LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently July 14, 2020, 2:13 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Duratec Possibilities
PostPosted: February 28, 2009, 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Hi all.

First off, let me state I do not have a Locost, nor do I intend to build one. I do love the concept, just do not see one in my automotive future. My immediate project is installing a Ranger Duratec into a Sunbeam Alpine. The Alpine is a very cramped engine environment and I thought that perhaps some of you might be interested in what I have done to make it fit. Some of my ideas might give someone an idea or two.

The Ranger intake manifold is way to bulky to fit into the Alpine, so I constructed a new one.
Here are a couple of photos comparing the stock and fabricated manifolds.
Image
Image

Also, a shot of the installed manifold.
Image

Also, could not use the stock exhaust, so I fabricated a flat, 4 into 1 header.
Image

Thirdly, I found it was impossible to use an alternator with the header, so I put it low on the left side.
Image
This is a 120 amp GM alternator, but it will tuck in very close.

I have several more photos and am willing to discuss all that I did, but as this is a Locost site, will not clog things up unless there are questions. I will say the intake and exhaust cost less than $200 to fabricate.

Bill


Last edited by BBlue on March 1, 2009, 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 1, 2009, 12:44 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3071
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
Nice fab work...Thanks for sharing! The ranger intake is definitely a problem for height challenged cars, like these.

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 1, 2009, 5:50 am 
Offline
Locostering Information Liaison
User avatar

Joined: August 17, 2005, 1:30 am
Posts: 2403
Location: So CALIFORNIA
I have a 2004 Mazda PU (same Duratec Engine)....

I personally would like to know more about your build.

Where did you get your intake and exhaust flanges?

Why did you go with the "sweeping over the cylinder head" air intake?
Why not just keep it on the side?

Cool information about the Alternator....

I would like to see more and I can think of two others on this site building with this engine that may benifit.

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 1, 2009, 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
I made the intake and exhaust flanges. Removed the manifolds and made a port/bolt hole pattern for the intake, using the head as a pattern. Simple used a piece of paper, taped it in place and cut the pattern using a ball pein hammer. On the exhaust side, I did the same thing, only using the exhaust manifold as the master.
Here is the start of the process.
Image

And the finished product.
Image

The intake was cut out of a piece of 1/4" plate, using a bandsaw. The holes were cut using a hole saw. The secret to using a hole saw is to drill one or two chip clearance holes along the perimeter of the hole. If you don't, chips build up in the saw and cutting stops.
Image

I drilled the chip clearance holes so they extended beyond the hole as I intended to make them oval to somewhat match the intake ports.
Here is the finished intake flange.
Image

The roughed out exhaust.
Image
I placed the stock exhaust manifold over my flange and sprayed it with a light coat of paint as an easy way to see the proper outline. I then cut it with a bandsaw.
Image
The two tight radii were cut with a hole saw. The header flange is 3/8" thick.

After welding up the header, I checked the flange for flatness. Bad news.
Image

So I straightened it using my mill table and clamps.
Image

Here is what I settled for.
Image

I stayed with the over the top intake for several reasons. First of all, I felt there was more room on top than on the side. The Alpine is very narrow and has cowl braces that I think are crucial to the integrity of the front of the car, so I have to keep them. A side intake would interfere unless the runners were very stubby. I thought it would be easier to get a supply of cool air to that area and finally, it allows the prospect of some ram tuning effect. Oh, let's not forget the Wow! factor.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 1, 2009, 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 9, 2008, 1:05 am
Posts: 678
Location: San Antonio
Are you just hoping, or did you do the math and tune the intake runners?

_________________
JSullivan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 1, 2009, 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
JSullivan wrote:
Are you just hoping, or did you do the math and tune the intake runners?

A little of both. Doing a search, I found the optimum I.D. of intake runner for a street engine is equal to the diameter of an intake valve on a four valve engine. http://www.custom-car.us/intake/intake-manifold.aspx

The Duratec intake is approximately 1 3/8". I knew that I was going to make a long runner manifold, so I settled on 1 1/2" I.D. Varoius internet calculators give the max torque for a 140 cu. in. four banger at about 4450 rpm. A usable figure.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html

Using Grippo and Bowling's intake runner calculator, http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
I get these results for a 23" runner length:
2nd harmonic (%10) 5100 - 6200 rpm
3rd harmonic (%7) 3838 - 4386 rpm
4th harmonic (%4) 2992 - 3346 rpm

That is the math and its sources. The hope is that it all works together. My big problem is trying to reconcile all that with Ford's intake design. They used shorter (16", I believe vs. my 19" actual runner length) and fatter (2" as near as I can tell) runners. Why? WHY?? I do believe Fords intake diameter is too large for low speed response, hence their use of tumble flaps. Fords use of the flaps made me think I did not want to go as large as stock as low end response is important to me and there is no way I could duplicate the flaps. What happens in the mid and upper ranges are anyone's guess.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 2, 2009, 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 11, 2006, 4:11 pm
Posts: 125
Location: Abbotsford B.C. Canada
BBlue wrote:
JSullivan wrote:
Are you just hoping, or did you do the math and tune the intake runners?

A little of both. Doing a search, I found the optimum I.D. of intake runner for a street engine is equal to the diameter of an intake valve on a four valve engine. http://www.custom-car.us/intake/intake-manifold.aspx

The Duratec intake is approximately 1 3/8". I knew that I was going to make a long runner manifold, so I settled on 1 1/2" I.D. Varoius internet calculators give the max torque for a 140 cu. in. four banger at about 4450 rpm. A usable figure.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html

Using Grippo and Bowling's intake runner calculator, http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
I get these results for a 23" runner length:
2nd harmonic (%10) 5100 - 6200 rpm
3rd harmonic (%7) 3838 - 4386 rpm
4th harmonic (%4) 2992 - 3346 rpm

That is the math and its sources. The hope is that it all works together. My big problem is trying to reconcile all that with Ford's intake design. They used shorter (16", I believe vs. my 19" actual runner length) and fatter (2" as near as I can tell) runners. Why? WHY?? I do believe Fords intake diameter is too large for low speed response, hence their use of tumble flaps. Fords use of the flaps made me think I did not want to go as large as stock as low end response is important to me and there is no way I could duplicate the flaps. What happens in the mid and upper ranges are anyone's guess.

Bill


What may work for you although you would have to change things around a little could be a progressive throttle body from a MKII water cooled VW (preferably a 1.8 liter as they have larger plates and after about 1990 the came with efi so you can get a factory TPS as well), they have a primary and secondary plate and are quite plentiful at the wreckers, this could help with your low rpm air speed concerns.

Cheers,
Ted.

_________________
86 BMW 325 coupe powered by Ford. http://www.e30v8.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 2, 2009, 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 6, 2008, 12:48 am
Posts: 640
Location: Amador County, CA
Sweet. That intake would look awesome in chrome.

_________________
+442 - Miata


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 2, 2009, 5:35 pm 
Offline
Automotive Encyclopedia
User avatar

Joined: December 22, 2006, 2:05 pm
Posts: 6656
Nice work. Thanks for sharing.

I was impressed with the amount of interior room for such a small car.

I'm sure you've been asked this before, but why not a Tiger replica with a destroked efi 5.0L? I do see the benefit of using an engine that has enough clearance to fit good manifolds. The Tiger had access holes under the dash for the rear spark plugs and the aircleaner is half covered by the cowl.

Any suspension plans?
IRS?

_________________
MV8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om3C1Ep ... D3E18BB447


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 2, 2009, 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F wrote:
Nice work. Thanks for sharing.

I was impressed with the amount of interior room for such a small car.

I'm sure you've been asked this before, but why not a Tiger replica with a destroked efi 5.0L? I do see the benefit of using an engine that has enough clearance to fit good manifolds. The Tiger had access holes under the dash for the rear spark plugs and the aircleaner is half covered by the cowl.

Any suspension plans?
IRS?

Well, first off, after going to all the trouble to install a 5.0, why destroke? But simply put, a V8 Alpine does not interest me. You have to completely trash the Alpine steering gear and install a front mount R&P. The Alpine front end is such that it does not take kindly to front mounted R&P, it results in the Ackerman being bass akwards. That is particularly true with the stock Tiger. In addition, I like to drive a car with an engine that needs to be whupped on to really produce good performance. LOTS more fun.

No suspension plans. This car is intended to be a long distance tourer (later Alpines have huge trunks), so Locost type performance is not on the "must" list. Here is a rundown on the car, either as is or soon will be:
Ranger M5 trans with Ford 8" rear, 3.55 gears. Makes for a tall 5th gear.
Front brakes, combination of Grand Prix 10.5" rotors and GM "Metric" calipers.
Rear brakes, 90's Saturn disc.
Master cylinder, Datsun F10, 3/4" piston (dual system). Stops great.
Old Air, in dash air conditioning and heater.
2.3 Duratec.

All of the above is reality, except of course, for the Duratec. It currently has a N/A Pinto 2.0, started out with a turbo, but had to remove it for reasons not pertinent to this post. The M5 and 3.55 rear is too much for the Pinto, especially in N/A form. I think the 2.3 will handle it a lot better.

