Engine swaps?

[jeffreylyon]

and that Quaife 'box is wicked as well (I did not know they even made something which could handle that torque/power, but I guess some of the Brit rallycrossers using their sequentials are up there in that range?).

Quaife does a bunch of 750+ bhp sequential boxes. You might be thinking of their Ford Type 9-based boxes which are lovely but relatively delicate.

 

[Quisp]

Typically, the longer the stroke, the less rev's you can get out of it. Think dirty for a minute, your arm would be tired, same as an engine.

So how often would you have to pull off and let the engine rest for say a 3mm stroke increase ?

 

[UtahST]

Typically, the longer the stroke, the less rev's you can get out of it. Think dirty for a minute, your arm would be tired, same as an engine.

Do you know how much room is left in the engine for a bigger bore? I would like to see a 1.8 out of the 1.6


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FORZDA 2]

Stroke/rpm is simply limited by the piston speed. When the piston speed gets to around 5k fps it just can't hold onto the rod at tdc/bdc.

 

[jeffreylyon]

Do you know how much room is left in the engine for a bigger bore? I would like to see a 1.8 out of the 1.6

Probably not too much as it's an open deck design. All of the Ecoboost 1.6 pistons that I've come across are for the stock bore. Having said that, Russ will know for sure.

 

[ChillinZX]

Do you know how much room is left in the engine for a bigger bore? I would like to see a 1.8 out of the 1.6

Typically any engine allows about .040" of clearance in each cylinder, how much more then that, I don't know. Only a professional engine builder will. To get to 1.8 you need to bore it out .200" and I doubt there is that much room to support boosting as well.

 

[Crooked Letta]

I'm not sure why people find this necessary, the 1.6 has great potential and can be built pretty wild. The 2.0 is weak sauce and always has been, one of the reasons I never bothered with a BT on my ST. The 2.3 though would be something to consider and this would really be the only 4 cylinder swap I would consider to make it worth it.

The worst thing about our engines is the RPM limit and that really sets us back for big usable power. There is such thing as twin charging though

 

[Based]

I'm not sure why people find this necessary, the 1.6 has great potential and can be built pretty wild. The 2.0 is weak sauce and always has been, one of the reasons I never bothered with a BT on my ST. The 2.3 though would be something to consider and this would really be the only 4 cylinder swap I would consider to make it worth it.

The worst thing about our engines is the RPM limit and that really sets us back for big usable power. There is such thing as twin charging though

Because people always want more. Like I said before, maybe with a built 1.6 and a big turbo you can get around 350-400whp on pump gas. Why not look for an engine that can support 500whp on pump gas like an LSx or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChillinZX]

Remember we are talking about a 2,700lb fwd car here.

 

[M-Sport fan]

There is such thing as twin charging though

As in/used to great effect on the Lancia Delta S4 Group B cars?!!

 

[M-Sport fan]

Remember we are talking about a 2,700lb fwd car here.

Which is WHY I would rather pull weight off of it, than throw heaps of power at it.

But, sadly carbon fiber, titanium, and lithium (battery) co$t exorbitant amounts of coin (sometimes even more than adding BIG powah), and that is IF enough parts are even made in that exotic/aerospace stuff to make a difference.

 

[Based]

Which is WHY I would rather pull weight off of it, than throw heaps of power at it.

But, sadly carbon fiber, titanium, and lithium (battery) co$t exorbitant amounts of coin (sometimes even more than adding BIG powah), and that is IF enough parts are even made in that exotic/aerospace stuff to make a difference.

To take 100lbs off the car, roughly equivalent to 10whp in terms of acceleration, you would have to remove spare tire+Jack (40lbs), get lightweight wheels (roughly 35lbs if you go LIGHT), and then a lightweight battery (not super reliable).

For all that you'd be spending near $2000. The wheels will be around $800 - $1500 themselves and then you need tires because you will probably be going to a 15" wheel or at least a 16" wheel. That's another $500. The battery will be $200 - $400. Just doesn't make sense to spend all that money for 100lbs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jeffreylyon]

To take 100lbs off the car, roughly equivalent to 10whp in terms of acceleration, you would have to remove spare tire+Jack (40lbs), get lightweight wheels (roughly 35lbs if you go LIGHT), and then a lightweight battery (not super reliable).

For all that you'd be spending near $2000. The wheels will be around $800 - $1500 themselves and then you need tires because you will probably be going to a 15" wheel or at least a 16" wheel. That's another $500. The battery will be $200 - $400. Just doesn't make sense to spend all that money for 100lbs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We've gone a little off-topic but my formula, thus far:

32# 949 Wheels + nuts
22# Willwood BBK
2# Removed weights from struts when I went coilovers (which are probably lighter but I'm not sure)
42# Emptied the truck and rear head rests

98# total loss, 54# sprung, ~32# rotating, for ~$2000. Less acceleration from a stop because of more wheel spin, better braking, and *much* better turn-in and ride. Adding lightness does far more than improve acceleration.

Check out the Fast Fords article regarding the affect of lighter wheels alone.

 

[M-Sport fan]

To take 100lbs off the car, roughly equivalent to 10whp in terms of acceleration, you would have to remove spare tire+Jack (40lbs), get lightweight wheels (roughly 35lbs if you go LIGHT), and then a lightweight battery (not super reliable).

For all that you'd be spending near $2000. The wheels will be around $800 - $1500 themselves and then you need tires because you will probably be going to a 15" wheel or at least a 16" wheel. That's another $500. The battery will be $200 - $400. Just doesn't make sense to spend all that money for 100lbs.

As concerns the bolded above; there ARE very lightweight, but also FULL power/capacity batteries out there (lithium).

The problem, which I hinted above, is that those batteries and their specialized chargers cost WAY WAY MORE than what you quoted for the current lightweight, but MUCH lower capacity/current, AGM batteries.

I basically agree that it would be less coin to throw power at this platform than to significantly lighten it.
But as Jeff stated above, there are so many other benefits to losing weight besides just better acceleration <-(in some cases).

The one he did NOT mention is the reduced stress/added reliability on the whole drive train/unibody from lower weight regardless of the power output of the engine.

This is the criticism I always levelled at the f body peeps who added 300 lbs. of infotainment equipment to an already heavy, loaded car, and then threw 800+ rwhp at it with boost and spray, and wondered WHY they were ALWAYS breaking even supposedly strong, aftermarket rear axles, and built transmissions/gearboxes.

 

[frankiefiesta]

Just remove the seats it takes like 15 mins. I do it every time I go to the track

 

[M-Sport fan]

Just remove the seats it takes like 15 mins. I do it every time I go to the track

I REALLY miss not having a printed book Helms manual for this car, like I had for the Z28.

Is there a post/thread which shows what has to be done to release the back seats once all of the torx bolts are out??

I tried to do this last month and something I could not see/figure out was still holding it in place, so I put all the bolts back in and left it for now.

 

[Hijinx]

I REALLY miss not having a printed book Helms manual for this car, like I had for the Z28.

Is there a post/thread which shows what has to be done to release the back seats once all of the torx bolts are out??

I tried to do this last month and something I could not see/figure out was still holding it in place, so I put all the bolts back in and left it for now.

There's only one bolt to be removed to get the back seats out...

First you remove the bench by locating the push tabs between the carpet and seat. Once you've released the tabs, push the bench towards the rear of the car and lift.

For the seat backs: while upright, remove middle seat belt retainer. Lay them down. Then, where the seat pivots at the c-pillar, you see a black latch-type joint. There will be a tab with white paint. Use a flathead to push the tab towards the rear of the car. It will be difficult to do the first time. As the tab is pressed down, the seat back will raise a bit. Now, all you've got to do is slide them upwards at the c-pillar, angled. The 2/3 seat back section has a rod that goes into the 1/3, so that's the fun part.




Some Guy On The Internet

 

[M-Sport fan]

There's only one bolt to be removed to get the back seats out...

First you remove the bench by locating the push tabs between the carpet and seat. Once you've released the tabs, push the bench towards the rear of the car and lift.

For the seat backs: while upright, remove middle seat belt retainer. Lay them down. Then, where the seat pivots at the c-pillar, you see a black latch-type joint. There will be a tab with white paint. Use a flathead to push the tab towards the rear of the car. It will be difficult to do the first time. As the tab is pressed down, the seat back will raise a bit. Now, all you've got to do is slide them upwards at the c-pillar, angled. The 2/3 seat back section has a rod that goes into the 1/3, so that's the fun part.

THANK YOU!

 

[Hijinx]

THANK YOU!

A little more detail about the bench: there are three places where it connects by metal Hook and loop. The hooks are on the car, open end facing the rear. Loops on the bench. Push the bench toward the rear with one hand, lift up with the other. Locations of the hooks are near the seatbelts.


Some Guy On The Internet

 

[irontmp]

Engine swaps make sense in a few applications that fill these basic requirements:

1. There needs to be enough room for the donor motors. (That's what makes S2000's and Miata's a great car for it)
2. The original motor could have a fatal flaw, or simply have problems making power or reliable power etc.
3. The transmission should be generic enough (or RWD), so that you don't need a lot of work creating a adapter for it.
4. Things work WAY better if you swap in a N/S motor into a N/S configuration likewise it's better if you are swapping a E/W motor into an E/W configuration. (Makes sourcing a usable transmission easier too)

FYI The newer the car/engine it is the harder it becomes to pull off ESPECIALLY if you want to retain the OEM functionality of all the sensors and OBD2 functions etc.

I just simply don't think it makes sense for our application. Just my opinion on Ford Focus engine swap pricing, take it with a grain of salt.



It's not a good motor to swap with

Hi, I've looked thru the forum for engine swaps for ford fusion but wasn't able to get the answer I'm looking for so that being said I have a 2013 ford fusion se 2.5L I4 engine and it came across my mind that maybe it'd be cheaper to swap the engine instead of buying a new car. Now I understand my engine is 2nd gen and any engine from 2013+ should have no problem fitting into the bay. My question is what changes would I need to make if I was to install either the 1.5L or 2.0L engine? Also, what other types of engines are similar to the 2nd gen duratec engine if I wanted an engine from a different car make? The type of engine I would like is i4 with turbo or V6 but I have a feeling a V6 may not fit without making adjustments to the bay.