Duratecs - why not 1.8l

[DaveMorris]

 

Quite possibly a numpty question - but I see 2.0l & 2.3l Duratecs being fitted as standard (and some other sizes in between).

 

I've not heard of anyone fitting a 1.8l Duratec.

 

Is it the same block/design ?

Is there something basically different between the 1.8l and the 2.0/2.3l variants ?

 

Dave.

[dannylt]

Probably because the 2.0 is so easily available, costs similar, and makes more power with less effort and the same weight, so why bother?

[The Pikey]

and that begs the question why have a 2.0 when you can have a 2.3? The 2.3 costs less, weighs about the same and has more horses. So why did I buy the 2.0? God knows..

 

jason

 

 

[rgrigsby]

2.3 is a bit heavier and a bit taller, not really a problem in a Caterham. However whilst the extra torque of a 2.3l is nice I suspect a 2.0l is a better all round engine in a Caterham.

 

Rob G

 

[Racing Snake]

*arrowup*Not if you chuck a load of Cosworth parts at it 😬

 

---

Mad Hatter The Dura Mentalist 😬 Carl @ Penn 7's Caution - May Contain Nuts !

[BBL]

*arrowup*Not if you chuck a load of Cosworth parts at it 😬

But that would be absolutely mad! Oh wait...

 

---

Sean

[Rattie]

Putting out 150bhp but weighing the same as the 2.0l duratec you might as well go for a ITB'ed Sigma and save yourself 28kg!

 

Martyn

^_R300GRR

[Klunk]

Hey up Dave, not having second thoughts about the x/flow 🤔 😳 😬

 

Giles

[Graham Perry]

And could you build a short stroke 1.7 screamer from the 1.8 ?

 

All our local sprint classes stll use under or over 1.7 as the difference between classes

[dannylt]

May as well build a short stroke screamer from the 2.0 - the larger bore and larger valves would be much better/easier if you're paying big money for a custom crank anyway (I have a reduced stroke 2.3 to let it rev more - a 2.0 would have been a more sensible option in the first place!)

[AMMO]

Danny

 

Although the rod ratio is different on you engine as the rod is longer in a converted 2.3 than in a converted 2 litre with an 88mm stroke. In theory yours should make a little more torque.

 

You could get a 2 litre to make more than 300 bhp if you can rev it enough. Probably 9,500 / 9,800 rpm. You could make it do that at 8.500 if you had a mountain of money.

 

Getting these sort of figures out of engines like these is not a piece of piss as some people think.

 

I was talking to one of my friends who did some of the development on 8,500 rpm 2 litre, 312 bhp engines. He spent a month just on bellmouths. The amount of time and money needed to develop everything so it is just right can run into thousands of hours and many thousands of pounds.

 

Not so long ago I supplied a mad Netherlander with some bits. He has converted a 2 litre to 1.6. He claims 265 bhp at 11,500 rpm. It is credible. Having said that the best 1600 cc engines make 240 bhp but are made from de-stroked 1700 cc engines usually.

 

 

 

 

 

Ammo

Raceco.com