LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently March 28, 2024, 4:26 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 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: March 4, 2009, 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F wrote:
BBlue wrote:
Well, first off, after going to all the trouble to install a 5.0, why destroke? But simply put, a V8 Alpine does not interest me. You have to completely trash the Alpine steering gear and install a front mount R&P. The Alpine front end is such that it does not take kindly to front mounted R&P, it results in the Ackerman being bass akwards. That is particularly true with the stock Tiger. In addition, I like to drive a car with an engine that needs to be whupped on to really produce good performance. LOTS more fun.

Bill


To answer your question, large bore/shorter stroke, less rod angularity, longer rods/lighter pistons, a better rod ratio, etc. An efi 289 is hard to come by.

I guess your saying the ackerman occurs from the rack being forward of a straight line between the spindle attachments for pan clearance versus behind the line. Is it too much ackermann or some other problem?

Bore/stoke. rod angularity, pistons, etc, I'm not going to go there. It will only result in hard feelings.

The front mounted R&P combined with the peculiar Alpine crossmember which places the R&P way to far in front of the wheels results in Ackerman geometry that is backwards. When turning, the outside wheel is turned in more than the inside wheel. I call that bass ackwards.

Mark, I am using the Ranger M5R1 trans. It does not tilt the engine.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 4, 2009, 9:13 pm 
Offline
Automotive Encyclopedia
User avatar

Joined: December 22, 2006, 2:05 pm
Posts: 8037
Do you really now what is going to happen? Give us a chance. We can help you sort these problems out while leaving your feelings mostly intact.

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 4, 2009, 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F wrote:
Do you really now what is going to happen? Give us a chance. We can help you sort these problems out while leaving your feelings mostly intact.

Me know what is going to happen? You got to be kidding. Sgt. Schultz is the only guy that knows less about what is happening than I do.

My feelings? I was concerned more about your feelings than mine. Besides, it is the type of discussion that goes nowhere.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 5, 2009, 7:56 pm 
Offline
Automotive Encyclopedia
User avatar

Joined: December 22, 2006, 2:05 pm
Posts: 8037
I don't know if were aren't discussing correction of reverse ackermann or a comparing a v8 to a L4. FYI, I am open minded enough to appreciate most anything. Thank you for thinking of my feelings. :|

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 5, 2009, 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 1, 2007, 9:14 pm
Posts: 162
What is the height of the 2.3 Duratec? (Not including the intake)



Thanks

Brian


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 5, 2009, 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1307
Location: Connersville, Indiana
I really cannot tell, the engine is in the car and difficult to measure. I found a site that stated the 2.3 is 11 mm taller than the 2.0.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 5, 2009, 10:41 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 4074
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
I measured approximately 24.5" on the 2.0L from the lowest point on the pan to the top of the filler cap.\

*edit* make that 25.5" not 24.5"

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2009, 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: October 10, 2006, 9:56 am
Posts: 195
Location: Maryland
My eyeball measurements of the 2.0
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Loc ... sage/41865

_________________
Mark Conley
Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5947


Last edited by mconley3 on March 6, 2009, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2009, 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Posts: 137
Location: Louisville Ky
mconley3 wrote:


thats for the Zetec 2L, not the Duratec 2L. completely different engines.

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 6, 2009, 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 10, 2006, 9:56 am
Posts: 195
Location: Maryland
Not sure how that happened. Let me try again.

