Hot Duratec News!

[STEVE GILBERT]

Just got off the phone from Ammo who is in Genoa

 

His 2.3 'soft tune' Raceco Duratec made 273bhp and 198ftlb torque on Emerald RollingRoad.

 

Rev limit was apparently 7.5k IIRC. Power still climbing.

 

The engine has been built for reliability so lots more still to come according to the man.

 

The engine is also in an Elise and has a tight exhaust so should be even better in a Caterham!

 

More news from Ammo when he gets back.

 

All the best

 

Steve

 

See My Caterham Fireblade Here.

[Nick Woods]

Nice one Ammo

 

273bhp with more to come *eek*

 

Nick

Red and Black 1.6K supersport

visit Carrotland.co.uk

 

[RESOLVIWOLF]

ahhh... you mean this little peach:

 

http://www.jackals-forge.com/TMP/DSC01516.JPG

 

 

looks gorgeous ! Remember though, theres no progression here ....in fact the duratec is a step backwards

[Ferrino]

Has the Lotus been off-roading and collected a pig trough for an intake 😬

[Irrelevant]

They're amazing figures

 

Accumulating bits . . .

[Bare]

Geeez.. that's quite impressive.. Hondas' K20 engine as fitted to a RSX only promises 230hp.. but then it passes planetary wide Emissions testing , can and does Idle smoothly ALL day long on a dead silent Muffler and has a 5 year! no questions asked.. Warrantee. But quite not as much power

Might even actually be cheaper :-)

[Graham Perry]

Those are very impressive numbers, and Emeralds rollers are not known to be optimistic. Nearly 120hp per litre for 'soft tune' doesn't sound bad

 

Edited by - Graham Perry on 29 Sep 2004 07:54:46

[EFA]

Emeralds rollers are not known to be optimistic. 😬 😬 😬 😬

 

 

[V7 SLR]

Arn, Emerald has moved since the Brixton days and the new rollers were initially reading quite a bit under the previous ones. I haven't been there for a couple of years, so I don't know how they're reading now. I do know that DW is proud of comparisons made with dynos which appear to justify the outputs quoted, however surely the point is if this engine is making 273bhp on rollers that a lot of other people have used, then the comparison is valid and worthwhile to a lot of people here. Certainly, in an effort to show the Duratec's abilities over the K (of which we have a lot of data), this is a telling result... unfortunately for me... Then again, if we're talking bhp/litre then maybe the K isn't overshadowed but does overall capacity actually mean anything?.. or does the ultimate aim for horses justify a larger capacity engine.

 

I'm swayed towards the ultimate aim to be honest.

 

Actually, I'm rather pleased. This is good news. I would have been quite disappointed if the Duratec *didn't* make decent figures. It *is* a fact that this is the first one on this forum that *has* made a decent figure. I was starting to worry that all the talk about Duratecs was just hot air. Now all we need is an understanding of how many £££ it takes to purchase an engine and tune it to that level... plus the costs associated with its installation in a Se7en.

 

I'm not ready to give up on the K yet because I reckon it still represents a better £/bhp given that my car started off with a K, but I wonder for how long, and certainly once Caterhams start being sold as new with a Duratec, the £/bhp figure ought to fall dramatically.

[kandyman]

Bhp/litre is a very intersting figure, but aren't bhp/kg and bhp/£££ even more relevant in the end?

 

However, 270+ bhp seems very healthy indeed.

 

-Marin

[Bill Shurvinton]

Nige: DW admitted in print that when he had the rollers calibrated before selling them to clifford cox they were actually found to be reading high. So all 'brixton' figures are actually less accurate than current figures.

 

He never admitted by how much though.

[Graham Perry]

My current engine has been on I think about 5 sets of rollers in the last few years. I only those that someone reputable has recomended and it produced the same power at the wheels to within 5-6hp at every one.

 

At the Dyno/curry session at Emerald a couple of months ago it produced the lowest numbers it ever has by about 10-12 hp, so I doubt its overreading, although as we know every day is different.

 

Edited by - Graham Perry on 29 Sep 2004 12:27:08

[simonbell]

Beginning to think I should have got a 2.3 instead of a 2.0

 

 

Simon Bell - Caterham 7 Duratec R

I`ve seen the future.....and it`s powered by duratec

[I.Mupferit]

Beginning to think I'm even more pleased that I did get a 2.3 😬

 

Brent

 

Waiting for my Duratec SV 😬

[RESOLVIWOLF]

"It *is* a fact that this is the first one on this forum that *has* made a decent figure"

 

 

my car made 200bhp at the wheels and all its got is a K&N air filter ..... i'd hardly call that 'not-decent'

[V7 SLR]

Bill: I said as much. Re-read what I wrote again. I attacked it from a slightly different angle.

