Ford Duratec-HE Engine Swap
Discussion
Hi,
I have a Mk3 Mondeo with a 1.8 Duratec petrol engine. A big-end bearing has gone, so I'm looking for a replacement engine, and I'm able to get a 2.0 Duratec from another Mondeo for a decent price. I would prefer a 2.0 anyway.
The 1.8 and 2.0 are the same engine design, but I assume I'll need at least the ECU from the 2.0, is there anything else I would need? Is it a viable swap?
Thanks.
I have a Mk3 Mondeo with a 1.8 Duratec petrol engine. A big-end bearing has gone, so I'm looking for a replacement engine, and I'm able to get a 2.0 Duratec from another Mondeo for a decent price. I would prefer a 2.0 anyway.
The 1.8 and 2.0 are the same engine design, but I assume I'll need at least the ECU from the 2.0, is there anything else I would need? Is it a viable swap?
Thanks.
Edited by RB5 on Saturday 12th February 20:06
seagrey said:
I have done excact same swap a few times. T
The 1.8 seems a bit harder to find,don`t bother swapping the ecu it is just going to cost you money reprogramming it to your car the original ecu runs them perfectly well.
Sounds good, does it fit straight in then? Existing loom, manifolds, ECU, etc. are fine?The 1.8 seems a bit harder to find,don`t bother swapping the ecu it is just going to cost you money reprogramming it to your car the original ecu runs them perfectly well.
RB5 said:
Sounds good, does it fit straight in then? Existing loom, manifolds, ECU, etc. are fine?
the first one I done I did wihout even realising it was a 2.0 going in a 1.8.I always refit the ancilliaries that came off the original engine regardless of what the new engine comes with,if it runs fine and you are changing the engine because it is mechanically shagged then why would you introduce unknown parts that may throw up unknown faults from the donor car.
I have done about six now and never had a problem.
seagrey said:
I have done excact same swap a few times. T
The 1.8 seems a bit harder to find,don`t bother swapping the ecu it is just going to cost you money reprogramming it to your car the original ecu runs them perfectly well.
It might run it, but I doubt it's "perfectly well". Why would Ford have a a different ECU for the larger engine if the 1.8 unit worked perfectly well?The 1.8 seems a bit harder to find,don`t bother swapping the ecu it is just going to cost you money reprogramming it to your car the original ecu runs them perfectly well.
Mr2Mike said:
It might run it, but I doubt it's "perfectly well". Why would Ford have a a different ECU for the larger engine if the 1.8 unit worked perfectly well?
The fuelling is correct which is all that matters.thats what lambdas and fuel trim are for.the manufacturers maps are not that precise on mass produced cars,they make a map to suit a particular engine then programme a quite large learn/adaptation curve into it,for many reasons.
Fuel quality,differences between identical engines in manufacturing,the degrading of components etc.
The small difference in engine capacity is well within the scope of the ecu.
I would guess that the 1.8 and 2.0 ecu maps have little or no differences in them at all anyway.
seagrey said:
Mr2Mike said:
It might run it, but I doubt it's "perfectly well". Why would Ford have a a different ECU for the larger engine if the 1.8 unit worked perfectly well?
The fuelling is correct which is all that matters.thats what lambdas and fuel trim are for.the manufacturers maps are not that precise on mass produced cars,they make a map to suit a particular engine then programme a quite large learn/adaptation curve into it,for many reasons.
Fuel quality,differences between identical engines in manufacturing,the degrading of components etc.
The small difference in engine capacity is well within the scope of the ecu.
I would guess that the 1.8 and 2.0 ecu maps have little or no differences in them at all anyway.
GavinPearson said:
f it was my project I'd be fitting the 2.0L ECU. While adapt values may work when the ECU is in closed loop control, when it goes open loop (which also applies when a fault is detected) the engine will run very lean. That will not be good for the engine.
the fuelling is correct as all ready mentioned,many have done this conversion.the first one I did is in my next street and the guy has been using it for five years or so in that manner.
GavinPearson said:
f it was my project I'd be fitting the 2.0L ECU. While adapt values may work when the ECU is in closed loop control, when it goes open loop (which also applies when a fault is detected) the engine will run very lean. That will not be good for the engine.
Exactly, very few 'experts' seem to understand this. As I said, if the 1.8 ECU ran the 2.0 engines "perfectly", there would be absolutely no point in Ford spending time and money mapping the 2.0 engine separately and producing it's own ECU.
Mr2Mike said:
Exactly, very few 'experts' seem to understand this.
As I said, if the 1.8 ECU ran the 2.0 engines "perfectly", there would be absolutely no point in Ford spending time and money mapping the 2.0 engine separately and producing it's own ECU.
Theoretically I understand what you are saying but in the real world the cars run within manufacturers tolerances,dont throw up fault codes,no lean running/fuelling correctly so whats the problem?As I said, if the 1.8 ECU ran the 2.0 engines "perfectly", there would be absolutely no point in Ford spending time and money mapping the 2.0 engine separately and producing it's own ECU.
I spent the best part of thirty years repairing cars for a living,theory and reality are two completely different things when it comes to cars.
GavinPearson said:
f it was my project I'd be fitting the 2.0L ECU. While adapt values may work when the ECU is in closed loop control, when it goes open loop (which also applies when a fault is detected) the engine will run very lean. That will not be good for the engine.
I don't see any immediate reason why such a combination would run lean even in open loop mode as long as the MAP or MAF sensor is correctly measuring the increased amount of air being processed and the ecu is sticking to a given A/F ratio, say 13:1 at WOT. Obviously at anything other than WOT, or close to it, then the lambda sensor is controlling everything to stoichiometric and doesn't really care what engine it is.My 2001 Focus ecu had no trouble immediately adapting to the fitment of an ST170 exhaust manifold which on the dyno increased peak torque from 129 to 143 ft lbs and about the same bhp numbers. There was no obvious learning time needed or any apparent defect in performance from the get go. It was certainly a huge gain over the standard tortously routed manifold.
That's probably similar percentage power differences between a standard 1.8 and 2 litre engine and wasn't pushing injector flow capability or anything else in the system beyond their limits. Usually there's the built in capability to control 20% or so more power than stock before you run into such problems.
I suspect a MAF sensor like the Focus might do a slightly better job of this than a MAP system with a non standard engine size but I'd have to defer to more knowledgeable people on that.
A n/alpha (MAP) based system CANNOT compensate for extra airflow directly (because MAP is not a measure of intake air mass flow, it is a measure of intake manifold air density. And the ecu uses a lookup table for volumetric efficiency to work out the mass airflow) However, there is typically a 12 to 15% adaption table allowance for lean fuelling, so during closed loop operation, even on a MAP based system, the ecu should add extra fuel, and carry across this learnt trim under WOT conditions.
(you would typically set a "Lean" fault code at approx 10% trim however)
A MAF system directly measures the intake air mass flow, so as long as you have sufficent MAF headroom (i.e. the output voltage of the MAF does not saturate) then the ecu will see all the extra air going in, and calculate the appropriate fuelling to match. However, the intake manifold filling model is going to be different between 1.8 and 2.0, so transiently the engine could run rich or lean. It would almost certainly fail a pukka EU emissions test, but i suspect the average driver won't notice much difference.
The biggest issue i can see is the accuracy of the ingnition timming. using a 1.8 map of MBT or BLD on a 2.0 is unlikely to be optimum, so fuel economy and power output are likely to be less than for a pukka 2.0
(you would typically set a "Lean" fault code at approx 10% trim however)
A MAF system directly measures the intake air mass flow, so as long as you have sufficent MAF headroom (i.e. the output voltage of the MAF does not saturate) then the ecu will see all the extra air going in, and calculate the appropriate fuelling to match. However, the intake manifold filling model is going to be different between 1.8 and 2.0, so transiently the engine could run rich or lean. It would almost certainly fail a pukka EU emissions test, but i suspect the average driver won't notice much difference.
The biggest issue i can see is the accuracy of the ingnition timming. using a 1.8 map of MBT or BLD on a 2.0 is unlikely to be optimum, so fuel economy and power output are likely to be less than for a pukka 2.0
Max_Torque said:
No, they are not.
Want you meant to write is: "As I understand it, theory and reality are two completely different things"........ ;_)
Prehaps I should have phrased it better,"When it comes to cars amongst other things what in theory should work sometimes doesnt and what in theory should not work at all sometimes does".Want you meant to write is: "As I understand it, theory and reality are two completely different things"........ ;_)
seagrey said:
Prehaps I should have phrased it better,"When it comes to cars amongst other things what in theory should work sometimes doesnt and what in theory should not work at all sometimes does".
I would suggest that is merely a failing in the comprehension of the theory as clearly a correct theory will properly describe reality.Pumaracing said:
I would suggest that is merely a failing in the comprehension of the theory as clearly a correct theory will properly describe reality.
Thats ok but none of us know the full facts,therefore no theory would ever be accurate,save a guess.Is the map different and by how much?
Is the adaptation enough?
no one knows for sure.
That alone means the theory could always be incorrect.
how can your theory be acurate without accurate information.
My reality is,the car is still driving round five years later,the customer with a smile on his face.
Scientists work on ultra precise theory and look at some of the giant cock ups they make,Hadron collider,Challenger,Hindenburg,Chernobyl........
seagrey said:
Thats ok but none of us know the full facts
Speak for yourself lol!I have spent too much time to think about doing powertrain calibration for Ford over the last 15 years! And, although i have not been directly involved with the duratc 2.0 / 1.8, they will be calibrated to the same calibration guides / procedure as all Ford powertrain platforms. So, they WILL have a 15% rich adaption limit, and the WILL set a "lean limit trim code" at between 10 and 12% (long term adaption).
You can estimate the differences between the ignition maps as a proportional change based on burn rate. I'm not going to bother to calc the differences, but suffice to say i would expect approx a 3 to 5% error in the MBT timing, and as much as 8% in the BLD portions.
The manifold filling model will be wrong by the ratio of diff in CC / diff in intake manifold volume.
But as i mentioned early, i'm sure that if you stick a 2.0 on a 1.8 map it will run, and the "average" driver probably won't spot the difference (without being able to A-B-A test the results back to back). What it won't be however is as "good" as using the proper 2.0 calibration.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff