Discussion
neiljohnson said:
The_Burg said:
100k an issue on that Volvo engine? Been a few years so suspect it might be a bit more. Had a T5 on 270k went like stink and not a rattle to be heard. Must be one of the most reliable engines ever, despite even in stock calling on 240hp,
No Volvo engine here!!The mk1 Rs has a turbocharged Zetec
The_Burg said:
Genuine never knew that, much better and lighter car but always thought they had the Volvo 5 pot.
No worries its all a learning curve mk2 Rs has the Volvo derived 5 cylinder the mk1 has the turbocharged Zetec bit both engines are badged duratec rs 
Pretty sure the 5 pot would be to long to fit in a mk1 though!
Max_Torque said:
Mk1 RS tipped by EVO in the latest edition as being a future classic to 'invest' in! I think they are right and that prices (of good, unmolested ones) suggest they are currently undervalued. One for the long term then!
To be fair they are a 10 year old ford & even sheds will fetch 5k easy so they are already doing pretty well!Just starting to see a fair few with rusty bits now as well as even minor knocks writing them off so they are getting rarer every day.
Clayton the rsoc registar has a brand new unregistered one though
Glad you came on hear though max was having a conversation with some re the Rs engine & you may be able to give us some insight from your background.
The engine seems massively over engineered for the spec it was released in & now the ecu can be properly mapped 400bhp is being achieved without taking the head off & my own engine is a fair bit north of 300bhp & at 104k has never been apart (touches wood) nor does it use any oil which is pretty impressive stuff!!
Was it built to be tuned or was there another purpose to the strength of it?
The engine seems massively over engineered for the spec it was released in & now the ecu can be properly mapped 400bhp is being achieved without taking the head off & my own engine is a fair bit north of 300bhp & at 104k has never been apart (touches wood
) nor does it use any oil which is pretty impressive stuff!!Was it built to be tuned or was there another purpose to the strength of it?
The RS story is a complicated one, with a lot of twists and turns, and the end product was very much er, a product, of those often somewhat fumbling stages in its evolution!
The engine certainly wasn't specifically designed for 'big power' i.e. power outputs way above the design spec. However, as that spec was somewhat flexible, the engine design was certainly 'robust' at the eventual homologated power output. At low volumes, the cost of say a piston or rod, doesn't really change very much between one designed for say 120bar (Pmax) and one designed for 100 bar, so it makes sense to use components that are definitely going to be strong enough. Of course, the original project was very quick n dirty, but as time wore on, Ford got more and more involved, and soon the car was required to meet the full FORD production engineering sign off! As a result, the engine would have to exceed the complete Ford durability targets. Some one these are a bit silly for a performance car, for example the 180hr high speed test (180hrs, continuous at peak power!) maybe a sensible test for a 1.2 fiesta that will get thrashed at full throttle down the motorway, but for a 150mph >200bhp car, pretty silly really.
With the original tubular exhaust manifold, the dev engines were making about 240bhp on the dyno (fully stabilised), on 95ron, with ~50degC charge temps. In the car, with only a 'transient' load being realistically possible, i'd say they were making something >250bhp. Unfortunately, this manifold , as we know, never made it to production, following the thermal incident that befell an AP car doing PASCAR at Lommell.
Other production requirements led to 'over engineering' too. For example the catalyst durability requirement, meant the engine had to be run very rich to lower cat temps (the hotter the cat, once over a certain temp, the shorter its life), and in the aftermarket world, where the cat has been replaced (or they don't care about life!) this means there is plenty of injector head room to allow for air flow increases.
Finally, the zetec base itself is tough, and very over engineered for its standard power output. Things like block strength (and weight!) and bearing area (width/diameter) are all incredibly generous for a 150bhp engine! The cylinder head is also not too bad for a turbo, because the ports are really quite "tumbley" and flat, rather than being steep and high flowing at low pressure ratios. For a turbo, where you can just increase air charge density, this high charge motion helps to maintain a fast burning chamber under extreme boosted conditions.
So, no in summary, there was no deliberate engineering to make the engine capable of 300bhp, but it's evolution from the base zetec led to a higher power capability as a side effect!
The engine certainly wasn't specifically designed for 'big power' i.e. power outputs way above the design spec. However, as that spec was somewhat flexible, the engine design was certainly 'robust' at the eventual homologated power output. At low volumes, the cost of say a piston or rod, doesn't really change very much between one designed for say 120bar (Pmax) and one designed for 100 bar, so it makes sense to use components that are definitely going to be strong enough. Of course, the original project was very quick n dirty, but as time wore on, Ford got more and more involved, and soon the car was required to meet the full FORD production engineering sign off! As a result, the engine would have to exceed the complete Ford durability targets. Some one these are a bit silly for a performance car, for example the 180hr high speed test (180hrs, continuous at peak power!) maybe a sensible test for a 1.2 fiesta that will get thrashed at full throttle down the motorway, but for a 150mph >200bhp car, pretty silly really.
With the original tubular exhaust manifold, the dev engines were making about 240bhp on the dyno (fully stabilised), on 95ron, with ~50degC charge temps. In the car, with only a 'transient' load being realistically possible, i'd say they were making something >250bhp. Unfortunately, this manifold , as we know, never made it to production, following the thermal incident that befell an AP car doing PASCAR at Lommell.
Other production requirements led to 'over engineering' too. For example the catalyst durability requirement, meant the engine had to be run very rich to lower cat temps (the hotter the cat, once over a certain temp, the shorter its life), and in the aftermarket world, where the cat has been replaced (or they don't care about life!) this means there is plenty of injector head room to allow for air flow increases.
Finally, the zetec base itself is tough, and very over engineered for its standard power output. Things like block strength (and weight!) and bearing area (width/diameter) are all incredibly generous for a 150bhp engine! The cylinder head is also not too bad for a turbo, because the ports are really quite "tumbley" and flat, rather than being steep and high flowing at low pressure ratios. For a turbo, where you can just increase air charge density, this high charge motion helps to maintain a fast burning chamber under extreme boosted conditions.
So, no in summary, there was no deliberate engineering to make the engine capable of 300bhp, but it's evolution from the base zetec led to a higher power capability as a side effect!
There is no way the engine is capable of a credible 400hp without serious rework and wild cams.
The engine that we prepped with Dave Mountain for the VLN series was doing about 265bhp (from memory) and that was with the old sausage manifold and a low cell density race cat. I think it was a standard head at that stage too. This was a fully optimized calibration too, with the trusty RCON doing all the work.
It was a pretty exciting drive compared to the standard car. I got a couple of laps at Lommel when we were setting the car up. I think I even have a .wav file of a drive by somewhere. It was in the days before ubiquitous digital camera technology, sadly...
The engine that we prepped with Dave Mountain for the VLN series was doing about 265bhp (from memory) and that was with the old sausage manifold and a low cell density race cat. I think it was a standard head at that stage too. This was a fully optimized calibration too, with the trusty RCON doing all the work.
It was a pretty exciting drive compared to the standard car. I got a couple of laps at Lommel when we were setting the car up. I think I even have a .wav file of a drive by somewhere. It was in the days before ubiquitous digital camera technology, sadly...
AER said:
There is no way the engine is capable of a credible 400hp without serious rework and wild cams.
The engine that we prepped with Dave Mountain for the VLN series was doing about 265bhp (from memory) and that was with the old sausage manifold and a low cell density race cat. I think it was a standard head at that stage too. This was a fully optimized calibration too, with the trusty RCON doing all the work.
It was a pretty exciting drive compared to the standard car. I got a couple of laps at Lommel when we were setting the car up. I think I even have a .wav file of a drive by somewhere. It was in the days before ubiquitous digital camera technology, sadly...
They are running into the 400's now the highest ive seen is 430bhp with 380lb of torque at 28psi boost this engine hasnt been apart to achieve this & while many are expecting the engine to fail at this power its put up with it so far!!The engine that we prepped with Dave Mountain for the VLN series was doing about 265bhp (from memory) and that was with the old sausage manifold and a low cell density race cat. I think it was a standard head at that stage too. This was a fully optimized calibration too, with the trusty RCON doing all the work.
It was a pretty exciting drive compared to the standard car. I got a couple of laps at Lommel when we were setting the car up. I think I even have a .wav file of a drive by somewhere. It was in the days before ubiquitous digital camera technology, sadly...
They have also acieved 330bhp on the stock turbo & this is all with live mapping the standard ecu with other management the engine can be taken above 7k rpm (apparently there is an issue mapping ther stock ecu beyond this) & more power would be available.
there is a link
http://www.rsownersclub.co.uk/rsocbb/showthread.ph...
The car im referring to is 2nd on the list the top one has had a rebuild with better pistons & rods & cams but is still on the Ford ecu
I think it's worth considering the difference between engine dyno bhp and chassis dyno bhp. IMO, if you took the VLN car, making ~270bhp on the engine dyno, and put it on a typical chassis dyno (say a dyno dynamics or whatever) you would almost certainly see well over 300bhp, due ot a couple of main factors:
1) the dyno run is transient in it's nature so components have not had time to warm up, unlike on the engine dyno where the engine will have sat at WOT for minutes at a time (controlled and stable fluid temps, but metal temps will be well up, as will exhaust line temps
2) estimation of coast down - will be miles out on the chassis dyno, even if "measured" on the rundown etc
Generally, i take about 20% off any aftermarket dyno figures if i am comparing them to OEM engine dyno ones...........
1) the dyno run is transient in it's nature so components have not had time to warm up, unlike on the engine dyno where the engine will have sat at WOT for minutes at a time (controlled and stable fluid temps, but metal temps will be well up, as will exhaust line temps
2) estimation of coast down - will be miles out on the chassis dyno, even if "measured" on the rundown etc
Generally, i take about 20% off any aftermarket dyno figures if i am comparing them to OEM engine dyno ones...........
nevsrevs said:
yea its pretty good going, loads of torque, dont want to go any more on the wet sump, what power are you making now?
To be truthful I don't know last time the car was on the rollers was a few years back it made 307bhp at 1.2 bar with the stock exhaust so I would hope 320bhp+ it can still outdrag a v8 m3 so is pretty healthy 
These engine certainly seem to like a big turbo!
zetec turbo, for 280 horse, should be a giggle in a mk2 escort.shame the dry sumps are still big bucks would like to strap a gtx30 on our motor.
[/quote]
Gtx35 has been done the wet sump has proved reliable to @ 7.5k above that the stock oil pump can't really cope although with the billet gear upgrade 8.5k has been done but the billet stuff has a reality my short life so becomes a service item
There is a conversion that retains the wet sump with a dry sump type pump which allows big revs not sure on cost though
nevsrevs said:
his is a dyno print of my engine, standard head and cams, and only a humble t38 turbo @ 1.3 bar
If you've not changed the cams or head and are only running 1.3 bar boost, then you'll be lucky to be breaking a real 300hp.If you say not, then pray tell me how the engine manages to pump so much more air than standard? From memory the standard car is not too shy of 1 bar at peak power. 1.3/0.9*212 = 306, so that's the best you can expect. Reality would be a lot lower.
I think your dyno is telling porkies...
AER said:
If you've not changed the cams or head and are only running 1.3 bar boost, then you'll be lucky to be breaking a real 300hp.
If you say not, then pray tell me how the engine manages to pump so much more air than standard? From memory the standard car is not too shy of 1 bar at peak power. 1.3/0.9*212 = 306, so that's the best you can expect. Reality would be a lot lower.
I think your dyno is telling porkies...
While you struggle to believe the figures they are consistant with others i have seen, it seems the exhaust system & turbo are actually very restrictive as well as the stock map being very rich (which max has already given an explaination for) so lots more power is available from increasing the airflow with exhaust mods.If you say not, then pray tell me how the engine manages to pump so much more air than standard? From memory the standard car is not too shy of 1 bar at peak power. 1.3/0.9*212 = 306, so that's the best you can expect. Reality would be a lot lower.
I think your dyno is telling porkies...
An example of this was when i went to an aftermarket tubalur manifold i lost 5psi boost due to a faulty actuator but gained 22bhp on the same dyno.
AER said:
If you've not changed the cams or head and are only running 1.3 bar boost, then you'll be lucky to be breaking a real 300hp.
If you say not, then pray tell me how the engine manages to pump so much more air than standard? From memory the standard car is not too shy of 1 bar at peak power. 1.3/0.9*212 = 306, so that's the best you can expect. Reality would be a lot lower.
I think your dyno is telling porkies...
I think you better read up on tubines then, as im running a turbo that produces alot more charge than the standard gt25,If you say not, then pray tell me how the engine manages to pump so much more air than standard? From memory the standard car is not too shy of 1 bar at peak power. 1.3/0.9*212 = 306, so that's the best you can expect. Reality would be a lot lower.
I think your dyno is telling porkies...
I not saying any wheel dyno is bang on, but its not far off as its been on 3 all within 5hp.
plus although head and cams are standard, nothing else is lol.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff