ford 998cc zetec turbo

[StevenRB45]

Yeah Mazda didn't get involved until the Zetec/Duratec era.

Small Zetec engines were designed by Yahama, big ones were Mazda including the 2.3 they still use to this day in the Focus RS and ST.

CVH has roots as far back as the Anglia.


Slightly odd state of affairs the engine share in that I have a 1598cc petrol car based on a Focus chassis with a 103bhp. In the same era Ford would sell you a Focus with a 1598cc Petrol with 103bhp, those cars have 0 power train components in common.

How to platform share wrong

 

[portland_bill]

Yeah Mazda didn't get involved until the Zetec/Duratec era.

Small Zetec engines were designed by Yahama, big ones were Mazda including the 2.3 they still use to this day in the Focus RS and ST.

CVH has roots as far back as the Anglia.


Slightly odd state of affairs the engine share in that I have a 1598cc petrol car based on a Focus chassis with a 103bhp. In the same era Ford would sell you a Focus with a 1598cc Petrol with 103bhp, those cars have 0 power train components in common.

How to platform share wrong

Anglia was the old Kent engine, or actually the first use of the then new Kent engine.
Later came the crossflow, which was probably just a different head on the Kent block.
Much later, this engine production was moved to Valencia, and renamed, then with a few minor modifications, became Duratec. Not much 'tec' by this time, still an iron pushrod engine. Did it ever get a five bearing crank?
CVH was the new ohc engine introduced with Escort3, 1980. If this was based on the iron block of the Kent engine, they'd have had a camshaft hole not used. A google search for details brings up a few short histories, but none mention a carry-over block.

My brother had a Mk1 Focus 1.6. Whilst designated Zetec, it was very different to the 1.4 and 1.8 engines. Whilst he had it, the few bits of info I picked up suggested it was a Mazda engine. Seems odd to have produced a unique engine, instead of creating a 1.6 from the 'family' that gave the 1.4 and 1.8.

The 1.6 was not very powerful, but did the job, without fuss. One of Ford's better engines, as they do like to make engines that 'make a fuss'. (Loud, harsh, gappy power delivery.)

 

[StevenRB45]

Anglia was the old Kent engine, or actually the first use of the then new Kent engine.
Later came the crossflow, which was probably just a different head on the Kent block.
Much later, this engine production was moved to Valencia, and renamed, then with a few minor modifications, became Duratec. Not much 'tec' by this time, still an iron pushrod engine. Did it ever get a five bearing crank?
CVH was the new ohc engine introduced with Escort3, 1980. If this was based on the iron block of the Kent engine, they'd have had a camshaft hole not used. A google search for details brings up a few short histories, but none mention a carry-over block.

My brother had a Mk1 Focus 1.6. Whilst designated Zetec, it was very different to the 1.4 and 1.8 engines. Whilst he had it, the few bits of info I picked up suggested it was a Mazda engine. Seems odd to have produced a unique engine, instead of creating a 1.6 from the 'family' that gave the 1.4 and 1.8.

The 1.6 was not very powerful, but did the job, without fuss. One of Ford's better engines, as they do like to make engines that 'make a fuss'. (Loud, harsh, gappy power delivery.)

May well be wrong my main points of reference are the epic Mk1 Ford Ka my Ex girlfriend had (pushrods on a 99 car...just wow) and my dad's old 1.3 scrotes.

They both produced more noise than power and had about 60 bhp while leaking from oil from every seal so assumed it was the much "loved" cvh with a re-brand.

1.6 in the Focus is an odd one, always assumed it was a development of the 1.25 or 1.4 Yahama unit because the Mazda 1.6 has a timing chain not a belt among many other differences (including use of cast iron in the cylinder liners , none interference head)that place it in the B series line rather than Zetec. They also use a Mazda gearbox (F5M)not a Ford ib5 or whatever it's called.

In all honesty never been interested enough to actually look into it but what is in my Mazda bears little resemblance to what is under the bonnet of the Focus my dad has.

 

[portland_bill]

May well be wrong my main points of reference are the epic Mk1 Ford Ka my Ex girlfriend had (pushrods on a 99 car...just wow) and my dad's old 1.3 scrotes.

They both produced more noise than power and had about 60 bhp while leaking from oil from every seal so assumed it was the much "loved" cvh with a re-brand.

1.6 in the Focus is an odd one, always assumed it was a development of the 1.25 or 1.4 Yahama unit because the Mazda 1.6 has a timing chain not a belt among many other differences (including use of cast iron in the cylinder liners , none interference head)that place it in the B series line rather than Zetec. They also use a Mazda gearbox (F5M)not a Ford ib5 or whatever it's called.

In all honesty never been interested enough to actually look into it but what is in my Mazda bears little resemblance to what is under the bonnet of the Focus my dad has.

The Ka and 1.3 Escort both used the ancient 'Valencia' pushrod unit, that was a 'development' of the original Kent engine from the Anglia. Ford officionados may well try to convince us that it was developed significantly, but they may also struggle with that. Strangely, Europe got a 1.3 CVH in the Escort from the launch in 1980, but UK stuck with the pushrod unit. Later we got the 1.3 CVH in higher spec models, which ran alongside the pushrod engine for the basic Escort. No idea why.

The original Ka was a great first car, as the noise made it feel faster than it was, encouraging new drivers to drive more gently.

In all honesty never been interested enough to actually look into it

A great statement. I've never been too interested either, but have had to get closer to too many Fords than I'd wish over the years, and just pick up all this 'knowledge' and it recalls far too easily. If only I'd filled my head with more useful stuff. Learnt to drive in a Mk2 Cortina. It worked, reliably, but was not really a good car, just in the right place at the right time. Rust took over, thankfully.

 

[StevenRB45]

A great statement. I've never been too interested either, but have had to get closer to too many Fords than I'd wish over the years, and just pick up all this 'knowledge' and it recalls far too easily. If only I'd filled my head with more useful stuff. Learnt to drive in a Mk2 Cortina. It worked, reliably, but was not really a good car, just in the right place at the right time. Rust took over, thankfully.

Indeed you just pick this stuff up...and it sits there taking up space.

Can't tell you for sure if my sisters birthday is 7th or 8th of August but still remember the differences between the 3 variations of 1242cc FIRE engine fitted to the mk1 punto.

Pick up all sorts of wonderful facts...so for example PSA changed timing belt part number in early 2017. No one cares...except in the context of we have a car with a wet belt and ours as a late 2017 has the uprated belt which should fix the disintegration issues that affect early ecobursts and puretechs. I'll probably remember that long after the car is a cube and in the context of this thread..it's an important fact looking at previous wet belt posts!

There's actually a mass recall out on them at the minute for failing timing belts but oddly it's listed as brakes. In that the safety issue is parts of belt meet vacuum pump and ta-da no brake vacuum.

 

[DaveMcT]

The original Ka was intended to use a direct injection two stroke using Orbital speaker coil injectors. I believe they inject a premixed rich air/fuel mixture. A few hundred pre-production cars were built. They were clean, had good power, simple to service, etc. The Haynes car museum has at least one of them.

But, the engine got cancelled at the last moment, so the original Ka got the old Kent engine. It's hard to discover exactly what went wrong.

BRP Rotax have the E-tech 800/850 for snowmobiles and outboards. It beats the four stroke competition on every level, including fuel consumption and emissions. The top models make 160 bhp from 800cc so there is ample space for detuning to suit cars like Fiat Panda, Ford Ka etc.

 

[varesecrazy]

The original Ka was intended to use a direct injection two stroke using Orbital speaker coil injectors. I believe they inject a premixed rich air/fuel mixture. A few hundred pre-production cars were built. They were clean, had good power, simple to service, etc. The Haynes car museum has at least one of them.

But, the engine got cancelled at the last moment, so the original Ka got the old Kent engine. It's hard to discover exactly what went wrong.

LONG time ago..

But my recollection was it was 'clean' by the standard of the time..

BUT Kalifornia got 'green' and it then wasnt 'clean' enough

Then the writing was on the wall.

 

[AndyRKett]

The original Ka was intended to use a direct injection two stroke using Orbital speaker coil injectors. I believe they inject a premixed rich air/fuel mixture. A few hundred pre-production cars were built. They were clean, had good power, simple to service, etc. The Haynes car museum has at least one of them.

But, the engine got cancelled at the last moment, so the original Ka got the old Kent engine. It's hard to discover exactly what went wrong.

BRP Rotax have the E-tech 800/850 for snowmobiles and outboards. It beats the four stroke competition on every level, including fuel consumption and emissions. The top models make 160 bhp from 800cc so there is ample space for detuning to suit cars like Fiat Panda, Ford Ka etc.

The problem with any two stroke is unburnt hydrocarbons from the oil in the exhaust, even if you achieve clean petrol combustion. I wonder if modern DPF/GPF filters would over come the problem?

I’ve been looking a lot at Rotax engines recently, I’ve been looking at the Sling TSI self build aircraft and this uses a Rotax engine, very small but hugely powerful for its weight little water cooled turbo, far more efficient, modern, cleaner and lighter than the massive lycoming engines normally fitted to GA aircraft. Non however are two stroke, again I think the emissions get in the way. 135hp from a 1.35litre and capable in the sling of 170mph where as something like a lycoming 360 has 6litre displacement and only 180hp but the relative weight of the massive engine means not a huge improvement in performance

 

[portland_bill]

A 2-stroke with direct injection could be set up to use very little oil. Crank bearings could be sealed, although I doubt they'd last long, but they could have seals with an oil supply and drain internal of those seals, with very little seepage. A supercharged and direct injected 2-stroke could be set to take air directly into the combustion chamber, without going through the crankcase.
Not sure what excess air passing into the exhaust would do to oxides of nitrogen, can't remember the science right now, and can't be bothered to research it.

 

[DaveMcT]

Sump lubrication for the bottom end is fine when air is fed by blowers.
The clean air blow down reduces internal temperatures and dilutes any crud in there. But cylinder ported two strokes don't have hot exhaust valves so they make less NOx by default.

The Rotax E-Tech has a normal two stroke roller bearing bottom end with direct oil feed similar to 1970s Suzukis. Oil demand was cut by 50% when they stopped putting fuel through the crank case. The oil that does carry though is dealt with by the exhaust catalyst just as it does for the petrol fumes. It does use more oil that a fours stoke but not that much, because there's no sump oil change every few thousand miles and no disposal issues.

The big gains are less engine wear - no petrol to wash oil off the bearings and cylinder walls
No chuntering at part load because unburnt fuel does not get trapped in the cylinders
Less noise especially at part throttle (see above)
Less cylinder wear (see above)
MUCH cleaner.
Very fuel efficient. Snow mobiles use a lot of power but need good fuel range.

Skidoos and Evirudes have to meet the USA EPA rules which even the best four strokes struggle with. The Japanese 1200cc four strokes cant compete with the lugging power of the 850cc E-Tech. The last thing a snowmobile needs is the engine bogging down in deep snow.