First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Documenting your big project with photos/videos? Have photos/videos to share of anything Merkur related? Place your links to photos and videos here. Please - Merkurs and Merkur-related pictures only. Cosworths welcome!!
Carlisle and event related pictures are to be placed in the relevant section under 'Events'.
Merkur Club web site
John V
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Sleezattle, WA, USA

Post by John V »

Jgrove998 wrote:
John V wrote: Problem is "relaible as stock" means that connecting rod failures are a ping or three away.
The problem has its roots in the head which flows so well that a 2,0 will flow air for 220 bhp is you lift the valve just 10mm and a bar of boost means a sheeet-ton more than 220.

The solution is---if you want the sort of relaiblity and progressive upgradability as we have been spoiled with in the Lima---is to just break down and add decent rods and forged pistons---which I think most here under-value that the turbo Lima have forged pistons.
I guess you could argue the failure could happen to any engine, any time. But that is always a possibly on my car; and I've accepted that. However I'm confident in the dyno tune that is on the car and it is conservative enough that I think it'll be OK. I put the turbo on my motor at 107,xxx miles and it now has 119,xxx miles on it; still running strong...but the possibility of failure is always there.

And I do agree with the second part with reliability and upgrade-ability. The SVT focus came from the factory with forged rods and pistons. That engine can hold upwards of 350whp with the correct tuning.

I would love to break down and throw some upgraded internals in my 2.3L Duratec....maybe a college graduation gift to myself in December :lol:
The SVT is a steaming turd, :puke don't sully the thread about lovely Duratec with crazy talk about that junk.

And this "correct tuning" thing. Sure with a good tune---as long as you can get the melody its a "good tune", that's one thing, but hasn't life taught us all the: sensors go whacky? or Grounds act kinky, or,nose-hair dandruff falls on a senor and as the say in Possum Flats, Ontario, "Ka-boom!" :banghead
John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle WA USA
CALL =-> (206) 431-9696 <-= CALL

http://www.rallyrace.net/jvab/
User avatar
whitelx
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:01 pm
Location: Riverside, CA
Contact:

Post by whitelx »

xR4rally wrote:Anyone know what trans Caterham use behind the Duratec?
I believe they use a strengthened T9 for the lower models and a design of their own for the more higher end cars. It's been a while since I researched it.
1986 XR4Ti - 294rwhp/315ft-lbs
1992 Mustang 5.0 notch - 434rwhp/445ft-lbs
http://www.youtube.com/user/whitelx
xr4ti85
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: orangeville,pa

Post by xr4ti85 »

my buddy has a 04 focus with 2.3 he put a stage 2 turbo kit that has a gt28r turbo and he runs it at 11psi and it makes 247whp with a tune also from the guy here in Pa. he put the kit on at about 10k he now has almost 100k on it and has not had a problem yet.

he is right now building a new lower end with some eagle rods,weisco pistons and a ranger crank. and a cosworth intake along with a bunch of other goodies and is looking for at least 350whp.

if i do every plan on doing a motor swap a duratec will be going in.
Tom
Image
User avatar
xr4man
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Contact:

Post by xr4man »

xR4rally wrote:Anyone know what trans Caterham use behind the Duratec?

Also, if one isn't a brand-ist and looking for a DOHC aluminum forced-indction-able four pot, one could very easily mate a Ecotec 2.0 or 2.2 to a R154 trans, both of which are readily available for little monies. Just saying...
only problem with that is the eco-tecs are utter and complete junk. if you want a real engine from gm, use the saab 2.3 b234. i have a bell housing mated to one right now that is just waiting for me to do an automatic swap on my xr so i can attach my old t-5 to it.
ian the re-animator
xr4ti41028
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:19 am
Location: Graham,wa

Post by xr4ti41028 »

whitelx wrote:
xR4rally wrote:Anyone know what trans Caterham use behind the Duratec?
I believe they use a strengthened T9 for the lower models and a design of their own for the more higher end cars. It's been a while since I researched it.
http://www.cosworthusa.com/store/pc/vie ... roduct=354
Thomas

Graham, washington
xR4rally
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:16 am
Location: Tacompton Wa

Post by xR4rally »

xr4man wrote:
xR4rally wrote:Anyone know what trans Caterham use behind the Duratec?

Also, if one isn't a brand-ist and looking for a DOHC aluminum forced-indction-able four pot, one could very easily mate a Ecotec 2.0 or 2.2 to a R154 trans, both of which are readily available for little monies. Just saying...
only problem with that is the eco-tecs are utter and complete junk. if you want a real engine from gm, use the saab 2.3 b234. i have a bell housing mated to one right now that is just waiting for me to do an automatic swap on my xr so i can attach my old t-5 to it.
I'd rather not debate all the reasons GM makes better and more powerful engines that Ford, but a 400hp-capable stock bottom end doesn't seem like junk to me.
"More horsepower makes you faster in the straights. Less weight makes you faster everywhere."
-Colin Chapman
User avatar
xr4man
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Contact:

Post by xr4man »

i'm not saying that the turbo eco-tec engines can't make power, i'm just saying they have a habit (even in stock form) of blowing holes in the sides of the blocks.
ian the re-animator
User avatar
Snake
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Newmarket, Ontario

Post by Snake »

xr4man wrote:i'm not saying that the turbo eco-tec engines can't make power, i'm just saying they have a habit (even in stock form) of blowing holes in the sides of the blocks.
Yeah, that's a pretty bad habit :bounce
User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 14893
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by DPDISXR4Ti »

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Brad
hEaT
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: USA

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by hEaT »

Thanks for the pics Brad!

It's a shame the Cossie IM dumps right into the firewall. Looks like it would work great otherwise.
User avatar
Ray
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 4338
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:40 am
Location: CT, USA

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by Ray »

Thanks for the pics!

Couple questions - does the coolant degas tank have a cap? is the bolt from the cross member to the frame rail loose?
-Ray
1985 Ford F150 - Tow Missile
1985 Merkur XR4Ti -#141 CP "Miss Daisy"
2005 Subaru LGT
http://www.cartct.com
User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 14893
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by DPDISXR4Ti »

Ray wrote:Couple questions - does the coolant degas tank have a cap? is the bolt from the cross member to the frame rail loose?
Looking over my pics, I actually had the same two questions Ray! I'm going to let Phil's son know, since he's the one who is driving it.
Brad
kstylez
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by kstylez »

Thanks for taking lots of pics!!!

KEWL!

Personally if I had wanted COP, I would have just used the Focus vc and it's coil packs. But that works.

Is this running the QFR bellhousing/t-5? If so, hydro or cable?

I could fill the page with more inquiries....
User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 14893
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by DPDISXR4Ti »

kstylez wrote:Personally if I had wanted COP, I would have just used the Focus vc and it's coil packs. But that works.

Is this running the QFR bellhousing/t-5? If so, hydro or cable?
They're Toyota COPs - Phil said he preferred those over the Focus stuff.

Yes, it's the QFR bell, which is hydraulic. I'm pretty sure it was the most expensive part of the whole conversion. I sorta expected to find that Phil had fabricated some sort of hybrid bell, but that wasn't the case. I know I'd look at using the 6-speed from the 2006+ MX-5, but searching now for a pic, it looks like the shifter may be too far back- here's an ebay auction for one for $1650.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MAZDA-MI ... ccessories

Answering some of your other questions before you ask them.... The short block is from a DI Turbo CX-7. I think the head is from a Ranger. The pan required some re-work - I was trying to capture some of that but you don't see it in the pic.
Brad
kstylez
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: First Duratec 2.3T in a Merkur

Post by kstylez »

Hmmm...

Interesting. I wrote off the miata trans thinking it would be too weak coupled with the fact i've got like 4 t-5s here... But that 6 speed does look nice. And for that matter the miata 5 speeds are dirt cheap. Found em for $500. That QFR bell retails for more than that. And really, that trans LOOKS long because the bellhousing it built in, but an assembled t-5/bell looks damn similiar in length.

Image

vs

Image

Could be a possibility
Post Reply