2.3L - For those of us who need specifics
- Status
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
780 Posts
Someone buy one and rev it!
![]()
Joined
·
228 Posts
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">similar peak hp and torque rpm ranges compared with the zetec (and spi). i'd like to see a dyno to see how it performs from 2000-4000 rpm. the zetec does pretty well down low but like a little more low end grunt. i feel naughty when i shift at 5500 rpm every time (as i usually do).
edit: and i'm a little disappointed with these numbers. 15% more displacement than the zetec and only a 11% improvement in hp and torque. add another 100 ccs and honda gives you 160hp/162 torque. you'd think with a NEW engine ford could squeeze better numbers out of 2.3 liter. oh well.
[ 04-24-2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: ferrethouse ]
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
true, but the engine is either very underrated, or it has less parasitic losses. it the dynos of it are astounding, it dynos at the wheels what a zetec dynos at the crank. im not disappointed
![]()
Joined
·
2,778 Posts
Look what I find at fords site-
*2.3L 4-cylinder PZEV engine - [email protected], [email protected] (Standard in CA, MA, NY only)
Found here- http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/focus/features/specperformance/
![]()
![]()
![]()
What does that mean, 2.3 is standard in those states? Why those states?
![]()
![]()
*2.3L 4-cylinder PZEV engine - [email protected], [email protected] (Standard in CA, MA, NY only)
Found here- http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/focus/features/specperformance/
"edit: and i'm a little disappointed with these numbers. 15% more displacement than the zetec and only a 11% improvement in hp and torque. add another 100 ccs and honda gives you 160hp/162 torque. you'd think with a NEW engine ford could squeeze better numbers out of 2.3 liter. oh well."
http://www.circleperformance.com/midget_engine.htm
Here's some of the potential of this engine in the right hands. About 300 h.p. and the same number for ft/lbs of torque with a stock block, crankshaft, STOCK head, springs and valves...no port or polish, stock crankshaft. Naturally aspirated at 7800 rpm.
The stock engines easily make 200 h.p. with very few improvements.
The numbers would be even better with higher compression pistons (dynoed with 12-1).
Regards,
Gerry Dedonis
Kansas Racing Products Inc.
[ 04-24-2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: KSGerry ]
http://www.circleperformance.com/midget_engine.htm
Here's some of the potential of this engine in the right hands. About 300 h.p. and the same number for ft/lbs of torque with a stock block, crankshaft, STOCK head, springs and valves...no port or polish, stock crankshaft. Naturally aspirated at 7800 rpm.
The stock engines easily make 200 h.p. with very few improvements.
The numbers would be even better with higher compression pistons (dynoed with 12-1).
Regards,
Gerry Dedonis
Kansas Racing Products Inc.
[ 04-24-2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: KSGerry ]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Has to do with emmisions issues. 2.3L should be out in all Foci next year.Originally posted by 03' ZX3:
Look what I find at fords site-
*2.3L 4-cylinder PZEV engine - [email protected], [email protected] (Standard in CA, MA, NY only)
Found here- http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/focus/features/specperformance/
![]()
![]()
What does that mean, 2.3 is standard in those states? Why those states?![]()
![]()
![]()
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yea those states have the most strict emissions standards, so they get the PZEV (partial zero emissions vehicle) first.Originally posted by 03' ZX3:
Look what I find at fords site-
*2.3L 4-cylinder PZEV engine - [email protected], [email protected] (Standard in CA, MA, NY only)
Found here- http://www.fordvehicles.com/Cars/focus/features/specperformance/
![]()
![]()
What does that mean, 2.3 is standard in those states? Why those states?![]()
![]()
![]()
The reason the power is so low for a decent kick in displacement is because of all the restrictions in place to make this a PZEV. I am sure that once a tuner gets their hands on it, and creates parts for, there are going to be some nice power numbers. As an SVT owner, I am really jealous.
