Supersport R - how's it making its power?
Discussion
I don't know a terrific amount about the Duratec other than that its in quite a few different cars.
My understanding is it was originally designed to be about 145hp?
For it to be making 180 in the Supersport R trim I presume CC have fettled it a bit.
Anyone able to comment on what's been done to it?
I presume it's largely a crate engine so standard Cams, rods, pistons, crank etc?
If So, am I to assume its largely just a case of custom ECU and some breathing mods?
I'm guessing it doesn't have throttle bodies until you go R400/R500?
My understanding is it was originally designed to be about 145hp?
For it to be making 180 in the Supersport R trim I presume CC have fettled it a bit.
Anyone able to comment on what's been done to it?
I presume it's largely a crate engine so standard Cams, rods, pistons, crank etc?
If So, am I to assume its largely just a case of custom ECU and some breathing mods?
I'm guessing it doesn't have throttle bodies until you go R400/R500?
The answer is very little has been done. The R, and R300 are basically the standard engine running the Caterham map, but the R400 has up-rated cams and springs to let it rev a little higher to 7,800 RPM and give 210 BHP. You can go little further by fitting roller barrels (220 BHP). Beyond that requires more serious bottom end work to get the higher RPM required by the R500 engine.
I have always wondered what the differences are between the 175/180 Duratec and the one supplied in other cars.
My Fiesta ST had a 2l Duratec, but needed new cams, intake and exhaust to get 185bhp. Obviously the exhaust and intakes are different on the Caterham, but I have always wondered how they get that power.
My Fiesta ST had a 2l Duratec, but needed new cams, intake and exhaust to get 185bhp. Obviously the exhaust and intakes are different on the Caterham, but I have always wondered how they get that power.
they get it the same way that any other engine - ie/ zetec gives more power when installed in a kit car and running different inlet/exhaust and map....a zetec like that will give about 170 give or take which is what 25 more than standard? and a duratec without changing anything other than map/exhaust/inlet should be around 185 give or take ( i say should 'is' based on a few pals who have done this as a conversion recently )...
Hi All,
As I understand it,there is probably a larger throttle body on the Duratec than is fitted in the std Ford road car. This with a raised rev limit compared to standard is how they are getting the power. The new Duratec Super Sport is just an R300 with its rev limit raised slightly.
Regards
SKC
As I understand it,there is probably a larger throttle body on the Duratec than is fitted in the std Ford road car. This with a raised rev limit compared to standard is how they are getting the power. The new Duratec Super Sport is just an R300 with its rev limit raised slightly.
Regards
SKC
Thanks for the info, sounds like there is even less going on than I suspected. I had assumed that the quoted increase over the r300 would have been some further ECU/fuelling mods. Raising the rev limit (if that truly is all that's been done) seems a cheeky way of getting the extra.
I'm guessing in reality then you wouldn't notice much of a difference between it and the R300.
What ECU does Caterham run with it? I'm guessing its one that can be remapped easily?
I'm guessing in reality then you wouldn't notice much of a difference between it and the R300.
What ECU does Caterham run with it? I'm guessing its one that can be remapped easily?
from my experience a bog standard 2.0 Mondeo duratec running with a decent ecu with throttle bods and a decent exhaust makes around 170bhp or they do when fitted to a Westfield (westfield quote 200bhp) , I bought a donormotor from an R300 for my latest engine build which when stripped I discovered was the later St150 focus duratec engine that was quoted at 180bhp, the focus motor comes with a hi port head the cams are slightly different to the Mondeo, so that is where the extra 10bhp will come from over the mondeo lump.
my previous 2.0 motor was the early mondeo engine with the older head but had the biggest cams you can get away with standard pistons and running the same tb"s and ecu revving to 7800rpm which is the advised limit of the standard rods I had 210 bhp and 167lbs ft torque, a bit of headwork or the later hi port head and I have heard of them making towards 220bhp at the same revs although the power on mine was still rising at the limiter but the standard rods prevented revving it higher. any more power requires a change of rods and pistons which is what I have just done with my donor R300 motor, you are then set to go from 220 up to 300 bhp depending on how you spec it.
my previous 2.0 motor was the early mondeo engine with the older head but had the biggest cams you can get away with standard pistons and running the same tb"s and ecu revving to 7800rpm which is the advised limit of the standard rods I had 210 bhp and 167lbs ft torque, a bit of headwork or the later hi port head and I have heard of them making towards 220bhp at the same revs although the power on mine was still rising at the limiter but the standard rods prevented revving it higher. any more power requires a change of rods and pistons which is what I have just done with my donor R300 motor, you are then set to go from 220 up to 300 bhp depending on how you spec it.
Jeff, that makes sense. I had a Fiesta ST which was quoted at 150bhp, and it was very clear it was strangled by the restrictive exhaust and possibly by the inlet too. It did not like to rev past 5750rpm so just those two changes alone would go a long way to freeing up that extra power. Put in the different cams as you mention and there is your 180bhp.
It is advised over 270-280hp to use a steel crank. The 2.3 produces this around 8250, but the 2.0 is higher, not talking from experience with the 2.0. 300hp cams are available. To be honest 300hp can add another few grand onto the costs, a reliable 260 2.3 i think is a better option than a strung out 300 unit. I drove a 200hp 2.3 and it felt like the 165hp 1.8 K-series R300, maybe being slightly lighter made up the difference?
Remember as well the R's tend to be lighter/ carbon this and that so figures also made from PTW.
Remember as well the R's tend to be lighter/ carbon this and that so figures also made from PTW.
Its a good insurance policy. What do the SP300R rev to, thought it was 7500? steel advised over 7700 according to Cosworth.I wouldnt take the risk even if there are people that have.
http://cosworth.com/media/335568/duratec_component...
page 10
http://cosworth.com/media/335568/duratec_component...
page 10
Edited by sam919 on Thursday 13th June 07:54
sam919 said:
Its a good insurance policy. What do the SP300R rev to, thought it was 7500? steel advised over 7700 according to Cosworth.I wouldnt take the risk even if there are people that have.
Sam I was advised standard crank is good for 9k and a couple of engine builders said the same they had seen no failures, they did advise a mod to the oil gallery on no 3 though to help lubricate?Im revving my new 2.0 to 8850 as do quite a few others I know and touch wood all is well , my 300bhp 2.3 Cosworth duratec had a steel crank but didn't rev that high, think limiter was at 8k from memory? I always wondered why it was fitted as I recall looking through the bills and thinking it was a lot of money if not necessary ?
not sure its a power thing as I also know of a couple of Supercharged duratecs running good power on stock bottom end, one of them even has standard rods and bolts and has run 260bhp+ last 3 years used on track only and has been issue free.
Jeff,
As you say you got to go on engine builders say so and experience so i suppose it depends on who you speak to. I know Jeff/ HWR know the guys at Cosworth so there's an influence there toward a steel crank that Cosworth produce, it does make sense on paper (or perhaps not with th costs), to have a stronger bottom end but i would preffer the lesser cost option which they arent.
My engine produced 301hp at 8250 but has always had a Steel crank, i dont want any risk so ill keep using it.....well it will be going in the new lump anyway!
As you say you got to go on engine builders say so and experience so i suppose it depends on who you speak to. I know Jeff/ HWR know the guys at Cosworth so there's an influence there toward a steel crank that Cosworth produce, it does make sense on paper (or perhaps not with th costs), to have a stronger bottom end but i would preffer the lesser cost option which they arent.
My engine produced 301hp at 8250 but has always had a Steel crank, i dont want any risk so ill keep using it.....well it will be going in the new lump anyway!
The Ultimate performance 2 ltr Duratec in the Juno puts out just over 300 bhp at around 8800 & on a standard crank, the general & proven consensus is the standard crank is good for 9000 rpm. If there were any concerns I would of had a steel one in this motor.
It was mentioned to me by several people that the steel crank motors are actually not as smooth running, suffering from more harmonics than the regular ones.
It was mentioned to me by several people that the steel crank motors are actually not as smooth running, suffering from more harmonics than the regular ones.
They are in the business of selling parts & engines so why not try to sell one of those at the same time too eh! (Honestly if I was told it was even 1% needed I would of had one in my engine)
On that subject one of the sports racer guys with a car very similar to mine a few years ago did purchase a 2ltr Duratec race engine from Cosworth, they were so disappointed with it they sold it & bought an SBD 290+ kitted one to replace it. This they were very happy with until some poor low octane fuel (car races in Oz) detonated the motor to death about three weeks ago......
On that subject one of the sports racer guys with a car very similar to mine a few years ago did purchase a 2ltr Duratec race engine from Cosworth, they were so disappointed with it they sold it & bought an SBD 290+ kitted one to replace it. This they were very happy with until some poor low octane fuel (car races in Oz) detonated the motor to death about three weeks ago......
dsl2 said:
It was mentioned to me by several people that the steel crank motors are actually not as smooth running, suffering from more harmonics than the regular ones.
Steel cranks are often lighter (half the weight of stock for a Kiddie crank in a Vauxhall 16v) and may be less smooth as they sometimes have fewer counterweights to and hollow b/e journals achieve the weight loss. This reduces rotary inertia which means more power at the flywheel. Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff