Ecoscort - 98 Ford Escort ZX2 ecomodding thread

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

This part was about running a single intake valve system.

As far as the Atkinson Cycle I think it would be worth looking into?

Cam gears are cheap.

Oh! My mistake I do not have to regrind the cam! What I can do as far as the single intake valve is either cut a lobe off or take the tappets out, according to Hardline. He has hypothesized that taking tappets out is one way to deactivate to a 2 cylinder.

Moving the timing belt around a gear tooth or 2 is even cheaper

Originally Posted by pgfpro

The more I think it about it the more I like this idea. This would work awesome with a turbo for mid-load lean burn. See here I go again back to turbo world.lol

On my Talon the turbo gives me a 11% increase at 1psi in combustion efficiency over N/A. The more boost I run in lean burn the more the efficiency goes up.

So with your build you could run it in N/A at light load with a Atkinson cycle and at mid load still keep it in lean burn, but you would gain back some extra torque?

Hmmmmm. Must Ponder this.......

This seems like a possible idea! An 11% increase in combustion efficiency sounds like a huge jump! Factor in the Atkinson cycle will provide more C.E., and you have quite the efficient engine.

How on earth would I keep the boost so low? Would I have the turbo wastegated at 2 psi? Big turbo?

Also, if my engine responds decently well to becoming a 1.0 2 cylinder, would this mean I could run more boost at low rpm? There's so many variables to consider!

All I know is for the time being I want to get the wideband installed and get lean burn working better than it has. I am seeing no increase in mpg so far

[pgfpro]

Congratulations on making the front page!!!

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by BabyDiesel

Oh! My mistake I do not have to regrind the cam! What I can do as far as the single intake valve is either cut a lobe off or take the tappets out, according to Hardline. He has hypothesized that taking tappets out is one way to deactivate to a 2 cylinder.

Moving the timing belt around a gear tooth or 2 is even cheaper



This seems like a possible idea! An 11% increase in combustion efficiency sounds like a huge jump! Factor in the Atkinson cycle will provide more C.E., and you have quite the efficient engine.

How on earth would I keep the boost so low? Would I have the turbo wastegated at 2 psi? Big turbo?

Also, if my engine responds decently well to becoming a 1.0 2 cylinder, would this mean I could run more boost at low rpm? There's so many variables to consider!

All I know is for the time being I want to get the wideband installed and get lean burn working better than it has. I am seeing no increase in mpg so far

You wouldn't have to have the turbo wastegated at 2 psi and up to 6 psi. The proper choice in a turbo would only get you the low boost numbers, with out anything going through the gate.

With the low Cd it still looks like the you would be running in N/A even with a 1.0 L equivalent. This why i would run all four cylinders in a Atkinson cycle N/A and pull one tappet per cylinder to help with swirl. The when needed get into a mid-load and start making some boost in lean burn. This will accelerate the car up to speed and go back into light load steady state.

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

Congratulations on making the front page!!!

Thank you! I just saw it a few minutes ago! I can't believe I made it to the front page

Originally Posted by pgfpro

You wouldn't have to have the turbo wastegated at 2 psi and up to 6 psi. The proper choice in a turbo would only get you the low boost numbers, with out anything going through the gate.

With the low Cd it still looks like the you would be running in N/A even with a 1.0 L equivalent. This why i would run all four cylinders in a Atkinson cycle N/A and pull one tappet per cylinder to help with swirl. Then when needed get into a mid-load and start making some boost in lean burn. This will accelerate the car up to speed and go back into light load steady state.

That is good to know. I am concerned in the event I have to go WOT that there will be too much boost/pressure and could cause damage.

I'm trying my best not to get hung up on the 1.0 option. It just seems like it would give better fuel economy all around, albeit it would have a lot less power even with a turbo. But I'm not going to doubt your expertise You have much more experience in the realm of ridiculously crazy modification than I do! I'll look into what it will take to have an Atkinson cycle on my engine. I think 2 notches of retarded cam = 18*. That might be too much... I need to get a schematic of the Prius' valve closings and attempt to replicate it.

One thing to look into is my static and dynamic compression ratios. The stock S.C.R. on a 2.0 Zetec is a decent 9.6:1. Now, if you look into a Prius engine, they have close to a 13:1 S.C.R.! Comparing the two, it looks like a compression bump would help my N/A efficiency. Although with a turbo, too high a C.R. would mean lost efficiency due to pulling timing out. I'm thinking that a small boost in C.R. to around 10.5:1 would be best for both scenarios.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by BabyDiesel

Thank you! I just saw it a few minutes ago! I can't believe I made it to the front page



That is good to know. I am concerned in the event I have to go WOT that there will be too much boost/pressure and could cause damage.

I'm trying my best not to get hung up on the 1.0 option. It just seems like it would give better fuel economy all around, albeit it would have a lot less power even with a turbo. But I'm not going to doubt your expertise You have much more experience in the realm of ridiculously crazy modification than I do! I'll look into what it will take to have an Atkinson cycle on my engine. I think 2 notches of retarded cam = 18*. That might be too much... I need to get a schematic of the Prius' valve closings and attempt to replicate it.

One thing to look into is my static and dynamic compression ratios. The stock S.C.R. on a 2.0 Zetec is a decent 9.6:1. Now, if you look into a Prius engine, they have close to a 13:1 S.C.R.! Comparing the two, it looks like a compression bump would help my N/A efficiency. Although with a turbo, too high a C.R. would mean lost efficiency due to pulling timing out. I'm thinking that a small boost in C.R. to around 10.5:1 would be best for both scenarios.

I personally don't like the idea of cylinder deactivation. I have it on my 2013 GMC and its a joke. I don't even use it anymore (run in manual mode) and have only seen a 1 mpg decrease with it disabled, but enough with my rant. lol
I also think if you deactivate two cylinders you will have some harmonics that will make the engine run very rough and also some intake flow issues. I did some C D testing on the Talon a few years ago and I couldn't improve on my fuel mileage, in fact my fuel mileage drop by 3 mpg.

On my sons turbo Civic 1.5 L it had a fairly large frame turbo on it based on the engine size and we still manage to improve fuel economy. I couldn't make any low boost lean burn though do to what we are talking about engine size verses boost. What I did is setup the car for lean burn with a max around 18:1 A/F ratio and the car got great fuel mileage. I think the compression was around 9.5:1?

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I personally don't like the idea of cylinder deactivation. I have it on my 2013 GMC and its a joke. I don't even use it anymore (run in manual mode) and have only seen a 1 mpg decrease with it disabled, but enough with my rant. lol
I also think if you deactivate two cylinders you will have some harmonics that will make the engine run very rough and also some intake flow issues. I did some C D testing on the Talon a few years ago and I couldn't improve on my fuel mileage, in fact my fuel mileage drop by 3 mpg.

I remember seeing your thread about excessive oil consumption with your truck. That seals the deal for me lol. You bring up a good point about intake flow. Everything is sized for a 2.0 I4. Dropping 2 cylinders for would make everything wayyy too big and flow would more than likely suffer.

On my sons turbo Civic 1.5 L it had a fairly large frame turbo on it based on the engine size and we still manage to improve fuel economy. I couldn't make any low boost lean burn though do to what we are talking about engine size verses boost. What I did is setup the car for lean burn with a max around 18:1 A/F ratio and the car got great fuel mileage. I think the compression was around 9.5:1?

I was reading your thread on d-series about your 64.8 mpg testing run that's what I want! Only better I will aim for reducing displacement through cam timing. My C.R. should be fine if you good with 9.5:1.

Were you running a Holset 351 off of a 5.9 Cummins on the Del Sol?

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by BabyDiesel

I remember seeing your thread about excessive oil consumption with your truck. That seals the deal for me lol. You bring up a good point about intake flow. Everything is sized for a 2.0 I4. Dropping 2 cylinders for would make everything wayyy too big and flow would more than likely suffer.



I was reading your thread on d-series about your 64.8 mpg testing run that's what I want! Only better I will aim for reducing displacement through cam timing. My C.R. should be fine if you good with 9.5:1.

Were you running a Holset 351 off of a 5.9 Cummins on the Del Sol?

The Del Sol had a few different turbos. The Holset was the last one I tested.
The Del Sol had a terrible Cd and I was going to do a full boat tail but ended up selling it to buy my new house. Its funny how life gets in the way.lol

[hardline]

Since I see that the conversation has moved over here, Hi.

I would not run just one intake per cylinder, as you will have a ton of fuel pool up on the disabled intake valve in the bowl area. It will eventually evaporate, but it will pay hell on warmup enrichment, throttle enrichment, and unstable afrs on cruise. If you regrind the cam (that asymmetric cam I was mentioning early on in the TZX2 thread), it will approximate the collapsed hydraulic lifter shown here with the 4G63 head. Do not cut the tappet, as the excess valve lash will cause the tappet to bounce around, chewing up the head tappet bore, the cam lobe, and possibly mushrooming the hell out of the valve stem. Regrinding the cam for that asymmetric flow will prevent pooling of the fuel behind the valve, as it will still open.

[BabyDiesel]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

The Del Sol had a few different turbos. The Holset was the last one I tested.
The Del Sol had a terrible Cd and I was going to do a full boat tail but ended up selling it to buy my new house. Its funny how life gets in the way.lol

I read through your thread here and at d series, incredible! I really wish the boat tail would have been tested, it looked like a winner!

I have been thinking about turbos for the Escort. I decided that I wanted to keep it in the family though, so my first thought was a Garret GT3782 off of a 6.0 Powerstroke

Here are the stats from the ford-trucks forum.

compressor side:
IND whl = 59.10mm
EXD whl = 82.00mm
Trim = 52
A/R = 0.54

turbine side:
Whl dia = 72.50
Trim = 84
A/R = 1.12

Let me know if this is even a possible choice.

Originally Posted by hardline

Since I see that the conversation has moved over here, Hi.

I would not run just one intake per cylinder, as you will have a ton of fuel pool up on the disabled intake valve in the bowl area. It will eventually evaporate, but it will pay hell on warmup enrichment, throttle enrichment, and unstable afrs on cruise. If you regrind the cam (that asymmetric cam I was mentioning early on in the TZX2 thread), it will approximate the collapsed hydraulic lifter shown here with the 4G63 head. Do not cut the tappet, as the excess valve lash will cause the tappet to bounce around, chewing up the head tappet bore, the cam lobe, and possibly mushrooming the hell out of the valve stem. Regrinding the cam for that asymmetric flow will prevent pooling of the fuel behind the valve, as it will still open.

The converstation is everywhere Hardline! I am seeing that the asymmetric cam is the way to go. I will probably have to get a custom cam from Crower, but that is fine by me.

I will not cut and lifters either, that sounds scary! I wasn't going to do it, just joking around with a way to achieve what Russell (pgfpro) has.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by BabyDiesel

I read through your thread here and at d series, incredible! I really wish the boat tail would have been tested, it looked like a winner!

I have been thinking about turbos for the Escort. I decided that I wanted to keep it in the family though, so my first thought was a Garret GT3782 off of a 6.0 Powerstroke

Here are the stats from the ford-trucks forum.

compressor side:
IND whl = 59.10mm
EXD whl = 82.00mm
Trim = 52
A/R = 0.54

turbine side:
Whl dia = 72.50
Trim = 84
A/R = 1.12

Let me know if this is even a possible choice.



The converstation is everywhere Hardline! I am seeing that the asymmetric cam is the way to go. I will probably have to get a custom cam from Crower, but that is fine by me.

I will not cut and lifters either, that sounds scary! I wasn't going to do it, just joking around with a way to achieve what Russell (pgfpro) has.

With the Cd you have now that would be a good choice with a 2.0 L engine, if you somehow get it down to a 1.0 L then I would go much smaller.

If you drop your Cd down from what it is a sub-0.20 Cd then you will just use the turbo gain some HP when not in lean burn. So in this case i would run a much smaller turbo.