duratec 2.0 or 2.3 ?

duratec 2.0 or 2.3 ?

Author
Discussion

MegaOJ

8 posts

211 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
I looked heavily into putting a Duratec into my Focus for s**ts and giggles, but gave up in the end as I might as well have bought a better car

IIRC, the 2.0 is the sweeter engine for tuning/revving, but the 2.3 is much more torquey, although a bit coarser. In a 7 i'd say 2.0

dannylt

1,906 posts

286 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
Sweeter/easier revving? Have you actually driven both? How can it be easier to tune - you have less capacity to work with. Extra displacement is basically free power. The 2.0 can rev a bit more than the 2.3, but if you can get 280bhp at 7500rpm then it's hardly an issue...

jackal

11,248 posts

284 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
2.3 for pulling farmyard equipment
2.0 & screaming 8k rpm for trackdays
eek

dannylt

1,906 posts

286 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
From a completely unbiased 2.0 owner who's never driven a 2.3 either?

megaoj

8 posts

211 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
Not that simple i'm afraid

The 2.3 WILL get more ultimate power, and it'll be at lower revs, but it isn't as well balanced as the 2.0. The extra 300cc's might be 'free power', but you're totally ignoring things like the torque curve, power delivery and smoothness.

You can sensibly get up to 250bhp with a 2.0, or 270bhp with a 2.3. Personally, if its a track day 7 I'd rather have a smoother, more linear power delivery than that bit of extra torque. If its a road car, especially an SV, i'd rather have the 2.3 for the extra torque and subsequent driveability, as you're not going to be revving the nuts off it all the time

I haven't driven either, but I have spoken to enough people, and done enough research into it to know that a 2.3 would have been better in my heavier Focus, although most tuners prefer the 2.0 to work with. Thats coming from a Caterham Racer who's an Automotive Engineering student!

Edited by megaoj on Friday 3rd November 18:18

dan00001

Original Poster:

19 posts

212 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
i want it mostly for going out on weekends and every once in a while going on long trips around the uk bt also for going to track days every now and then what engine do you think would suit me best? thanks, dan.

sfaulds

653 posts

280 months

Friday 3rd November 2006
quotequote all
Yay, the proper bullshit's started now - time to bookmark this thread biglaugh

barrythompson

454 posts

220 months

Sunday 5th November 2006
quotequote all
sfaulds said:
Yay, the proper bullshit's started now - time to bookmark this thread biglaugh


LOL

dannylt

1,906 posts

286 months

Monday 6th November 2006
quotequote all
It's easy to bullshit when you haven't actually driven either but "spoken to enough people".

I haven't seen a dyno chart or even a claim for a 2.0 that's made 250bhp yet. I'm sure it can, but why so many 2.3's? I can't see why any engine tuner wants to make their life difficult by having less capacity given the choice. Given the capacity, the 2.3 can have tamer cams and have a more linear (smoother) torque curve than the 2.0 for the same power. If you just want revs for the sake of revs, get a motorbike engine...

For a track 7, torque is fun. For a race car, top end is all that matters.

In any case, each to their own opinion!

MegaOJ

8 posts

211 months

Monday 6th November 2006
quotequote all
Indeed, and in this case I reckon the 2.3's going to be a nicer drive if its for road use. And there are plenty of Dyno's knocking around if you search on google!

MegaOJ

8 posts

211 months

Monday 6th November 2006
quotequote all
And as for the bullshit comment, just because I use the phrase 'I've spoken to enough people', doesn't mean I'm talking crap. Phone round any Duratec engine supplier/tuner and they'll all say the same thing

dannylt

1,906 posts

286 months

Monday 6th November 2006
quotequote all
They certainly don't all say the same thing (wouldn't the world be a boring place). If you want power, 2.3 is the way to go. In fact, Mountune offer a 2.4, and I had a 2.5 this year. This was a suggestion by my tuner to get >300bhp. This figure would be touring car expensive for a 2.0. By dyno chart, I meant a UK one at some known exaggeration factor dyno.

So when you talk about "torque curve, power delivery, smoothness", the first two are better on the 2.3, and the last is irrelevant for a track/race car. What really counts is more power everywhere in the rev range.

adamramoth

4 posts

184 months

Friday 4th September 2009
quotequote all
There are other options to Cosworth - albeit they are the big name, but theres also : Dunnell, SBD, Mountune, Mamba to name a few.

The 2.3 is slightly cheaper to buy tuned than the 2.0 when looking to achieve the same power.

Another much cheaper option is the Vauxhall xe motor. Ask anyone, its a cracking engine. The performance version was designed by Cosworth believe it or not and you can find ''Coscast'' stamped on the earlier heads, however Vauxhall soon after cast these themselves and were of lower quality. Its very tuneable.

Then theres the ford sierra cosworth YB engine. This is an amazing motor, but for a 7 its best normally aspirated and tuned up, they sound amazing and much cheaper than a £10k Cossie He14.

Finally if you got loads of cash you can buy 2ltr ford BDA engine. Designed by Mike hall at cosworth and based on the x-flow bottom end, this is the king of ford motors. Upto 600bhp! but around £20k each!

Nicodema

259 posts

220 months

Friday 4th September 2009
quotequote all
Wow! Necropostal!

taffyracer

2,093 posts

245 months

Friday 4th September 2009
quotequote all
dannylt said:
It's easy to bullst when you haven't actually driven either but "spoken to enough people". wink

For a track 7, torque is fun. For a race car, top end is all that matters.
Not too sure i'd agree with that comment, bhp sells car torque wins races as the saying goes, or words to that effect!

BertBert

19,150 posts

213 months

Saturday 5th September 2009
quotequote all
dannylt said:
...so I don't see why anyone would go for the 2.0 given a choice. By your argument the undersquare R500 engine is not revvy...
And there was me thinking the R500 was 2.0L.

Bert

sam919

1,078 posts

198 months

Saturday 5th September 2009
quotequote all
dan00001 said:
when you buy a new caterham 7 will they make it to fit a dutatec engine? on the cosworth website the 2.3 duratec engines with 220 bhp are priced at abot $10000 wich is about £5000.
The problem with stuff from the states is the exchange rate, and the import tax. As Faulds said its probably near £6 and a bit grand, just for the engine about another that and a bit for all the rest of the gear. For Duratec with high power and if thinking of importing formula atlantic use the mazda/ford duratec and they are around 300hp.

If your looking for 300 the price can escalate, i think your around 1500 for a crank and 800 for con rods, 5-600 pistons, then there's head work bigger valves, exhaust primary work, this can possibly give you the power @ 8-9000 revs with plenty of torque. But you'll want to use some decent oil and change it regularly something like fuchs or royal purple at £80 a change. High power can start having effects on the rest of the cars components, snapped driveshafts regular caterham i think are 250 but you can get uprated ones for about the same but 3 times stronger 300m steel from drivelink.

The Vauxhall is heavier but if its not a race car then its probably not an issue, whatever route you go if its for road and occasional track use 200hp from a reliable engine is more than adequate and you can spend the money youve saved on trackdays/ ARDS/ racing.......the bird for a holiday!



Edited by sam919 on Saturday 5th September 09:44

BBL-Sean

336 posts

178 months

Sunday 6th September 2009
quotequote all
BertBert said:
dannylt said:
...so I don't see why anyone would go for the 2.0 given a choice. By your argument the undersquare R500 engine is not revvy...
And there was me thinking the R500 was 2.0L.

Bert
Nope - 1.8L putting out 230 bhp, but that wasn't even a Duratec.

BertBert

19,150 posts

213 months

Sunday 6th September 2009
quotequote all
BBL-Sean said:
BertBert said:
dannylt said:
...so I don't see why anyone would go for the 2.0 given a choice. By your argument the undersquare R500 engine is not revvy...
And there was me thinking the R500 was 2.0L.

Bert
Nope - 1.8L putting out 230 bhp, but that wasn't even a Duratec.
f'goodness sake keep up man, we are talking about the D R500. And yes it is 2.0L.
Bert

BBL-Sean

336 posts

178 months

Monday 7th September 2009
quotequote all
BertBert said:
BBL-Sean said:
BertBert said:
dannylt said:
...so I don't see why anyone would go for the 2.0 given a choice. By your argument the undersquare R500 engine is not revvy...
And there was me thinking the R500 was 2.0L.

Bert
Nope - 1.8L putting out 230 bhp, but that wasn't even a Duratec.
f'goodness sake keep up man, we are talking about the D R500. And yes it is 2.0L.
Bert
Because the post you were replying to (and quoted) appeared on 02 November 2006, and there was no Duratec R500 from Caterham at that time, I took dannylt's comment about the R500 to be aimed at the only one in existence at the time, which is a 1.8L. You replied to a post that is almost three years old and then tell me to keep up?

edit -- I should apologize, as in retrospect I think I ambushed you a bit. Anyway, my point is that dannylt's comment in 2006 could only have been about the 1.8L R500. No hard feelings, I hope.

Edited by BBL-Sean on Monday 7th September 05:42