 2.0 I have in my car with stock everything (except for header) seems to have great torque from 2,000 up to 4,500 or so but the last ~1,500 revs to redline are not nearly as enjoyable. I wonder if it is just the way the stock cams are cut?

Any more details on the new rail?

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: October 25, 2011, 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
I suspect the cams are set up not to favor the last 1500 or so revs, but this thing is rediculous. Here is the fuel map as generated for max power at WOT, so I think it is a reasonable reflection on VE.
1000 rpm - 1.03
1500 rpm - 1.06
2000 rpm - 1.10
2500 rpm - 1.11
3000 rpm - 1.13
3500 rpm - 1.15
4000 rpm - 1.14
4500 rpm - 1.11
5000 rpm - 1.04
5500 rpm - 0.96
6000 rpm - 1.04
6500 rpm - 1.07

I really like that perfectly symmetrical dip and recovery! Don't see any way that can be cams, has to be intake runner harmonics. Anyway, after a long look at the intake thinking about the situation some more, I think that I can raise the plenum about an inch, which will allow me to shorten the runners anywhere from 5 to to 9 inches. I think that would move the offending harmonic far enough up the rev scale to be of no consequence. Comments are certainly welcomed as I know squat about this stuff. BTW, the intake length, valve head to plenum is 22".

Not much to report on the rail. I bought the extrusion on Ebay and made it. I have a vertical mill which makes such things pretty simple to do. The black hold down thingys are simply 1/8" X 1" hardware store steel, bent to shape.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: October 25, 2011, 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 8, 2011, 3:53 pm
Posts: 109
Location: Niagara Falls, ON.
Maybe it's where your cams "end up" with the tolerances adding. Could degree them in, see where you are, see if you want to try adjustable gears.

On my Escort motor, after I did the head, I put a nice new timing belt on of course. Now I was getting some horrible part throttle stumble and hesitation, was fiddling with it all the time trying to figure it out.... time passed... it got a new water pump... not long enough after, the cheapy bearing on the tensioner on it locked up, burned belt, insert a lengthy quest for a non chinese bearing here and another toasted belt, anyway, got a part in it that at least held up to the test drive, and I'd put on the original belt that came on the car (looked serviceable still, and hey, why waste new belts) anyway, discovered this one was tighter, a tooth shorter and a bugger to get on over the pulleys (Slack when there of course) This one lets the timing mark sit about 2* advanced, whereas the other belts were leaving it 5 or so retarded... odd huh? (Considering you should be able to get the exact same number of teeth between cam and crank) Anyway, on this belt, no stumble. Yeah, gonna get around to making an adjustable cam gear sometime, dial it in properly. (Also need to figure a way to get control of timing advance, or figure out the ECU)

_________________
traynee rockit serjun

DD#1 '95 Ford Escort Wagon 1.9 Auto, self PnPed stage 2-3ish head, 11ish CR, Airhog panel filter, awaiting headers and intake mods. ~110-120 BDHP
DD#2 '88 Plymouth Voyager, 3.0 Auto, shift kitted, alloys, walker exhaust, timing advance. Awaiting PnP heads. ~150 BDHP


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: December 2, 2011, 12:03 am 
Offline
The voice of reason
User avatar

Joined: January 10, 2008, 4:47 pm
Posts: 7652
Location: Massachusetts
I asked a friend if he had any Duratech / Zetech dyno runs for stock engines and he mailed me a dyno sheet for a Zetec with a set of Webers.

He has put a lot of Duratechs on his dyno, but I guess none of them have been stock. He often gets around 170 for them. I think they just have a camshaft, but I'm not sure if there is more done to them. I also don't know what they are running for an ECU, so will visit one of these days and ask.

I was hoping for a graph but just received a table of numbers. I'm not sure why. I was meaning to make my own graph, but just don't seem to be getting to it.

I would expect the Duratech and Zetec to have roughly similar stock numbers. There is no hole in the power band above 4500.

It seems to be running a 12.8 air / fuel ratio. I will skip some of the numbers, but the curve seems pretty smooth.

3500 082.2
4000 097.4
4500 112.7
5000 128.2
5500 138.3
6000 144.7
6500 144.7
6800 140.4

I can probably get a graph for one of the Duratechs with a cam.

_________________
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  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 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

Jump to:  
POWERED_BY