Jump to content

Welcome to 205GTIDrivers.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
 
 

Photo

Embrace The Ew!


  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#1
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall
I've posted bits and pieces about this engine, but probably a good idea to get across much of what I've learnt about the engine series. I found myself slightly sceptical of the XU replacement when it first appeared. Post millenium engines seem to mostly be emissions biased, somewhat hamstrung by a strangling set of priorities, a world away from the performance driven early 16v engine designs. Cost is a big driver too these days and we seem to be losing the slightly over-engineered components of the Peugeots past that lent themselves well to mix and match engine building on a budget. Early reports of reliability issues with the EW in the 206 GTi didn't do much to inspire me either, but I was perhaps, as often, a bit premature.
I only really started to look deeply into the EW when asked to rebuild an ex-BTCC Longman engine a couple years ago. The engine was so extensively damaged by a valve failure, that I had to start fresh with a donor engine and the data started rolling in. I've built a 1600 one since and have several others on the go; with that original engine recently coming back for rebuild after 18 months of flawless racing performance, requiring no attention beyond oil changes while it's competitiors came and went a bit! It's a basically strong but light engine design, which I'll expand on in some detail.
It entered production in 1998 as far as I'm aware, with the launch of the 206, while the XU 16v continued to be produced for other models. It's been the standard Peugeot/Citroen 1.8-2.2 litre petrol engine ever since. It even did a spell in late Xsaras. Apart from the slightly deviant HPI engine in the C5, they all have basically the same double overhead cam 16v alloy block configuration. The block is open deck cast alloy, with the iron liners cast in place as sleeves. The block splits at the crank centreline to form one of the main benefits of the engine design; a main bearing ladder, that give tremendous block rigidity and stability, which has major advantages in a performance engine. The head is fundamentally a development of the later XU 16v head, the cam ladders are even the same casting as the former, with slightly different machining. The cam blanks are the same for both engines, but most EWs use small followers that can't run XU large follower profiles as they are. The oil pump is driven directly on the crank nose, being the eccentric star type widely used. The oil pump is probably the weakest link in the engine. Half moon thrust washers seem a step back from the XU's 360 degree thrusts. The cranks are mostly interchangeable with XU ones. Bore spacing identical to XU and valve angle/spacing as good as identical. The engine sits at 15 degrees inclination (XU 30 degrees).
Basic range is:
EW7J4 1749cc, 82.7mm bore and 81.4mm stroke, 45mm big ends, 212.5mm block height, 29.5mm inlet and 27.4mm exhaust valves (inserts are the same as bigger engines), 28.4mm cam followers

EW10J4
(140PS) 1997cc, 85mm bore and 88mm stroke, 45mm big ends, 212.5mm block height, 33mm inlet and 29mm exhaust, 28.4mm cam followers

EW10J4S
(180PS) 1997cc, 85mm bore and 88mm stroke, 45mm big ends, 212.5mm block height, 35mm inlet and 31mm exhaust valves, 30mm cam followers, variable cam phasing control

EW12J4 2231cc, 86mm bore and 96mm stroke, 50mm big ends, 221.5mm block height, 35mm inlet and 31mm exhaust valves, 28.4mm cam followers, variable cam phasing control

More to follow....

#2
Cameron

Cameron
  • Banned
  • 5,076 posts
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Great info, thank you! Would love to know more about the differences between this and the Duratec engine too. :D

#3
Liquid_106

Liquid_106
  • Drivers+
  • 472 posts
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Name:Steve
  • Location:Leicester
Garage View Garage
Subscribed Posted Image

#4
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall
There are limits to what I can say of what I know about the Duratec engines, the development I've been doing has been for another engine builder, I've been paid for it and it's his data. Also I'm sure some people will dispute my assertions, but essentially, the head is difficult to work with, it shows great flow figures, but they don't make great engines on their own. The original inlet port size and shape (less so on the late heads) does not allow for much alteration without tragic loss of gas speed and pulse tuning is difficult to optimise on a 2 litre, the inserts are frustratingly undercut as they come and don't seem terribly stable, which can lead to reliability problems, exacerbated by the narrow stemmed valves. The exhaust ports are very sensitive to how they're modified and don't work very well as is. There's a limited amount of wall thickness available for modification. The valve stack is short and difficult to alter, making spring choice and shimming difficult. The wet sump and oil pump don't perform very well under duress and the alternator/water pump drive relationship can be problematic. Chain drive is fine in standard form, but hard use creates pressure problems with the tensioner and mechanical alternatives are difficult to get right. The coolant system is a blend type, that needs careful management in the car if a stat is retained, ditching the stat is never a good idea for consistent performance. There's virtually no scope for over-bore and the factory crank/rods/pistons have very limited usefulness. But apart from that....

Conversely, the EW offers a range of heads from the small ports of the EW7J4, through the usefully sized EW10J4 ports that have material where you need it to re-sculpt and the excellent basic shape of the EW10J4S and EW11J4 heads. Exhaust ports on the 10 and 12 heads are fabulously good as they are, like the XU10 heads, think of them as GTI6 like. 6mm stem valves mean it's hard to get them wrong and plenty room for a good spring install and shim stack. The oil pump I've found fine so far, but might not like sustained high rpm use, I know the wet sump works well with PS baffles and Accusump. Water pump is standard cambelt driven fayre, alternator fitting is easy without A/C. Coolant system is blend type, but easily managed with a stat. Factory rods and pistons are mostly quite lightweight, but EW10J4S rods (bushed, all others captive) and EW12 rods are pretty tough looking. I've not seen the EW10J4S crank yet, but I can tell you that the steel 88mm XU9TD and 96mm HDI 2.2 cranks fit fine; in fact the only cranks that I've had to make room for where the XU5 and the billet BTCC one!

For medium tune, you might want to consider starting with the EW10J4S engine, it's the most performance orientated one and has the 30mm followers already (other heads will oversize to 32mm no problem), to match the XU 16v). Cam pulleys are 38 tooth, rather than the 42 tooth XU ones and mostly have rubberised centres, that encourage disposal. The variable cam phasing of the EW10J4S and EW12 are compatible with some aftermarket management, so can be used if desired, but I favour fixed timing for competition engines to ensure reliability. The cambelt rollers can be replaced with the more solid XU ones quite easily (tensioners are auto and they should be changed to fixed for reliability.

#5
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall
Here are some pics I already had uploaded from the 206 race engine build in 2010:

Longman head with valve head damage (inlet inserts aren't OE)
Posted Image

Same again looking down the inlet port. One of the valves got dragged down by the valve failure (I did a new head for it in the end)
Posted Image

Crank nose, showing the oil pump drive flat (slightly scratched here), that's a collar that slides off and can be used on XU cranks
Posted Image

View of the block deck, not the massive front and back head oil drains (rather than small side ones on XU)
Posted Image

Looking at the head, from the exhaust side, note how well the followers are supported compared to XU
Posted Image

The block is lovely and light, easy to bench build. Windage tray and oil pick up pipe visible. The two ports on the front of the block are for the oil filter housing. Hopefully the intrinsically rigid nature of the sandwich block design is obvious (a la Honda K20), the Duratec has a main bearing ladder that isn't as well supported and doesn't have the iron inserts over the main bearings (also it isn't dowelled and tricky to fit accurately)
Posted Image

On our dyno
Posted Image

Edited by Sandy, 15 January 2012 - 07:10 PM.


#6
Batfink

Batfink
  • Drivers
  • 4,802 posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
  • Name:Kev Self
  • Location:Aylesbury!
How does the engines compare to your XU hybrid engines you have build. More power? or just reliability?

#7
Tom Fenton

Tom Fenton
  • Team Managers
  • 9,761 posts
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
  • Location:Rotherham South Yorkshire
This is all interesting stuff.

What are the hurdles to overcome to get one of these EW's into a 205?

#8
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,027 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend
IIRC, just the top r/h engine mount and exhaust manifold :)

#9
petert

petert
  • Pitcrew
  • 5,584 posts
Joined: 15 Nov 2003
  • Name:Peter Taylor
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
Thanks for all that great info. Has the smaller bucket diameter held back cam profiles?

#10
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall

How does the engines compare to your XU hybrid engines you have build. More power? or just reliability?

I haven't really made close enough specs for a direct comparison. But doing a 1600, the EW7 head was vastly preferable to start with than the XU7. Also the block is simplicity to bore and hone, compared to the epic of liners for the alloy block XU. I'm just doing a new take on the XU heads (2 litre and 2.3) now that I'm hoping will align things more with the EW. But I'd certainly say the EW is smoother at high rpm.

Thanks for all that great info. Has the smaller bucket diameter held back cam profiles?

I've carried over my race profiles from the XU, so bigger followers were a must. I could have used my small follower profiles from the TU for the 1600 I did, but chose take advantage of the scope for relatively larger valve sizes and use more aggressive shorter duration cams. The jury is still out on that until I've tried it in the car, but early signs are similar peak figures to my TU 1600s, but possibly a narrower power band. There's alot I can do to play with that though, it is only the first attempt. Genuine 150lbft from 1580cc was quite pleasing, so much for short stroke engines not making torque! (83mm bore and 73mm stroke)

Edited by Sandy, 16 January 2012 - 07:00 AM.


#11
guffe

guffe
  • Drivers
  • 110 posts
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
Any chance that you would have weighted the EW engine? Even separate weights of block, crank and head would be nice.

#12
Cameron

Cameron
  • Banned
  • 5,076 posts
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
+1 for weights, or a delta between a similar XU and EW engine if possible. ^_^

#13
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall
The 1600 I did was 96kg built and ready bar exh manifold, about the same as Duratec. 2 litre won't be much different.

#14
BusEngineer

BusEngineer
  • Drivers+
  • 673 posts
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
  • Name:Jon Ford
  • Location:Kidsgrove, Stoke on Trent
Fantastically interesting read Sandy, as always the depth of your experience makes for an avid reader in myself

Keep it coming ;)

#15
24seven

24seven
  • Drivers
  • 2,151 posts
Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Name:Guy
  • Location:Swansea(ish), Wales
Another interested follower here. I'm aiming to specialise in engine design as part of my degree at uni and we have a close relationship with Ford, so all our research and analysis is done on Sigma engines. Makes for an interesting comparison.

#16
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,027 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend
Sandy knows the Sigma quite well :)

#17
Alastairh

Alastairh
  • Pitcrew
  • 5,897 posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
  • Name:Alastair
  • Location:Kettering
Excellent stuff. I'd love to drop one in a 205 with a few tweaks. Give it 18 months and these will be more common than GTi6 conversions!

Do the drive shafts have to be altered much to mate the EW and related box in a 205?

Al

#18
Liquid_106

Liquid_106
  • Drivers+
  • 472 posts
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Name:Steve
  • Location:Leicester
Garage View Garage
Perhaps we need some EW sections in the Tehnical area :ph34r:

#19
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall
The EW has a different BE casing and it's own driveshaft brackets, but the shafts are essentially the same. Early ones have the same hockey stick bolts retaining the bearing, but later ones have a sort of half moon clamp, that isn't interchangeable. For conversion purposes, the early EW10J4 was not multiplexed, but later ones and all EW10J4S are mulitplexed. I'd figure on using aftermarket management, whatever your plans are.

As Meirion says, I've done alot with the Sigma (1.25-1.7 litre 16v Ford/Mazda/Yamaha engine), won my first circuit championship with it! It's a baby Duratec in many ways and share some of the problems with the bottom end. But the top end is stronger from what I've seen. One of the engines I've seen apart, was the "works" 2 litre rally version. Fragile doesn't even begin to describe it! It's lighter than a TU, and I've seen similar peak figures from it, to my TUs, but the head and valvetrain limitations mean I can't get the width of powerband that I do from the TUs, in 1400 and 1600 form.

#20
brumster

brumster
  • Pitcrew+
  • 1,381 posts
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
  • Location:Birmingham, UK
Garage View Garage
Well, when my 2 litre XU10 goes pop I've got something to consider ;) !

I take it the power numbers per 's spent are similar or no worse, but the strength of the bottom end and reliability means it's the better engine (and weight advantage too)?

What do you reckon the bottom end is good for? Or, if accepting a change of rods/pistons, the crank?