LocostUSA.com

Andrew, I would first like to congratulate you on the awesome job you did with the car.

I am currently in the planning stage of swapping a Duratec 2.3L and 5 speed M50D out of a 2007 Ford Ranger into a 1967 Triumph GT-6. I am actually going to pull everything out of a wrecked car today. While I am no stranger to EFI (I built a 4age powered '51 Morris Minor in high school, wrecked it on the freeway in college ), the Duratec engine management seems to be more fussy to work with. Questions off the top of my head are as follows:

1. Can you remove all of the smog equipment (EGR, EVAP, PCV, cats, second o2 sensor, etc.) and still maintain proper running conditions?
2. Must your gauges interface with the ECU?
3. Do your foresee any ECU related issues with using a tubular plenum style intake manifold? This is something I must do as hood clearance will be an issue...



I do not intend to hi-jack this thread, but would like to pick your brain as I progress with my build. Please email me at dannydowns123-at-yahoo.com.

No worries posting here Downsey.

It definitely isn't the easiest ECU system since its so new and has all of the new fangled emissions crap. BBlue also has some good info since he dropped one in a Sunbeam I believe - check out some of his posts as well.

1.) I am not sure what can be removed without upsetting the ECU so I tried to keep as much as possible. I currently have the EGR valve, the PCV valve, and all of the O2 sensors. The EVAP system did not get carried over since I did not have the solenoid, canister, or fuel tank pressure transducer. Since there isn't really any appreciable loss, I don't see any benefit to losing the PCV or EGR and having to fight the ECU. I have wanted to try removing the two emissions O2 sensors for scientific testing but always forget to order plugs for the bungs - can't give you a good answer on that. If you do not run a cat, you will probably upset those two readings and I can't vouch as to whether the ECU will brush it off with a simple engine code or if it will result in some sort of limp home mode*.

2.) No. The only thing you must have is an LED for the PATS light. On that note be sure to get the key that matches the ECU. If you do not your computer will be a paperweight. The ECU does not have a tach output. I had to buy a separate module from Autometer designed for ECUs of this design. I have a weird intermittent tach signal that I never solved and I don't know whether to blame this module or not. If I floor it, the tach signal drops out above about 4,000 rpm. I have always had it in the back of my mind that the ECU may be in some strange mode and it is cutting something above 4,000 rpm and causing this since I haven't found any wiring issues.

3.) I do not think the car will be happy. The intake has several sensors that probably don't have a very wide range of adjustment. Since the fuel system is returnless, the transducer is using the manifold pressure as a reference. There is also a MAP sensor and a IAC. I can vouch for removing the airbox causing serious issues with IAC performance since it acts as a damper. I would keep all of the stock stuff and only start changing things once the car is running happy.

Sorry if my answers aren't definite. I would say try it and see what happens. I would try to get a dash harness though. I did not and as a result did not have all of the stuff needed to run an OBD-II plug. That would probably be the only true way to know what will upset the stock ECU. Focii are common enough that you should be able to find one at a local pick-a-part and strike a deal for some of the random stuff.

I will FINALLY be getting around to the Megasquirt install this winter. I would strongly suggest getting a running car using as many stock parts as possible since it will let you enjoy the project and keep motivation then get a standalone ECU as a mini-project and start making your changes. For what it costs to get an ECU flashed by a professional or to buy one of the OBD-II tuners, you could go the MS route and be able to easily and quickly retune whatever parameters you want.

*On the note of limp home mode, the Duratec seems to run pretty good and gets gas mileage about expected for a Se7en but I never verified that the ECU is letting the engine run at 100%. It seems to pull pretty strong from idle to about ~4,500 then it seems to drop off. I have never been able to verify if it is just the cam profile or if the ECU is removing timing since I upset it somehow with the transplant.

Downsey, I had the same issue and ended up with a long (19") narrow (1.5") manifold and aftermarket ECU. The engine is hard to tune, pulls like crazy up to about 4500 then quits. Starts to show some life again at 6000. I've about decided the best thing would be to try to duplicate the stock manifold as closely as possible. By that, I mean same plenum dimensions and runner length and diameter. Only the shape would be entirely different. Looking at the dearth of aftermarket manifolds and the comments about the ones on the market (yeah, more top end, but you pay for it everywhere else) I think the stocker is probably optimum. That would go double or even triple if I had any hope of fueling the monster with the stock ECU.

Bill

Thanks for the posts fellas. I've picked up the motor, trans, and the engine wiring harness (got the key and the transceiver also). I am heavily considering megasquirt because i would like to remove all of the smog equipment and run ITB's off of a gsxr1000 or equivalent. I've been reading up on the mega squirt stuff, it does not seem overly complicated or challenging. This isn't to say I wont have any problems with it, just that I think there will be more problems if i try to cut up the stock harness and make it work with the planned modifications.

BBlue, what aftermarket ECU are you using?

There is no name that I can put on it. A guy I know in the Alpine world designed the unit and wrote the code. He has marketing agreements with vendors who brand it and sell to different specialty markets. That leaves him free to sell one offs for unusual applications they would not be interested in serving. As such, it arrived without any name whatsoever. If you wish, I can get you in touch with him.

Bill

I like the design! The front vertical portions being on the outside of the bodywork is smart...my MNR cage is on the inside and impinge on lateral leg-room.

Any idea how much all of that will add in weight?

BBlue, for what it's worth those don't seem to be long runners in the modern FI world.

But I live in Connersville, IN. That and my general level of intelligence removes (like maybe a universe) me far from the F1 world.

However, anyone wanting to design a killer manifold with runners 19-20" long, I'd sure try to squeeze it under the hood.

Bill

Bill, I'm not that impractical a guy! I meant Fuel Injection. I did think about your issue and measured the runners on a car in my driveway. I think it was a Jetta and they seemed longer then what you measured. I also asked a friend with a dyno for some charts of stock Duratech and Zetech motors. I got a stock Zetech on Webers in response so haven't posted it yet. When I talk to him some more in person one of these days perhaps I can get some more info.

Sorry to take the space in your thread Andrew. I think Duratech is a good choice and it would be nice to make it easier or better understood.

No sweat on the build thread taking a small detour; its great to see the discussion. I'm in the same boat about the Duratec - it isn't a powerhouse from the factory like the S2000 engine but it has a ton of potential (see Cosworth), stock ones are direct cheap, they're very easy to find, they seem to have great low-end torque so they're fun and easy to drive (though I will still stand by my comment that I would like the 4,500+ torque to be better), and they are at the low end of the weight scale for modern 4 cylinders. I am all for discussions to make it easier to implement.

While we are on the topic, once I get the MS3 and the ITBs sorted, the next step will be cams. According to Cosworth, the stock crank is good as long as you keep it below 7,700 rpm (or as they say sustained RPMs exceeded 7,700), the rods for 220hp/7,200 rpm, and the valve train for 7,200 rpm. I have to wonder if a good tune and a set of cams rated for 200hp max on a stock engine wouldn't be enough to hit the 200hp mark?

Silly me! F1 - FI, what's the difference? Anyway, my offer still stands.

I'll offer up results from Bowlings Highway Dyno Calculator. See if it looks familiar or if anyone knows the problem.

RPM Cor't HP Cor't torque
1574 - 35 - 118
1967 - 47 - 124
2360 - 58 - 129
2754 - 69 - 131
3147 - 79 - 132
3540 - 89 - 132
3934 - 99 - 132
4327 - 101 - 123
4721 - 90 - 100
5114 - 84 - 86
5507 - 88 - 83
5901 - 101 - 90
6294 - 103 - 86

Andrew, a few years ago Cosworth was saying it was possible to bolt 200 hp onto the 2.0. All I can say is don't bolt on my intake.

Bill

I'll keep that in mind.

I'm hoping going with straight trumpets will do the job.



Thanks a lot. Yours was one of the cars I used for ideas. I may be a little optimistic but I am actually expecting to see a small weight decrease* since the rest of the chassis has some work done to accommodate the cage. I plan on using a lot of 3/4" and 1/2" tubing and where the strength is still needed use round instead of square 1". All of these sizes will weigh less than the 1"x1"x0.065" they replaced.

*The current model says 170 lbs - the old chassis model said 200 lbs and I know areas where weight was added like using 1.75"x0.120" for the hoops instead of the 1.5"x0.095" from the model. That is an additional 10 lbs right there.

Quick update - the cockpit area is almost done. I would like to fit another diagonal across the bulkhead at the end of the driver's footwell since each gave a nice little stiffness boost (about a 5% increase per tube) but I don't know if it will fit without hitting the pedals.

A hoop was also rolled (you can see it in the background of the first picture) that will be turned into the radiused tube by your elbow....more on that next time.

That's looking very good. You definatly have diagonals down pat. It's making me go look at that area on my drawing. I noted the other day that the rules require "tubing or something or other to prevent motor from entering passenger compartment in an accident". I don't think they spec'ed a size though... That's the SCCA GCR.

How far back is the front cover face of your motor from the front bulkhead? Thanks...

Looking very, very nice and also quite professional. The curvy parts in the big tubing look hard to do.

Cheers,