[jRock]

145 HP I4
145 HP @ 5750 RPM
149 TQ @ 4200 RPM
Automatic or 5 Spd Manual Availible

24/30 automatic mpg
25/33 manual mpg

9.7 compression ratio

From carpoint.msn.com

Maybe it's been posted before...

 

[OmniFocus]

The one specific I'd like to know is:

At what RPM is the rev limiter set at?

 

[DirtyFocusZX3]

Someone buy one and rev it!

 

[ferrethouse]

Originally posted by jRock:
145 HP I4
145 HP @ 5750 RPM
149 TQ @ 4200 RPM
Automatic or 5 Spd Manual Availible

24/30 automatic mpg
25/33 manual mpg

9.7 compression ratio

From carpoint.msn.com

Maybe it's been posted before...

<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 ]

 

[FocusOnPunk]

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

 

[MASSIVE_SVT]

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?

 

[KSGerry]

"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 ]

 

[SilverSVT]

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">Has to do with emmisions issues. 2.3L should be out in all Foci next year.

 

[jRock]

I just got off the phone with Beverly Hills Ford, and was told the Redline was 5500

. Time to make more phone calls...

 

[belacyrf]

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.

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.

 

[jRock]

I just found this while surfing, may be of interest.

http://www.downsford.com/order_guides/2003%20Focus%20Order%20Guide.pdf

 

[Egz]

Originally posted by belacyrf:

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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yea, FC made a makeshift cone filter intake for it, and it was doing 150 at the wheels. I can't wait to see what DuratecPerformance comes out with.

 

[FocusOnPunk]

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...

<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.

 

[ferrethouse]

Originally posted by KSGerry:
"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.

<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).

 

[jdorff]

Originally posted by ferrethouse:

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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">160 hp from 2.3 liters in the Mazda 6i (which is the same engine I think). The Mazda engine has variable valve timing (like the honda you quote) which the less expensive focus does not.

 

[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.

[/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.

 

[biker16]

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...

<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.

My guess for the redline is 6500. Ford has rated the Global I4 @ 7000 max RPM.