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Loc ... sage/41865

Engine as in pictures at below link, not including chain and engine
stand. :-)
http://usera.imagecave.com/mconley3/duratec/
See some transmission pictures here
http://usera.imagecave.com/mconley3/200 ... nsmission/

I pulled most things off and weighed them separately:

engine 192lbs
exhaust (and cat) 20lbs
belt tensioner 26oz
injector rail and injectors 27 oz
power steering pump 120oz
egr valve 13oz
alternator 12lbs
intake (no throttle body and partly broken) 101oz
engine harness (cut at firewall) 45oz
coolant hoses (that I have) 45oz


Some dimensions:

Length from flywheel to front pulley (no flywheel, to end of crank) 19.5"
Width at widest part of block (Where Tranny mounts) 14.5"
Width at widest part of head (At front) 11" (general width) 8.5"
Width including stock manifolds (exhaust not usable) +8" for stock intake.
Height from cam cover to bottom of block (tall side)19" (short side)
18.25"
Note: height of coil on plugs in pictures from above link.
Height overall (from bottom of sump to cam cover) 24"

Length of gearbox from bellhousing to tailshaft 32"
Width of bellhousing 14.5"
Length of bellhousing (at top) 6.5"
Note: see pictures, bell housing tapers to different lengths on sides.
Height of bellhousing 14.25"
Taper of bellhousing Not sure how to get, look at pictues.
Width of gearbox case 8"
Length of gearbox case 10.5"
Height of gearbox case 10.5"
Length of tailshaft 12" (includes 5/6 gear casing)
Weight of gearbox (dry) 101 lbs
Weight of bellhousing (if removable) N/A

_________________
Mark Conley
Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5947


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 7, 2009, 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Posts: 137
Location: Louisville Ky
That looks better :D looking at the links, i think you accidentally missed the last 2 digits the first time. :lol:

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 21, 2009, 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 27, 2006, 11:12 am
Posts: 349
Location: Darboy, WI
What are the differences in the transversely mounted and longitudinally mounted 2.3 duratec? block differences? mounting points?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 22, 2009, 1:31 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 4074
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Since there are only two RWD applications for the Duratec/MZR (Ranger/B-Series and NC Miata), I can't see there being very many differences between fwd and rwd set-ups. I'd imagine most 7 engines come from a FWD origin anyways since the 2.0L Ford version doesn't come in a RWD vehicle.

The 2.0L I got from an 07 Focus had all of the holes drilled and tapped where RWD engine mounts would be located - I just had to supply some mounts. There were accessories bolted to most of these points when it was in the donor car.

The bolt areas appear to be normally cast into all blocks. I can't see these points being omitted from some castings and included in others simply due to tooling cost. Even if they aren't drilled, it wouldn't be too difficult to carefully drill and tap the pads for your mount.

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 22, 2009, 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3268
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
To the best of my knowledge all Duratec 4 cyl in america share the same block, with the exception that the 2.3 has a 11mm taller deck height to accommodate the 11mm longer stroke. This means that the bare ranger block can be bolted into a Focus, provided you switch everything else over from the Focus. Obviously the ranger oil pan is going to be different from the focus oil pan. It seems the Focus 2.0 and Ranger 2.3 share the same head casting, while the Focus 2.3 gets it's own higher flowing head. Ranger also has less agressive cams. However the Ranger 2.3 and Focus 2.0 do not have balance shafts, where as the Focus 2.3 does. The Ranger crank and Focus 2.0 crank also have half the number of counterweights, giving them less rotational inertia than the Focus 2.3. This actually means the ranger has some of the most desirable factory components, which makes it a great starting point if you want a 2.3 instead of a more common 2.0, especially if you are planning to later throw some money at high compression rods/pistions and high flowing aftermarket head/cams at it anyways...Which has great potential to make 200+whp. Even with a Ranger engine, I would also consider trying to make the Focus intake manifold work, as it reduces the engine height and allows you to later upgrade to the excellent flowing (and trick looking) Cosworth intake manifold.

_________________
-Justin

"Orville Wright did not have a pilots license." - Gordon MacKenzie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 22, 2009, 1:43 pm 
Offline
Always Moore!
User avatar

Joined: November 9, 2007, 3:40 pm
Posts: 4074
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Don't the truck 2.3Ls have a lower compression ratio?

_________________
-Andrew
Build Log
Youtube


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 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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