Summary of engine weights

[Driven5]

I've always heard the Duratec to be a nice light motor, and a bit lighter than an Ecotec...And it's great to see some real numbers to back those claims up. At 235 lbs for the long block with clutch, pressure plate, and OEM flywheel, I'm pleasantly impressed with the Duratec pretty much being just as light as rumored.

[KB58]

No, add the individual weights to the 235, making a total of about 275...

[horizenjob]

The weight seems just a little high to me still. I weighed a Zetec earlier in this thread as it came off a dyno, just missing headers and starter at 270 ( just under ). I think the 2.3 Duratech has a balance shaft and the block is maybe a half inch taller? That may account for the small difference I would expect. I never seen the balance shaft, but it must toss a few pounds around or it wouldn't balance much...

Thanks for taking the time to weight this 2.3 and it's parts Bill.

[BBlue]

While responding to a PM, I had occasion to go back to my "Duratec Possibilities" thread, looking for data. I found this, posted by McConley. The engine is a Duratec 2.0 out of a Focus:

"I pulled most things off and weighed them separately:

engine 192lbs
exhaust (and cat) 20lbs
belt tensioner 26oz
injector rail and injectors 27 oz
power steering pump 120oz
egr valve 13oz
alternator 12lbs
intake (no throttle body and partly broken) 101oz
engine harness (cut at firewall) 45oz
coolant hoses (that I have) 45oz"

He does not mention the flywheel, but comparing his data to mine, I'd judge it has been removed, perhaps has the flex plate. They are very light.

Bill

EDIT: I pulled my motor mounts and weighed them. Seven pounds, including bolts.

[Driven5]

The weight seems just a little high to me still. I weighed a Zetec earlier in this thread as it came off a dyno, just missing headers and starter at 270 ( just under ). I think the 2.3 Duratech has a balance shaft and the block is maybe a half inch taller? That may account for the small difference I would expect. I never seen the balance shaft, but it must toss a few pounds around or it wouldn't balance much...

Thanks for taking the time to weight this 2.3 and it's parts Bill.

I too am surprised how close the Zetec appear to be in weight based on the numbers provided in this thread, and am trying to see if there is anything we have overlooked that could be making the weights seem closer than they really are. One thing I that I don't think has really been discussed on the ability to directly compare weights posted here, is the variety of scales people are using and verifying the accuracy of them. I know the scales used to weigh my Duratec V6 and MTX-75 earlier in this thread had one scale reading noticably high and another reading noticably low with the same known weight on them. Luckily they actually read equally high as low, so no significant correction factor was necessary...Not to say by any means that everybody else is also using older scales that are out of calibration.

Either way, I have seen it referenced that Ford claims the Duratec to be ~40 lbs lighter than the Zetec...If at all true, I would assume that must be at least a 2.0 vs 2.0 comparison. Granted there is ~10 lbs saved on the Zetec you posted earlier just from the aluminum flywheel vs the OE cast iron flywheel, who knows what else might (or might not) have been saved with some of the fancier Caterham bits, and a few more pound to save in the extra crank throw and deck height by considering a 2.0L. So while putting 2 identically built (1 Duratec, 1 Zetec) side by side might not realistically yield the full "40 lbs" advertised weight savings, I would still expect the Duratec to be measurably lighter overall...In addition to as packing more punch for the same level of build. Maybe, just maybe, somebody will be able to do such a direct comparison someday though.

In regards to the balance shafts, that would only apply to the FWD Duratec 2.3's. The Ranger 2.3L is built liks the 2.0L Duratecs with no balance shafts and 4 counterweights on the crank vs 8 counterweights on the FWD 2.3's.

Thanks again Bill for your weights, and update with 2.0L Duratec weights.

[kennyrayandersen]

I looked all the way through the thread, but didn’t see a weight for a gen 1 Mazda Miata drive train (1.6 L). I’m trying to compare the weight to a earlier X-flow Ford 1.3 L (and I assume a T-9), but I can’t seem to find the weight of the Ford motor either. I’m trying something similar to a locost, but the weight and size is an issue.

In the US, where we don’t have so many ‘small’ donors (especially RWD), I’ve narrowed it down to either a 1.6 Miata with the associated transmission, and the Suzuki G13B with a Samurai RWD transmission IF anybody has weights on those I’d appreciate it. As has been noted… it ain’t that easy to find that information and the data is scattered around when you do! I’m pretty sure the Suzuki is lighter, but the big question is how much?

[horizenjob]

I think you'd be better off with a 1600 xflow then a 1300. I think the xflow is about 225 lbs., I know a Cosworth BDA is 225 just before it goes into a car, probably minus starter. If you get an xflow with an aluminum head, it should be lighter then a Cosworth because it is much smaller. If you like, I can ask a friend if the aluminum blocks will run a pushrod xflow as opposed to the twin cams and BDA they are normally used on. That would be a cool, but not so locost option.

The situation with the 1600 is in flux right now. They are used in racing for Formula Ford and also serve as cores for Lotus twin cam and Cosworth engines. SCCA has approved the Honda Fit engine for Formula Ford and Ford has responded by deciding to do a production of the engine with a few updates. So it will likely be available as a crate engine someday soon and they may be available as racer's switch to the Honda depending on how things go, I suppose.

You may also be able to use a Fiesta engine, though that may take some hunting too. There is a place called "Fiesta Frank's" on the web, you can try them. Many Fiesta engines do not have one set of side motor mounts, if it's your own build you may be able to take that into account...

The folks at BAT may know when the Formula Ford engine is available.

[trialsmangasgas]

You're not going to find any 1.3 xflows in the US. I think I have the only one in my British made Locost. 1.6 xflows are also hard to find as stated above. I have a 1.3 Suzuki GTi twin cam and a Samurai trans setting in my garage to use in the future when my old 1.3 xflow gives up. It will almost double my HP. 58HP vs.100HP. Gti motors are very light. Probably less than 200#. I've seen pic's of guys carrying one on their shoulder like a sack of potatoes. The Samurai trans weighs about 70#. I can carry it under my arm like a loaf of bread. If you need dimensions let me know. The GTi was the only motor I could find that even came close to the size I needed to fit my car. Russ

[Jawfish]

just weigthed a 4AGE20V and a K20 today just block, head, water pump and oil pan, all other accessories were not on the engines.

4AGE: 190lbs
K20: 215LBS

I would have taught the K20 be a little heavier...

Cheers,

Fred

[veightseven]

Weighed an LS7/TKO6oo ---QuickTime bell, no fluids, no slip yoke, no manifold
590 lbs. after tare.

[JPG]

2009 Ecotec 2.2 VVT out of a Pontiac Pursuit.

All noteable items are attached with the exception of the alternator

EDIT:
Forgot the weight

130 +/-4 kg (286 +/- 10 lbs)

[Off Road SHO]

JPG, It would be nice if you typed in the weight for us old farts that can't read your scale in the pic. Thanks

Tom

[JPG]

Thanks Tom, I've added edited the post to include it.

Here is the automatic transmission, torque converter is missing.

74 +/-4 kg (160 +/- 10 lbs)

[AK Seven]

Just picked up a BMW M42 Inline-4 w/Getrag 240 5-sp

With a dry engine and missing electronics, the entire unit weighed in at 408lb. Pics to come.

[cheapracer]

The GM LX9 3500 makes around 240hp with a decent tune and weighs 215kgs

Ahh love the GM V6, pretty much the same weight as any big 4 but with a lower CG.

Here is the Toyota 2.2 5S-Fe at 220kgs and the older F series SOHC 16 vale Honda at 210 kgs.

My weights even include the engine mount brackets and rubber mounts, all bolts, drive belts, fuel lines and looms, oil, water hoses, all ready to install and run - you can even see the gearchange cables hanging from the Honda (as crap as the phone pics are).

IMG0463A.jpg

IMG0461A.jpg

Theres just too much variation with these weights and unless you can weigh one absolutely and fully dressed then it's almost useless and long engine weights are just a total waste of time.

Hey I just found this, I forgot in 2009 (page 3 in this thread) I weighed that F series Honda engine in a different factory on a different type of mechanical scales and got 205 kgs which is close enough ....

I myself put a Honda F series engine on real scales today and as I suspected manhandling it around it's effin heavy.
205 kgs or 450 lbs as pictured.