Just wondering if anyone had tried fitting one of these to an MK or similar?
Maybe a bit of a weird choice but seem to be easily tunable to 150BHP +, I guess are reasonable weight but not sure about the height on them.
I think they're a long stroke motor so may not fit in?
Other half has one in her Focus and it seems nippy enough with good fuel economy and given Caterham have fitted something similar thought it would be
worth an ask.
Still fairly new and expensive, and management is often a hidden cost - certainly compared to 'off the shelf' ways of getting 150hp.
I think the 1.6 would be a more attractive option.
The 1.0l is probably better suited to a midi style car, as said not too light (iron block iirc) and although it has a small footprint it is pretty
tall. 1.6l ecoboost is getting quite a bit of traction at the moment and ecu prices for the direct injection system are starting to reduce a bit. This
engine is good for 300hp on stock internals with a turbo change and a decent exhaust (and ecu anfpt tuning obviously) and is all alloy I think so
reasonably light.
---------------------------------------------------------------
1968 Ford Anglia 105e, 1.7 Zetec SE, Mk2 Escort Workd Cup front end, 5 link rear
Build Blog - http://Anglia1968.weebly.com
quote:Originally posted by gremlin1234
I think the engine is quite tall.
Yup, it's bloody tall (I think I may still have the CAD files from Ford kicking about somewhere, if I haven't deleted them, but it was
ridiculous), and yes, still quite expensive when you take into account engine management.
The Caterham got very mixed reviews, to say the least - the torque-baised nature of the engine (designed to pull tall gearing, for economy) was felt
to be at odds with a 'Seven', where most people like revvy, slightly peaky engines to make it feel as though the car is being worked a bit
when driven fast.
quote:Originally posted by Sam_68
Yup, it's bloody tall (I think I may still have the CAD files from Ford kicking about somewhere, if I haven't deleted them, but it was
ridiculous),
if you do still have them, could I have a copy please.
ps got a 3yr old bmax 1L a month ago
As previously said the 1.6 is the one to go for. It's alloy so lighter than the 1.0. Sigma bellhousing and sumps fit. The turbo is in a
slightly awkward place but can be worked around. The ecus are the downside but are starting to come down in price. I'm fitting a 2.0 but
that's a big bugger n all.
quote: Yup, it's bloody tall (I think I may still have the CAD files from Ford kicking about somewhere, if I haven't deleted them, but it
was ridiculous)
Photo Archive
Building: confidence and miles with smiles
posted on 24/1/17 at 10:22 PM
quote:Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:Originally posted by gremlin1234
if you do still have them, could I have a copy please.
I've just checked, and yes, I've still got the file as a .dwg
If you U2U me your email address, I'll send you a dropbox link, when I get round to it.
Be aware that you'll need a serious CAD workstation to open and manipulate it, however - the CAD file for the engine alone is 192Mb
A dwg file is a drawing file? Also 192mb file suggests that you have the whole engine as an assembly. Depending on the software you are using you can
save the assembly as a single part which would greatly reduce its size.
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