Ted, that's interesting info, but I doubt that I'll be needing that TB. Doing some math, I found the volume of my runners is about 2/3 that of the stock intake and my log is smaller. To top it off, my TB (Contour 2.5, 50 mm.) is smaller than the stock 2.3! So low end performance should be pretty good. It's the top end I'm wondering about.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 2, 2009, 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
toylocost wrote:
Sweet. That intake would look awesome in chrome.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Forest Green, Rustoleum. I'm a cheap ass.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 3, 2009, 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 10, 2006, 9:56 am
Posts: 195
Location: Maryland
Couple of questions for you. I have a 2.0 Ford Focus Duratec.

1. Have you found a part number for a standard flat intake gasket?
2. Are you going to block of the EGR hole at the back of the block, and have you found a part number for the cover in the following picture?
http://www.biggles.net/images/duratec/e0013.jpg
3. How low profile is the passenger side of the Ranger valve cover?
I'm guessing not as low as this:
http://www.biggles.net/images/duratec/e0011.jpg
But I hope lower than this:
http://usera.imagecave.com/mconley3/dur ... keside.jpg
4. Have you done anything with the oil pan?
My engine is on a 10 degree tilt, and was from a FWD car.
http://usera.imagecave.com/mconley3/dri ... Mount3.jpg

_________________
Mark Conley
Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5947


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 3, 2009, 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
mconley3 wrote:
Couple of questions for you. I have a 2.0 Ford Focus Duratec.

1. Have you found a part number for a standard flat intake gasket?
2. Are you going to block of the EGR hole at the back of the block, and have you found a part number for the cover in the following picture?
http://www.biggles.net/images/duratec/e0013.jpg
3. How low profile is the passenger side of the Ranger valve cover?
I'm guessing not as low as this:
http://www.biggles.net/images/duratec/e0011.jpg
But I hope lower than this:
http://usera.imagecave.com/mconley3/dur ... keside.jpg
4. Have you done anything with the oil pan?
My engine is on a 10 degree tilt, and was from a FWD car.
http://usera.imagecave.com/mconley3/dri ... Mount3.jpg

1. No. Have not looked. I plan to make one, exactly in the manner I made the header pattern.
2. The EGR will be blocked. Don't know at this time if it will be on the exhaust side or at the rear of the head. I am going to try the exhaust, if that does not work, the back of the head. I have not removed the valve cover so have not looked for a gasket. Will RTV not work?
3. Your right, not that low. I do too, but it isn't any lower than the second pic.
4. No. This is low buck swap, hence I'm doing just what is required and doing all the work myself. No need to diddle with the oil pan. I did have to cut a notch in the crossmember to clear the oil pump bulge. I had to tilt the engine 3-4 degrees in order for the intake to clear the MC reservoir and give some relief to a steering arm/starter clearance problem. That also gave me some additional height clearance and helped on the crossmember issue. But 5 degrees started to take away to much from the header. The tilt that I do have may have screwed me on the stock oil filter adaptor, have not checked since its final location. Nearing 10 degrees I lost way to much height and header clearance. The Alpine engine bay is very tight in some surprising ways.

How did you manage a 10* tilt and keep the trans upright? I am going to tilt my trans.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 4, 2009, 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: October 10, 2006, 9:56 am
Posts: 195
Location: Maryland
The Miata engine and transmission were originally mounted with a 10 degree tilt, so the transmission is level.
Are you using a Ranger transmission?
If so, I'm guessing the Ranger Duratec wasn't originally tilted to the exhaust side like the Miata?

Keep us up to date on your progress. My next project will probably be a pre 67 MGB with a Duratec. There are a couple of others that are working on similar projects.

Check out Chris' MG Midget project that he is building for his wife.
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4944

Daniel is doing a pretty extreme MG Midget here:
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4508

You should start a build page under non traditional builds.

Thanks,
Mark

_________________
Mark Conley
Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5947


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: March 4, 2009, 5:08 pm 
Offline
Automotive Encyclopedia
User avatar

Joined: December 22, 2006, 2:05 pm
Posts: 6656
BBlue wrote:
Well, first off, after going to all the trouble to install a 5.0, why destroke? But simply put, a V8 Alpine does not interest me. You have to completely trash the Alpine steering gear and install a front mount R&P. The Alpine front end is such that it does not take kindly to front mounted R&P, it results in the Ackerman being bass akwards. That is particularly true with the stock Tiger. In addition, I like to drive a car with an engine that needs to be whupped on to really produce good performance. LOTS more fun.

Bill


To answer your question, large bore/shorter stroke, less rod angularity, longer rods/lighter pistons, a better rod ratio, etc. An efi 289 is hard to come by.

I guess your saying the ackerman occurs from the rack being forward of a straight line between the spindle attachments for pan clearance versus behind the line. Is it too much ackermann or some other problem?

_________________
MV8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om3C1Ep ... D3E18BB447


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY