Benzine
|
| posted on 5/5/04 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
Sierra engine questions
Call me Mister Thickie but there were a few things i wanted to know about 2.0litre DOHC pinto engines. What are the main differences and what are
common problems/issues when using an injection version as opposed to a carburetor when including them in a kit car such as an Mk indy.
Thanks for any help
|
|
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 5/5/04 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
carb version is 105hp efi is 115hp.
you will find the efi sticks up a fair way above bonnet line.
mark allanson has made a modified system - might be pics in his archive, or u2u him
atb
steve
[Edited on 5/5/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 5/5/04 at 09:38 PM |
|
|
DOHC or pinto?
different engines.
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
CairB
|
| posted on 5/5/04 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
The DOHC and pinto are different engines. A search of this site will yield plenty of information. The DOHC was around 125bhp and even heavier than
the pinto at 115 as Steve said. Mark's solution to getting the plenum system under the bonnet looks a good one. Once again there's been
plenty of chat, which can help you decide which way to go. Many of the carb installations that I have seen haven't quite fitted under the bonnet
though.
I did an injection one by modifying the standard unit, Photos in Cairb.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Colin
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 5/5/04 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the replies and i meant DOHC not pinto now you mention it 
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 5/5/04 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
I missed the fine detail and my answer referred to the pinto!
125 hp for the dohc, and similar tall bonnet issues
atb
steve
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 8/5/04 at 10:06 PM |
|
|
See also previous discusions on twincam reliabilty problems. Nuff said.
Enjoy
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 9/5/04 at 10:35 AM |
|
|
The twin cam reliability was not really its fault. We tend to get them out of 'end of life' cars when they have not been correctly
serviced. They need regular oil and filter changes, and chains at the specified times.
What I am trying to say is that it is a good engine, but won't take the abuse like a pinto can
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 9/5/04 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
The twin cam reliability was not really its fault. We tend to get them out of 'end of life' cars when they have not been correctly
serviced. They need regular oil and filter changes, and chains at the specified times.
What I am trying to say is that it is a good engine, but won't take the abuse like a pinto can
shades of K series methinks
(ducks for cover)
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 9/5/04 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
and chains at the specified times
What is the specified time?. When the bro in law had one we couldn't find a service interval for the timing chain.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 9/5/04 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
I have seen 60k as typical for the cars I have had
|
|
|
SteveH
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 11:17 AM |
|
|
Here we go again.....From my experiance the Ford DOHC 2.0i engine is one of Fords better attempts.....It's BULKY but not massive.
It can go into a standard locost with a few mods........Take a look here:-
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=6896&page=1
..& here is someone whos doing it:-
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/photos.php?action=gal&user=PaulBuz
After you pass SVA you can always change the engine for a newer ford lump...It just needs to be addapted to the MT gear box....not a majour
problem.
p.s. my daily drive is a 2.0i sierra....
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
the reason you cannot find a chain change interval for this engine is that Ford didn't specify one, but the accepted norm is that it is worth
doing at 80000, and that they have a tendency to break at 120000 miles, usually due to the tensioner running out of travel due to chain stretch/wear.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
The ford service manual states
'The timing chain must be replaced at least 2 weeks before it breaks....'
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
'The timing chain must be replaced at least 2 weeks before it breaks
See, that's all we were looking for, some definite advice, it wasn't asking too much was it? . Now where's my crystal ball and
sockets.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
SteveH
|
| posted on 1/6/04 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
Yawn..........seems the main reason the timing chain goes is the use of the wrong oil.....should be 10/40 & not 20/50....helps if you don't
thrash the engine from cold (but no one here would do that anyway?)......too thick on startup when it's cold. this causes the hydraulic chain
tensioner to place too much tension in the chain & Pop!
If you would like to read a little more on ford engines:-
http://www.crustworld.co.uk/sierra/techspec/engines.html
....Ohh & the MT75 gearbox DOES NOT use 80EP oil.....so If your gear change is a little stiff....you may like to try the propper oil.....best
changed before installing the box.
I'm cross-posting this so we can get some better info.........
I'd rather be laughed at for being a fool.... than be a laughing idiot.........
|
|
|
