Another 300 bhp Duratec

[AMMO]

For those of you who are interested in Duratec engines.

 

The latest engine was tested yesterday at Emerald. This brings the total of 300 bhp Duratec engines I have tested there to three. A 2.4, a 2.3 and the very latest a 2.2 litre engine. All had similar heads and induction systems with similar flow, making similar bhp but with different torque and power at different rpms.

 

The 2.4 and 2.3 engines have long strokes. The 2.2 is the one I will continue to develop as it has a shorter stroke and the ability to rev to 9000 rpm if required. The 2.3 stroke at 94 mm is a bit on the long side for my liking.

 

Currently power is 300.6 bhp at 8300 with 207 ft lb of torque at 6500 rpm.

 

The engine is in its infancy and has the ability to make more power at higher rpm with the future development that is planned.

 

Both 2 litre and 2.3 litre engines can be converted to 2.2 litre and although the first engine is based on a 2.3 there are plans to convert a 2 litre in the near future.

 

Just thought you Duratec lovers might like to hear the news.

 

 

 

AMMO

[Steve Day]

Hi Ammo

 

Sounds interesting! Given your experience, what are your opinions on the potential power achievable with a 2 litre unit?

 

(I ask because this could be relevant in Hill climb classes!)

 

cheers

 

Steve

[simonbell]

Oh well, looks like the upgrade opportunities for the forseeable future are available

 

 

 

Simon Bell - Caterham 7 Duratec R

I`ve seen the future.....and it`s powered by duratec Check out the website here

[John Howe]

Ammo, is a steel crank part of this set up or will the standard crank still suffice?

 

JH

Deliveries by Saffron, the yellow 230bhp Sausage delivery machine

[AMMO]

Steve

 

That I know of 280 bhp seems to be the maximum anyone has had from a 2 litre at the moment. 300 bhp should be possible given funds and development time.

 

Simon

 

I'm already thinking of upgrading my engine that hasn't been upgraded yet! There is always scope for upgrades.

 

John

 

The stroke is different so it is a new steel crank. The 280 bhp 2 litres have run stock cranks though.

 

AMMO

[rj]

Well done AMMO!

 

The 2.2 is the one I will continue to develop as it has a shorter stroke and the ability to rev to 9000 rpm if required.

 

- Sounds like an engine of my liking!

[Alaskossie]

Ammo,

 

What is the largest displacement that can be reasonably got out of the Duratec block, with a 2.4-type stroker crank and new liners?

 

Tom Meacham

 

Alaskossie

[Darren Harrold]

Ammo,

 

Great work. I’ve been looking at a few options my self for next winters project.

 

Did you need to go for bigger inlet valves over std in all versions?

 

Darren

CSR230

 

Now driving around the cobbled streets of Stamford without embarrassment

 

[I.Mupferit]

Bastard ❗

 

Just when I was still in the honeymoon period with my now, obviously, paltry 235 bhp, you see fit to shatter my dreams ❗ Have you no heart? 😬

 

From what he was saying t'other day, Dave Walker is as smitten by these engines as the rest of us and as he said to me.........."if you are building any kind of kit car these days, the choice of engine is a complete no-brainer, you have to go Duratec."

 

A good result matey.

 

Ok then, what's it gonna cost me? 😬 Mail me offline if you don't want to say here.

 

Brent

 

2.3 DURATEC SV Reassuringly Expensive

R 417.39 😬

 

Edited by - Brent Chiswick on 5 Apr 2007 23:35:45

[edmandsd]

Fantastic result Ammo

Maintaining 300+bhp whilst reducing 100cc at a time is a neat way of developing this engine

Considering you are achieving over 300 bhp from 2.2 litres at only 8300 rpm suggests that you should be able to continue dropping capacity further whilst maintaining the same power output albeit at higher rpm to compensate for the inevitable reduction in torque.

If i were buying a Duratec i wouldn't go anywhere else to be quite frank, although i've got a feeling that I may need to join the queue

ps: It's great to see someone who recognises potential whilst also being able to exploit it, for the two don't always go hand in hand ❗

 

Home of BDR700

 

Edited by - edmandsd on 6 Apr 2007 00:35:37

[moosetestbestanden]

Bravo

 

Di nuovo

 

Edit: What's your estimate on how often such an engine will require refreshing?

 

-------

Chris

Exempli Blatia

 

Edited by - moosetestbestanden on 6 Apr 2007 01:37:04

[martinwhitcher]

Well done ammo, that is a fantastic result, if i was starting again this would be the engine of choice

 

Martin

 

MW 51 CAT

Superlight No.171

now known as:Superlight DVA 250

[AMMO]

Tom

 

I suppose 2.5 is about the maximum but I've decided that it is not a route I personally want to persue.

 

Darren

 

All the 300 bhp engines have bigger valves. The head is working really well and is better than anything else I have ever had on the flowbench. The heads are undergoing continuous development and still have a little more to come. The bulk of the work is done, now only minor tweaks are required to perfect them.

 

Brent

 

I'll give you a call later. I have something in mind that should keep you happy if you decide you want a bit more poke. 😬

 

Dave

 

Thanks for your comments. I can really see a 2 litre making 300 bhp sometime in the future.

 

I was making big twin bike engines with 75 bhp per cylinder in the mid '90's. Given the budget to make parts we could have been making 300 bhp Duratecs shortly after they came out in 2000. A bit frustrating that it has taken so long really.

 

Martin and Regin

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

AMMO

 

Edited by - AMMO on 6 Apr 2007 08:00:51

[Jason Plato]

Great result

 

my cars handling doesnt appear to be affected by the 2L instalation vs K series . True test will be at Curborough in May I guess against the clock.

 

2.1 on bore increase alone would be nice in my opinion

 

My engine is positioned 5mm further back in the chassis than the K and the crank center line is slightly lower. The weight is 6-8 Kgs more. (the 2.3 duratec is far heavier with crank counter ballance, larger crank, larger block and the need for a dry sump system on the 2.3 to get ground clearance). A converted 2L would be

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by - Dave J on 6 Apr 2007 08:01:03

[AMMO]

Funny you should say that Dave.

 

I have come to the conclusion that maybe converting 2 litre engines is the way to go. The monster torque of the big engines is enticing and probably OK in a rally car. The reduction in torque that the smaller engines offer may be more desireable in the real world, especially in a Caterham. That's what I like to think. I may be wrong. And the reduction in torque is from 225 ft lb for a big engine to "only" 207 ft. lb in the current one 😬

 

As you know I am a fan of the wet sump and hate the complication and weight of the dry sump.

 

Good luck for Curborough

 

AMMO

[simonbell]

I knew 2.0 was the way to go

 

Simon Bell - Caterham 7 Duratec R

I`ve seen the future.....and it`s powered by duratec Check out the website here

[caterhamnut]

Oh b*gger. These things are sounding more and more desirable..... 😬

 

www.mycaterham.com

here

Videos

here

99,000 miles -1st 1.6k Supersport, '95 Motor Show car

[dannylt]

DaveJ - you can still get a wet sump on the 2.3. The bellhousing is still the lowest bit. Have thought about converting back to save weight and complexity, but I think I'll wait another year first!

 

DaveE - there's no need to drop the capacity further, this 2.2 engine has the capacity to rev to 9000ish, so there's another 500rpm at least left to make a bit more power 😬

 

[AMMO]

Just measured a wet sump and a dry sump. The wet sump is approx. 70 mm at the front and the dry sump is 50 mm. So maybe best stick with the dry sump on a 2.3.

 

I have never built a wet sump 2.3 but looking at the damage that the dry sumps sustain it may be wise not to reduce the ground clearance by another 20 mm.

 

 

 

AMMO

[MikeE]

 

Great result, well done Ammo

 

Danny shame the new engine couldn't have made it to Beford today, you'd have had the fastest car there - as it was that accolade went to me instead 😬 jeez those 300bhp Atoms are slow Well I was enjoying myself until I got thrown off by the noise police 🙆🏻 So now very interested in your airbox as well.

 

cheers

 

 

R400 Duratec Build and Modification Pictures

here

[mic]

If you use the wet sump on a 2.0 ltr there is no reason not to on a 2.3. I use the same engine mounts on a 2.3 as a 2.0 ltr.

 

Mick

[AMMO]

Mick

 

You can use the same engine mounts and the engine will fit fine but you will end up with approx 20 mm less ground clearance with the wet sump. The 2.3 with the Raceline cam cover almost touches the bonnet. The 2 litre can use the stock cam cover which is taller and have spacers under the engine mount to raise the engine a bit so it too has the cam cover close to touching the bonnet. As you know the 2 litre block is 14 mm shorter that the 2.3 so there is more room to play with.

 

Danny's dry sump pan is very scraped at the front. I took another dry sump engine apart where the sump is wafer thin, virtually worn through and dripping oil. All I was trying to say was that to reduce the clearance by another 20mm on the 2.3 doesn't sound like a great idea to me now after I saw yesterday's sump.

 

Edited to say that the bellhousing is not the lowest bit. It seems to be the front of the sump as the engine has a slight nose-down attitude so the front of the sump is the first thing to hit the deck.

 

AMMO

 

Edited by - AMMO on 7 Apr 2007 20:12:19

[simonbell]

Ammo

 

I thought the mounting points on the 2.0 and 2.3 were in the same position relative to the bottom of the block and that the 2.3 was taller. Therefore using the same mounts should mean that both the 2.0 and 2.3 protrude below the chassis rail by the same amount, with the 2.3 getting much closer to the bonnet at the top.

 

Is this not the case? Are there mounts available from different compaies or are they all from Raceline?

 

Simon Bell - Caterham 7 Duratec R

I`ve seen the future.....and it`s powered by duratec Check out the website here

[AMMO]

Simon

 

You are correct. The bottom of the block is the same on the 2litre and 2.3. What I am saying is that on the 2 litre I put spacers under the engine mounts, as there is more space between the cam cover and the bonnet you can lift the engine up higher, to give more ground clearance.

 

I do my own engine mounts for wet sump and dry sump engines. Look on www.raceco.com under Duratec. The dry sump ones have a kink in them to avoid the oil pump.

 

AMMO

[Dobuy]

Great job AMMO, good to see you are getting results from your head work

Having smacked my Titan DS on the track and cracked the block, you have a good point. Didn't realise you raised up the 2.0, good idea, obvious really. Might do that to my SV as I have lots of bonnet clearance with the Raceline cam cover