Ew10j4 Lump

[tomcolinjones 26]

As the xu's are all getting a little old this might be the way the trend starts to go in the future, once a few have done the conversion and the knowledge is out there im sure we would see more. Personally I'm not a fan of differant marque engine swaps, mk2 escort with xe's pugs with k20's just seems wrong to me. Im not however saying that financially it would perhaps make more sense and that the k20 is pants because lets face it they are an awesome lump, I just couldnt live with having a honda power plant would buy a civic if I wanted that. Dont know if im alone on this?

 

i think the same, unless its a mini

there is nothing wrong with inter manufacturer part swaps tho imho

 

a red top essi just doesnt sound rite does it! although i have seen one with a volvo engine in and it flew.

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

The thing is though.... if there is no interchangability with xu mounts, driveshafts etc there is little point in sticking with peugeot engines, when you could just buy a k20 which will probably still make more power than a modified EW, have vastly better reliability, resale value and one of the best gearboxes in the car world irrespective of price...

 

As I understand it from Hilgie's reply, the conversion still uses 205/309 shafts as you're still using a BE3 box (with BE4 bellhousing). Just use the EW top mount arm, as the engine sits at a different angle compared to the XU.

 

One thing about the Honda engine, whilst being a great one is that it's soulless. And that's one thing I fear about the EW engine. I've actually driven my EW engine when it was resident in a 206 and was pretty dull, just as dull as a GTi6. Nowhere near as much character as the 1.9 Mi16.

[Batfink 201]

I get where you are coming from. Its the curse of modern engines. My clio 172 is the same. Fast but lacks the WOOP! factor

[black lad 0]

EW12 block is about the same height as XU alloy block, sits more upright though. I haven't got far into it yet, but when I start putting mine in the 205, i'll probably report what I find.

 

The spec of that race engine isn't something i'll be divulging in detail I'm afraid! The standard EW10J4 206GTI motor is quite limited in medium spec form, by small followers (28.4mm) and top hat stem seals that make fitting double valve springs tricky. The standard valve springs will limit cam choice, as will similar room issues to the GTI6 for lift at TDC. Throttle bodies are the obvious starting point IMO, for the broad gains a good set up is likely to bring on an otherwise standard engine. The Jenvey manifold is pretty nasty though, carrying a heavy offset for the ancillaries clearance that isn't likely to be an issue in the 205. Because of the problems with fitting aftermarket management and TBs to modern integrated wired cars, this route has not been popular on the 206; indeed I was asked to do a 180 last year and had to decline the job at a late stage (not ideal really!), because of the potential problems with the BSI system that could take it way beyond what can normally be reasonably charged for an installation! Early normal 206 GTIs don't have the Multiplex/BSI however.

 

What I'd like to do with mine is build a smaller capacity engine, ie XU7 crank (81.4mm) with the EW12 bore (86mm) for 1890cc oversquare. 1.9 has a nice ring to it and i'd like to make it fairly economical and try a few things that could achieve that with good power. A small warning shot though, check out the price of EW thrust washers.... you might want to save the old ones!

So a build thread is totally out of the question...lol

[Sandy 189]

Haha, yes it is, but if I was outside of this I'd be mighty keen to see some pics, so here are a few harmless ones...

 

307 BTCC steel crank, this engine was originally 307 BTCC spec, basically having bodies added for this car:

 

The standard XU cranks fit the EW block seemingly with no bother (except EW 88mm is 45mm big ends), but theis crank would not fit without machining for clearance, one of the biggest ball aches of this job:

 

Block machined, bored and decked (surface ground rather than fly cut for greater accuracy), ready for building up. Note the massive front and back oil drains:

[Sandy 189]

Head shot, the cam ladders are the same casting as late XUs, cams would be interchangable of it wasn't for the follower sizes, this is machined for oversize followers, the Longman cams had to be retained due to budget; the inlet was the same as I already use in 2 litre race as it happens, but the exhaust wasn't and I would choose a different exhaust cam and manifold to match ideally.

 

I ended up building it on the bench rather than the stand. It's light enough to move about easily! Not windage tray and oil suction pipe. This engine is obviously wet sump (regs), with PS baffle kit and Accusump. Bare alloy finish by the way, via elbow grease; I dislike painted alloy, it looks so much nicer bare I think, even if it isn't perfect; it never flakes and doesn't play hell with sealing faces.

 

When I finally got it on the dyno!

Edited February 21, 2011 by Sandy

[welshpug 1,623]

How do they compare in rod length Sandy?

 

Shorter than the late Iron XU's I guess with the block being shorter?

[Sandy 189]

They run slightly shorter crown height pistons, so in between with the shorter blocks.

[Vili 17]

How do they compare in rod length Sandy?

 

Shorter than the late Iron XU's I guess with the block being shorter?

 

If I remember correctly the EW10 rods are 139mm so little shorter compared to XU9 143mm and a lot shorter than XU10 152mm.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Vili

[Baz 421]

I worked for a Pug dealer when they came out and have had EW10's in various cars for the best part of 9 years now, so have naturally kept my ear to the ground! They seem to be fairly hardy, take a bit of a beating and neglect, i know of a few female-owned moonstone 206 GTi's that have often not had a lot of oil in them when checked and they don't seem to suffer. However, they do use a bit of oil, and they're also not that economical an engine, fuel wise.

 

A few things worth mentioning, the EW10J4 (not 180) responds very well to a set of bodies and a decent manifold, the standard one is crap, they were actually a little known recall for the fact that the internal collector that acts like the 4-2 split comes loose, rattles and can sap power, the 180 manifold is a massive improvement. I'm pretty sure it was Miles who said to me years ago that an EW10 on bodies with proper management and exhaust yields pretty impressive power gains alone.

 

Surprised nobody's mentioned the rather large issue with the EW series being tall/upright; the MC clearance becomes a problem as usual...

 

This is a 180 engined 205 on bodies with Omex management retaining the VVC with a pair of mild catcams making around 210bhp.

 

Edited February 22, 2011 by Baz

[edbar 6]

Im liking alot!

[welshpug 1,623]

I'm not sure if it would be as much of an issue regarding master cylinder clearance being more upright? would give it more clearance if anything?!

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

Been pondering this over the last week or so....if the lump is taller (it is!), what's the sump clearance like?

 

Or would I have to avoid speed bumps?

[welshpug 1,623]

I'd imagine bonnet clearance would be the main issue, not ground clearance

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

I'm just going by one of the pics in Hilgies thread. There are spacers between the top arm and mounting on the block. I'm assuming this to 'push' the block downwards to compensate for its height.

[welshpug 1,623]

I think its more that its a prototype custom mounting arm?

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

So, do I go standard GTi6/S16, oversized GTi6/S16 or go for the EW conversion?

 

I suppose my next question would be how do EW's cope with track work?

[cybernck 400 1 Cars]

they were actually a little known recall for the fact that the internal collector that acts like the 4-2 split comes loose' date=' rattles and can sap power, the 180 manifold is a massive improvement.[/quote']

 

Mine has this annoying rattling noise! Are you saying the 180 manifold is a straight fit then?

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

Bringing this thread back from the dead, I've managed to find myself a cheap EW 2.2. Not bought it yet, but very tempted to try something different

 

One thing that I have been thinking about is, are the heads between the 2.2 and 2.0 (138bhp) the same or is the GTi head better?

[welshpug 1,623]

2.2 is the same head as the VVT gti180

 

dooo eeeet

[Henry Yorke 269 3 Cars]

It seems like a no brainer Alan! It would be nice to see something different. I presume the EW 2.2 is multiplex only, whereas the EW10J4 lumps can come pre-multiplex. Inversely you would rebuild any pre multiplex engine purely due to its age anyway, so with a newer engine, you can put it on proper management and save some cost there.

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

It seems like a no brainer Alan! It would be nice to see something different. I presume the EW 2.2 is multiplex only, whereas the EW10J4 lumps can come pre-multiplex. Inversely you would rebuild any pre multiplex engine purely due to its age anyway, so with a newer engine, you can put it on proper management and save some cost there.

 

The EW10 I have is a pre-multiplex unit but I doubt I'll need anything off that now that I've sourced a complete EW12 lump. Plan is to rebuild it, with a few mods here and there, coupled to aftermarket management & bodies. But that is just a 'plan' for now, as I also want to do a full strip down and rebuild of the shell over winter too. Time will be an issue (and the right E30 passes under my nose ).

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

I'm just going by one of the pics in Hilgies thread. There are spacers between the top arm and mounting on the block. I'm assuming this to 'push' the block downwards to compensate for its height.

 

I think its more that its a prototype custom mounting arm?

 

No, it was the final setup like this. Using +/- 1 inch spacer so get the engine sit lower due to it's height. I was having troubles getting it level en not hitting the bonnet. It sits quite low, but not dangerously undriveable low

[Sandy 189]

The 2.2 and 180 heads are different in a number of ways, different VVT, cam sensor, EGR on 2.2 but not 180 and other details. Longman favoured the 2.2 oil pump for reasons I've not found yet, or at least they told my customer that! Valve sizes are the same for 2.2 and 180 (35 and 31).

[DRTDVL 4 1 Cars]

can anyone confirm if a 206 / 307 gti 180 exhaust will fit the 307 138hp lump in the 2.0ltr hatches?