How would a 2.3 Zetec stack up against a 2.3 Duratec? Aside from the fact that a 2.3 stoker kit Zetec would be a built engine, this should be about the comparison to a built 2.3 Duratec. So as not to throw in the kitchen sink, please keep your opinion to daily drivers only.
opus1
That's pretty much true.... because you wouldn't stroke a Zetec and install a stock valvetrain.focus_wrc said:
...but if you did, you'd see something similar to a 2.0L Duratec versus a 2.0L Zetec, which is similar peak numbers, but a drastic falloff of torque in the Zetec, leading to a loss of 10-15 ft-lbs at the top end due to flow limitations.
Now we're comparing BOOSTED motors of different architectures!?opus1 said:
I'm outta this one. :lol:
I think I would feel uncomfortable driving a stroked 2.3L Zetec on a daily basis, so my vote goes for the Duratec. The 2.0L Zetec is already the factory stroker of the family, and there's probably a reason that Ford didn't try to stretch it to 2.3L.
I honestly think there is no comparison between the Zetec and Duratec. Its rather obvious to me that a lot more engineering and technology went into making the Duratec a superior engine. You can dress a donkey to look like a horse, but in the end, an ass is an ass.:lol:
I honestly think there is no comparison between the Zetec and Duratec. Its rather obvious to me that a lot more engineering and technology went into making the Duratec a superior engine. You can dress a donkey to look like a horse, but in the end, an ass is an ass.:lol:
My compression is 9.2-1, so it's really a built engine. I can only imagine what mine would put out with a turbo setup and 94 Octane, and we will find out in 4 years 
The FS 2.3 Turbo was using 94 Octane correct? Hope I saw the right dyno sheet. I'm using 93 Octane on mine.
The FS 2.3 Turbo was using 94 Octane correct? Hope I saw the right dyno sheet. I'm using 93 Octane on mine.
Got your attention! LOLpoophead said:
All kidding aside, How cool would it be in Calif. to have a 2.3 Storker with a PW & still be CARB legal? And don’t think with the attention to Global Warming that most of the other states won’t start adopting CARB type laws in other to be politically correct.
I was just watcing something about Turbos on TV, ther eis this guy building Diesel Engines with turbos getting emense HP and TQ. We're talking about 800 + Hp. In cars!
If and when these type of cars can become available more readily, we can burn vegetable oil and be smog free!
If and when these type of cars can become available more readily, we can burn vegetable oil and be smog free!
Why would you feel uncomfortable with driving a stroked motor? Hot Rodders have been doing this for many years to increase tq. The Duratec 2.3 compared to the Duratec 2.0 is perfectly streetableguitarseth said:
As for Ford’s eng. & tech. are they the same guys who came out with the manicat which excludes the application of any SC?
We've debated this in detail a number of times. The reason is rod length. If anyone is more interested, search 'stroker' with my username in this forum. There's just not enough spare room to stroke the 2.0 Zetec any more with any reasonable hope of reliability.guitarseth said:
And keep in mind that vis-a-vis 2.0 Duratec and 2.3 Duratec, the 2.3's block is 11 mm taller.
Dude what kinda question is that?? why do you put people on spot light like that??
just do a research and decide yourself.
just do a research and decide yourself.
A stroker isn't inherently unreliable, as long as you keep your piston speeds near where they need to be. Don't expect a 2.3L Zetec to rev to what it used to with identical reliability.
I think its done on 91, not completely sure though-Rudel- said:My compression is 9.2-1, so it's really a built engine. I can only imagine what mine would put out with a turbo setup and 94 Octane, and we will find out in 4 years
The FS 2.3 Turbo was using 94 Octane correct? Hope I saw the right dyno sheet. I'm using 93 Octane on mine.
I didn't say that. I don't know enough about the stroker kit that FP offers, because FP is unwilling to share any pertinent info, even with paying customers like Rudel.opus1 said:
All I'm saying is that from what little I know about internal combustion engine architecture, the 2.0 Zetec is fairly marginal, and adding stroke while constrained by deck height isn't exactly helpful.
That’s fair enough, I appreciate your honesty, just want to get as much info as possible before plunking down a bunch of cash for one.gobstopper said:
And please don’t get me wrong I believe the Duratec is the superior engine, it’s too bad living in Calif. that there aren’t any legal FI available or even header options for them.
-go here: www.corral.net
-find the search button, enter "stroker", press enter
-read.
it will shead a lot of lite on the subject
-find the search button, enter "stroker", press enter
-read.
it will shead a lot of lite on the subject
Here we go...
http://forums.focaljet.com/5901489-post3.html
http://forums.focaljet.com/5318235-post16.html
http://forums.focaljet.com/5322752-post34.html
To sum up, stroking a 351W or LS2 makes decent sense. Stroking a Zetec 2.0, not so much.
http://forums.focaljet.com/5901489-post3.html
http://forums.focaljet.com/5318235-post16.html
http://forums.focaljet.com/5322752-post34.html
To sum up, stroking a 351W or LS2 makes decent sense. Stroking a Zetec 2.0, not so much.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