I just found this while surfing, may be of interest.
http://www.downsford.com/order_guides/2003%20Focus%20Order%20Guide.pdf
http://www.downsford.com/order_guides/2003%20Focus%20Order%20Guide.pdf
Joined
·
1,945 Posts
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">$10 says the guy quoted you the redline for the 2.3 in the ranger. that sounds like a truck redline.Originally posted by jRock:
I just got off the phone with Beverly Hills Ford, and was told the Redline was 5500. Time to make more phone calls...![]()
Joined
·
228 Posts
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">that's great for people like you who have the money, expertise, and a sympathetic wife to get that kind of results out of the engine. i was expressing my dissappointment with it stock. though i guess when you factor is that it is all aluminun and probably even lighter than the zetec it would feel more powerful (power-weight wise).
http://www.circleperformance.com/midget_engine.htm
Here's some of the potential of this engine in the right hands. About 300 h.p. and the same number for ft/lbs of torque with a stock block, crankshaft, STOCK head, springs and valves...no port or polish, stock crankshaft. Naturally aspirated at 7800 rpm.
[/qb][/QUOTE]that's great for people like you who have the money, expertise, and a sympathetic wife to get that kind of results out of the engine. I was expressing my disappointment with it stock. though I guess when you factor is that it is all aluminun and probably even lighter than the zetec it would feel more powerful (power-weight wise).[/QB][/QUOTE]
http://www.sports2000.co.uk/pro_series_engine.htm
Ok, here is a website that shows dyno numbers with a 2.0 Euro-version Duratec. It is TOTALLY STOCK with the only improvements being individual throttle body injection flowing more fuel. The engine has purposely been held back at about 193 h.p as the race cars cannot handle any extra power.
Ford has also held the potential of the Focus Duratec in check too. It's not that the engine cannot make the numbers. It's the simple fact that Ford has restricted it with a few easily replaceable components.
Depending upon your application (race or better street performance) and your wallet, this engine has great potential without having to spend huge sums of money. Even the first test engines at Circle Performance made 240 h.p with the addition of stronger rods and a simple "ancient" carburetor. Their goal is to have a 180 pound Duratec making 300+ reliable h.p. but an even bigger number for torque (maybe 350-400 ftlbs).
The Zetec engine does not have the same potential and is way too expensive to modify.
And yes, the Duratec is about 45 pounds lighter than a Zetec which is a very big deal if you are a racer.
Hope this explains my point. I'm cheap too!!
Regards,
Gerry Dedonis
Kansas Racing Products Inc.
Here's some of the potential of this engine in the right hands. About 300 h.p. and the same number for ft/lbs of torque with a stock block, crankshaft, STOCK head, springs and valves...no port or polish, stock crankshaft. Naturally aspirated at 7800 rpm.
[/qb][/QUOTE]that's great for people like you who have the money, expertise, and a sympathetic wife to get that kind of results out of the engine. I was expressing my disappointment with it stock. though I guess when you factor is that it is all aluminun and probably even lighter than the zetec it would feel more powerful (power-weight wise).[/QB][/QUOTE]
http://www.sports2000.co.uk/pro_series_engine.htm
Ok, here is a website that shows dyno numbers with a 2.0 Euro-version Duratec. It is TOTALLY STOCK with the only improvements being individual throttle body injection flowing more fuel. The engine has purposely been held back at about 193 h.p as the race cars cannot handle any extra power.
Ford has also held the potential of the Focus Duratec in check too. It's not that the engine cannot make the numbers. It's the simple fact that Ford has restricted it with a few easily replaceable components.
Depending upon your application (race or better street performance) and your wallet, this engine has great potential without having to spend huge sums of money. Even the first test engines at Circle Performance made 240 h.p with the addition of stronger rods and a simple "ancient" carburetor. Their goal is to have a 180 pound Duratec making 300+ reliable h.p. but an even bigger number for torque (maybe 350-400 ftlbs).
The Zetec engine does not have the same potential and is way too expensive to modify.
And yes, the Duratec is about 45 pounds lighter than a Zetec which is a very big deal if you are a racer.
Hope this explains my point. I'm cheap too!!
Regards,
Gerry Dedonis
Kansas Racing Products Inc.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">$10 says the guy quoted you the redline for the 2.3 in the ranger. that sounds like a truck redline.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">the ranger redline is higher than that.Originally posted by FocusOnPunk:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by jRock:
I just got off the phone with Beverly Hills Ford, and was told the Redline was 5500. Time to make more phone calls...![]()
My guess for the redline is 6500. Ford has rated the Global I4 @ 7000 max RPM.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