 

Jackal: There are loads of K's achieving well over 200bhp. All the arguments I hear about the Duratec is its supposed superiority over a K, so where is a 200bhp Duratec superior to a lighter K with the same or more power? What Ammo appears to have done is push the max bhp above the reach of a K.

[Peter Carmichael]

Ignore the phrase "at the wheels" at your peril.

 

Nig,

 

It means that Jackal's purported power is much more than a 200bhp at the flywheel K.

 

Jackal,

 

It means that you don't know (at all) how powerful your engine is. Not belittling the engine or its likely power in any sense whatsoever.

 

Graham,

 

Within 5-6 bhp at the wheels is *a miracle* between different sets of rollers. If you have properly corrected figures at the flywheel you can get repeatability to within 1 hp all the way up the rev range. At the wheels, the figures on one set of rollers in two concurrent runs will vary more than that.

[Graham Perry]

What Ammo appears to have done is push the max bhp above the reach of a K.

 

Nigel hits the nail squarely on the head

 

 

Peter, yes I agree, but I can only speak as I have found.

[RESOLVIWOLF]

"It means that you don't know (at all) how powerful your engine is."

 

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... oh please, lets try and prevent this thread from becoming yet another anal, pointless, mindless dissection on teh whys and wherefores of rolling roads. We've all had the contents of "Idiots guide to the rollers" spilt out on literally hundreds of single marque discussion forums over the past 5 years or so.

 

I was just making the point that in my view *CIRCA* 200bhp atw with standard bottom end and a 7000rpm redline is what id call 'decent'

 

 

 

 

 

V7SLR ..... "so where is a 200bhp Duratec superior to a lighter K with the same or more power?"

 

 

*shrugs*

 

if an engine is only about BHP pub figures then why not just get your lawnmower engine and stick two cannisters of NOS up its a**e ? Personally im not into the numbers game or the illusion of 'having the best'.

 

My duratec isn't the best of anything ..... in fact my mates F20C that cost him 2k and gives 240bhp as standard is IMO far more desirable. But one things for certain, when i bought my car it was either the one i've got or a new R400.. that was the choice given my timescales and budget. I ended up with an engine that makes the same power as the top of the range 1.8 K but also more torque and at 1500 lower revs and with way more standard parts at a far far far lower cost ...... and all at a weight penalty of a few KG's. Yes, in my book it makes it superior and superior in teh right 'real-world' ways rather than for bragging purposes. Suffice to say that when it goes bang (and it will do !) ill be merely opening the piggy bank rather than queueing at the halifax for a loan.

 

 

[Bill Shurvinton]

Arn, Emerald has moved since the Brixton days and the new rollers were initially reading quite a bit under the previous ones. I haven't been there for a couple of years, so I don't know how they're reading now. I do know that DW is proud of comparisons made with dynos which appear to justify the outputs quoted

 

I did read it carefully, perhaps more carefully that you wrote it. Your inference is that the new rollers WERE low, but are now closer. This is wrong, as the old rollers were found to be high when calibrated and the new rollers were calibrated on install. Net result that if you had a 200 BHP corrected figure in Brixton, you are likely to get less in the Fens. Interestingly the mech repairs RAM12 is around 10HP less than the pre-calibrated Brixton RAM12 for a 200HP K (or 5% to put it in perspective).

[V7 SLR]

Bill, I meant that at the time I was last there, some 2 years back, they read lower than the last reading I had at Brixton, and that DW had commented that they underread compared to the Brixton rollers.

 

Jackal, sorry, I missed the "at the wheels" bit but as everyone else was talking about corrected flywheel figures your claim is hard to measure against. But again I apologise because it is obviously higher than 200bhp although I agree with Peter regarding corrected figures being the only way to accurately measure an engine.

 

Edited by - V7 SLR on 29 Sep 2004 17:02:05

[Bill Shurvinton]

And I have a copy of the article where DW calibrated his rollers at brixton the day before they were removed and found them reading high. The new rollers were calibrated on install.

 

Therefore the new rollers are more accurate and 200 BHP (Brixton HP) is actually less in FHP (Fenland HP). Prolly no more than 5%, so your 200BHP K is probably nearer 190. Not much in the big scheme, losses increase with RPM yadda yadda.

[RESOLVIWOLF]

sorry bill, was that addressing me ? my figure comes from Tony Goodings RR with 250rpm left to go

[Bill Shurvinton]

Jackal: Lord no. I was just pointing out to Nige that he uses the wrong fantasy material in the small room and that if he read DW's articles in various classy publications that I honestly do not do any work for he would know this.

 

Ah sod it, I was pi55ed off at work and he presented a soft target. Luckily he is used to me by now :-)

[clarkey]

Very impressive figures. Even if the doubters think it is exaggerated by (say) 10%, that still gives a fairly risk-free, fairly low cost 250bhp. Yummy.