duratec 2.0 or 2.3 ?
Discussion
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
Hi, I'm new here. I joined up this morning so I can give my opiniated view on the 2 litre / 2.3 debate.
"...so I don't see why anyone would go for the 2.0 given a choice."
I chose to have a 2 litre over a 2.3. I could of had either.
I like the fact that it less torquey and more revvy. Less torque means I may just get myself into less trouble on a wet or greasy road. "Less" torque in my car is 185 ft/lb. The engine makes 260+ bhp with an 8,500 rpm rev limit. Bore and stroke are 87.5 x 83.1 mm. Oversquare.
On the other hand I could have had a 260 bhp 2.3 with 200+ ft/lb of torque and a 7,500 rpm rev limit. Bore and stroke are 87.5 x 94 mm. Undersquare. This goes against my religion. I'm not keen on the long stroke. Having said that there are lots of people with 2.3 engines that are perfectly happy with them.
I used to have a 2 litre 228 bhp engine with stock rods and pistons. It was very fast at first, but after a while, once I got used to it, it felt slower. I wanted a bit more power and some more revs as I was always hitting the 7,500 rpm limit through the gears. With 2 in the car it felt slow. I couldn't give my passengers the feeling of acceleration that I got driving solo.
I built the new engine 260 bhp with steel rods and forged pistons. If anything it is a bit too much power for me on the road but it is very docile at lower revs. You don't need to use all the power or all the revs all the time. It is my daily driver as the Caterham is the only car I own at the moment. At 4,000 rpm / 80 mph it is the car I drive to work. It pulls from low rpm in 5th. I can pull away in 3rd if I want to. When you put your foot down and keep it planted it jst keeps going right the way up to 8,500. It now feels as fast as the old engine driven solo with two people in the car.
My favourite engine is the 2.2 that Danny LT has. Bored and stroke are 89 x 88. Oversquare with 310+ bhp, 200+ ft/lb of torque and a 9,000 rpm limit. I have driven this car at Brands and it is too much for me. Danny is a much better driver than I will ever be. To be frank this sort of power scares me a bit. It is not for everyone.
There is a 2.2 with small throttle bodies and mild cams that is going on the dyno soon. It will probably "only" give around 260 bhp. 260 bhp in a Caterham is a lot of power. People seem to forget this sometime. The guy who owns it wanted more revs, power and torque without going too crazy. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
In practice the Duratec is one of the best engines around. You can choose the engine characteristics that suit you and build an engine to the specifications you want. You can go from 175 bhp all the way up to 310 bhp with torque from 165 to 225 ft/lb, and everything in between, depending on your desire and what your wallet permits.
Hope this information may be useful in helping you decide which is the best Duratec for you.
Ammo
"...so I don't see why anyone would go for the 2.0 given a choice."
I chose to have a 2 litre over a 2.3. I could of had either.
I like the fact that it less torquey and more revvy. Less torque means I may just get myself into less trouble on a wet or greasy road. "Less" torque in my car is 185 ft/lb. The engine makes 260+ bhp with an 8,500 rpm rev limit. Bore and stroke are 87.5 x 83.1 mm. Oversquare.
On the other hand I could have had a 260 bhp 2.3 with 200+ ft/lb of torque and a 7,500 rpm rev limit. Bore and stroke are 87.5 x 94 mm. Undersquare. This goes against my religion. I'm not keen on the long stroke. Having said that there are lots of people with 2.3 engines that are perfectly happy with them.
I used to have a 2 litre 228 bhp engine with stock rods and pistons. It was very fast at first, but after a while, once I got used to it, it felt slower. I wanted a bit more power and some more revs as I was always hitting the 7,500 rpm limit through the gears. With 2 in the car it felt slow. I couldn't give my passengers the feeling of acceleration that I got driving solo.
I built the new engine 260 bhp with steel rods and forged pistons. If anything it is a bit too much power for me on the road but it is very docile at lower revs. You don't need to use all the power or all the revs all the time. It is my daily driver as the Caterham is the only car I own at the moment. At 4,000 rpm / 80 mph it is the car I drive to work. It pulls from low rpm in 5th. I can pull away in 3rd if I want to. When you put your foot down and keep it planted it jst keeps going right the way up to 8,500. It now feels as fast as the old engine driven solo with two people in the car.
My favourite engine is the 2.2 that Danny LT has. Bored and stroke are 89 x 88. Oversquare with 310+ bhp, 200+ ft/lb of torque and a 9,000 rpm limit. I have driven this car at Brands and it is too much for me. Danny is a much better driver than I will ever be. To be frank this sort of power scares me a bit. It is not for everyone.
There is a 2.2 with small throttle bodies and mild cams that is going on the dyno soon. It will probably "only" give around 260 bhp. 260 bhp in a Caterham is a lot of power. People seem to forget this sometime. The guy who owns it wanted more revs, power and torque without going too crazy. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
In practice the Duratec is one of the best engines around. You can choose the engine characteristics that suit you and build an engine to the specifications you want. You can go from 175 bhp all the way up to 310 bhp with torque from 165 to 225 ft/lb, and everything in between, depending on your desire and what your wallet permits.
Hope this information may be useful in helping you decide which is the best Duratec for you.
Ammo
BBL-Sean said:
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.
Just because there was no official Caterham option doesn't mean they didn't exist! My car was one of the very first 2.3 litre Duratec's in a Superlight chassis back then, built by Mick Attree. Talk about a thread resurrected from the dead! It was later bored to 2.5, then destroked to 2.2 to get more revs.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.
I've also changed my mind on what I said years ago - the 2.0 litre is the way to go for price/performance, because you can do 8500+ on the standard crank.
Ammo 7 said:
Hi, I'm new here. I joined up this morning so I can give my opiniated view on the 2 litre / 2.3 debate.
Ammo, welcome! It's good to have someone who builds these things for a living and also has the ability to re-engineer existing parts to improve their performance on the forum (and a proven track record)!As a *ball park* figure - what would the short 2 litre engine (i.e. no ancillaries) cost to achieve the 260hp / 180 lb ft discussed? PM me if you like. Do you know how much the bellhousing is to go from the Duratec to the Quaife 60T seq box? thanks.
Hi Fergus
For a 260 bhp 2 litre you are looking at around 7K + VAT. I include a flywheel, clutch and dry sump at that price. If you supply your own engine as a donor it will be less.
Ammo
Forgot to say that I'm not sure regarding the Quaife box you mentioned. If it has the same bolt pattern as the type 9 you should have no problem fitting it to to the engine.
For a 260 bhp 2 litre you are looking at around 7K + VAT. I include a flywheel, clutch and dry sump at that price. If you supply your own engine as a donor it will be less.
Ammo
Forgot to say that I'm not sure regarding the Quaife box you mentioned. If it has the same bolt pattern as the type 9 you should have no problem fitting it to to the engine.
Edited by Ammo 7 on Tuesday 15th September 18:28
Edited by Ammo 7 on Tuesday 15th September 18:34
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff