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!
Embrace The Ew!
Posted 15 January 2012 - 03:32 PM
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....
Posted 15 January 2012 - 05:51 PM
Posted 15 January 2012 - 06:04 PM
Posted 15 January 2012 - 06:48 PM
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.
Posted 15 January 2012 - 07:08 PM
Longman head with valve head damage (inlet inserts aren't OE)
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)
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
View of the block deck, not the massive front and back head oil drains (rather than small side ones on XU)
Looking at the head, from the exhaust side, note how well the followers are supported compared to XU
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)
On our dyno
Edited by Sandy, 15 January 2012 - 07:10 PM.
Posted 15 January 2012 - 09:24 PM
Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:43 PM
What are the hurdles to overcome to get one of these EW's into a 205?
Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:12 PM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:08 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 06:55 AM
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.
How does the engines compare to your XU hybrid engines you have build. More power? or just reliability?
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)
Thanks for all that great info. Has the smaller bucket diameter held back cam profiles?
Edited by Sandy, 16 January 2012 - 07:00 AM.
Posted 16 January 2012 - 08:32 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:46 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 11:55 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 06:10 PM
Keep it coming
Posted 16 January 2012 - 07:02 PM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 07:15 PM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 10:17 PM
Do the drive shafts have to be altered much to mate the EW and related box in a 205?
Posted 16 January 2012 - 10:23 PM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 05:47 AM
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.
Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:08 AM
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?