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

#21
Cameron

Cameron
  • Banned
  • 5,076 posts
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Yeah I'd be very interested in knowing how responsive it is to tuning as well. The comparison engine (Duratec) is supposed to be very responsive with good gains just from fitting ITB's; apparently little or no head-work is required when you use the later "high port head" engines (2008-on), and while the bottom end internals aren't up to too much abuse they're relatively cheap to upgrade.

Say you started with an EW10J4S, hypothetically, what sort of gains do you think would be achievable from a few stages of tune? I'd be interested to know what point you'd need to start thinking about head modification and upgrading the bottom end, and (very roughly) how much work / expense that would involve.

Edited by Cameron, 17 January 2012 - 08:31 AM.


#22
Matt180

Matt180
  • Drivers
  • 213 posts
Joined: 01 Feb 2009
  • Location:Ilkeston, Derbyshire
Ive been running a EW10J4S for over 5 years now. Mine made 202 bhp 167 lbft with mild cams (retaining vvc) and TB's. My friend who has also done the conversion made 192 bhp on standard cams and inlet.

Mines back on a single inlet and 10 psi of supercharged boost :D it made 306 bhp and 221 lbft. Just goes to show these are a good engine in standard form!

Edited by Matt180, 17 January 2012 - 10:19 AM.


#23
Cameron

Cameron
  • Banned
  • 5,076 posts
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Is that on standard internals Matt?

#24
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,024 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend
Longman's 206 190 was a standard 138 with bodies and exhaust, with 170 lbft it had 20 lbft more than the 180 at peak, it also had more than the 180 had at peak, at 3.5k :D

it made 185 before the manifold was changed, though they don't say what the torque was.

http://www.evo.co.uk...ot_206_gti.html

Edited by welshpug, 17 January 2012 - 10:55 AM.


#25
Matt180

Matt180
  • Drivers
  • 213 posts
Joined: 01 Feb 2009
  • Location:Ilkeston, Derbyshire

Is that on standard internals Matt?


yes mate

#26
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,024 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend
might have missed it, but could someone for some strange reason bolt an 8 valve XU head onto the EW7 block using an EW10 crank to make a 1.9?

something too new to me to know anything about! but what is a blend type cooling system?

#27
Batfink

Batfink
  • Drivers
  • 4,802 posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
  • Name:Kev Self
  • Location:Aylesbury!
I dont think the EW and XU parts are compatable are they?

#28
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,024 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend
read through and you'll see cylinder spacings match and cranks are swappable :)

#29
S@m

S@m
  • Drivers+
  • 1,199 posts
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
  • Location:Brecon, Powys

something too new to me to know anything about! but what is a blend type cooling system?


I wondered this also, but didnt want to prove my ignorance by asking.. :blush:

#30
Liquid_106

Liquid_106
  • Drivers+
  • 472 posts
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Name:Steve
  • Location:Leicester
Garage View Garage
Think I've read somewhere on here (think it was Sandy) that the heads & blocks are interchangable in terms of cranks / pistons, but the oil / water gallaries don't match up, but don't quote me! :blush:

#31
Batfink

Batfink
  • Drivers
  • 4,802 posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
  • Name:Kev Self
  • Location:Aylesbury!

read through and you'll see cylinder spacings match and cranks are swappable :)


internals maybe but big parts like sumps dont and I dont think the heads will fit either. I'd love to be corrected as I have a lot of XU parts.
Sandy what was the weight of your XU7 / Gti6 head engine?

#32
Alan_M

Alan_M
  • Drivers+
  • 4,521 posts
Joined: 27 Nov 2002
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire

Longman's 206 190 was a standard 138 with bodies and exhaust, with 170 lbft it had 20 lbft more than the 180 at peak, it also had more than the 180 had at peak, at 3.5k :D

it made 185 before the manifold was changed, though they don't say what the torque was.

http://www.evo.co.uk...ot_206_gti.html


I'm finding that article extremely interesting! I have a non multiplex EW10J4 engine in my garage doing sod all so may give this a go.

Will a 1.9 Mi16 crank fit?

Edited by Alan_M, 17 January 2012 - 05:02 PM.


#33
welshpug

welshpug
  • Pitcrew+
  • 30,024 posts
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
  • Name:Mei
  • Location:Bridgend
read back a few pages ;)

not sure why you'd want to replace an 88mm crank with an 88mm one though? :unsure:

Edited by welshpug, 17 January 2012 - 05:14 PM.


#34
Anthony

Anthony
  • Team Managers
  • 18,746 posts
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
  • Location:Swindon, Wiltshire
Garage View Garage
Wonderfully detailed information as usual Sandy :)

Weight is impressive - 96kg built (less exhaust manifold) seems very light to me, as that's significantly lighter than the book weight for even an 8v XU5/9 isn't it?

Will a 1.9 Mi16 crank fit?

EW10 is 88mm stroke anyway, so no capacity increase from a 1.9 Mi crank like you'd get with an XU10 for example if that's what you were hoping.

45mm big ends on the EW10 and 50mm big ends on the XU9 would stop it being a swap anyway, regardless of other issues.

#35
brumster

brumster
  • Pitcrew+
  • 1,381 posts
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
  • Location:Birmingham, UK
Garage View Garage
The 45mm big ends, from my limited understanding (ie. just bowing to the advice of people I trust to be in the know) are a much preferred balance between strength and drag/reciprocating mass. As Cameron said, I'd be interested in seeing results on :-

1) What can be achieved figures-wise with a cam swap and a move to TB's (and that's all, bar some sensible mods like big end bolts, bearings and so forth if they were considered necessary)

2) What can be released with further head work (assuming it is warranted) and piston/rod combinations, while staying at 2 litre (I have class regs to worry about) and without going to an expensive crank.

3) What can be released with crank changes - again, assuming these are even warranted, which maybe they're not? Presumably crank changes would only be needed in the pursuit of higher revs, along with solid lifters, which begs again the question what the bottom end is good for in terms of RPMs, and whether chasing RPM is something the EW10 needs desparately - sounds like the bottom end is inherently strong anyway?

edit : Maybe I should clarify what I'm driving at. I like that I can get my XU10 to ~250bhp/180ft.lb on a standard, albeit balanced, crank. Can I get similar, or better, numbers from an EW with just head/cams/psitons/rods? I'm guessing from Sandy's description of the bottom end that it's good for it, but does the rest need more work than an XU to get those numbers? Sounds like it doesn't... which sounds promising!

Edited by brumster, 17 January 2012 - 05:53 PM.


#36
Cameron

Cameron
  • Banned
  • 5,076 posts
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
+1,000,000 to the above!

#37
Alan_M

Alan_M
  • Drivers+
  • 4,521 posts
Joined: 27 Nov 2002
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire

read back a few pages ;)

not sure why you'd want to replace an 88mm crank with an 88mm one though? :unsure:


I don't know either ;)

What about exhaust manifolds? Is there any chance an XU 16v one will fit?

Quite interested in supercharger conversion too and wondering the overall output an 138bhp EW will chuck out.

#38
Sandy

Sandy
  • Pitcrew
  • 4,308 posts
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
  • Location:Nr Truro, Cornwall
I've done several Duratecs on just bodies and the results are very similar to standard Mi16 or GTI6 on bodies. In Ford terms it's a good engine (and the later Zetecs weren't all that bad), but it's not that remarkable if you're used to Peugeots or Hondas. In terms of parts availability, everything you can buy for the Duratec, is available for the EW, rods, pistons, cams, pulleys, cranks, you name it. If you want to take advantage of mass market high quality parts, then none can get close Honda engines. Building a Duratec using low-medium quality components will be very much the same deal as an XU or EW, using the better stuff will be just as expensive. I'm not kidding around about this, on the Duratec we've engine dyno and in car tested just about every available rod, piston, crank, cams, inlet set up, exhaust manifold, head (inc our own, Cosworth and other CNC ones) in 2.0 and 2.3 litre form, even several other builders complete engines! I know what I've seen and felt and I don't think the engine deserves any exceptional credit over the best of the rest, including the EW.
Incedentally, as a nugget that is worth taking heed of, the best results we've seen from a 2 litre Duratec (in terms of overall delivery), have been from the worst performing head on the flow bench (a head we ported according to what we felt was right by eye/measurement and only flow tested after). Which serves to reinforce my belief that flow benches are a distraction in most cases.

Comparisons between the EW and XU are arbitrary unless you can align the specifications enough to be truly objective about it. But as i've said already, a stiffer, more advanced and lighter block design is good for high stress applications, especially improved reliability. The heads are clearly developements of the XU design that I feel overcome the limitations of the XUs; not necessarily for outright peak power or flow bench results, but for making a better engine overall. Playing top trumps with pure numbers isn't what it's about for me; I look to improve the way the power is delivered, how it drives (often a function of how well it maps and that's an important feedback loop) and that helps it to perform well for longer; less worries for me and better value for the users.

That weight quoted is literal, with a race flywheel, inlet, wet sump, no fluids. I'm not sure what the exact weight of comparable XUs are off the top of my head, but if I get the chance I'll weigh them too on the same scales.

The middle bottom 3 bolts on the exhaust manifold are in the same place relative to the exhaust ports as the GTI6/late XU heads, I have a double drilled dyno manifold I use on both, the in car angle will be all wrong!

Perhaps using the Mi16 crank (I haven't tried it), would enable a choice of 50mm BE journal rods from the standard range, to mix and match, you'd have to figure that out for yourself.

Trying to fit an 8v head crosses the mind, for sure, but on a rational level... why bother?! The oil feed is in the right place, coolant holes close enough, but oil drains would need to be external.

Using mildly upgraded factory EWs, will always be limited by the hydraulic followers really, before anything else and I see no reason why it shouldn't be fine with a 7200-7500 limit, unless you use it like an idiot! Beyond that, it's becoming a race engine and like any engine, careful scrutiny of components is sensible (even Honda engines need attention for sustained 8000rpm use if modified).

Edited by Sandy, 18 January 2012 - 07:27 AM.


#39
Cameron

Cameron
  • Banned
  • 5,076 posts
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Do you know anyone who makes a dry sump pan / kit for the EW? In my limited knowledge of sump manufacturers I can only find things for the XU block.

#40
simpsonrc

simpsonrc
  • Passengers
  • 10 posts
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
  • Location:Coventry, Warwickshire
Hi, Im new here. Found this when I was looking for some info on the EWs and theres lot of useful stuff. I have a LHD 206 180 track car (EW10J4S), I have put it on 45mm jenveys and a DTA s60 ecu it runs and goes well. The engine and exhaust are completely standard, the bodies are on the jenvey dcoe manifold (not the best) with 30mm trumpets and completely rewired to the DTA s60 with the vvt working. I found that the vvt works best at fully advanced from about 1500-2000rpm. The EW10J4S head also has two oil breathers just under the inlet ports. I have dyno graphs from before and after the bodies all though they are different dynos but both very reliable If anyone is interested.