TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
8/29/19 12:02 p.m.
Ransom said:

In reply to TVR Scott :

This really is inspiring. I mean, both the whole build and this 3D printing chapter.

Thanks for that.  You guys all do such great work, and I try to contribute as best I can.

Crawled under the car and test fit one of the mounts.  Fit very nicely:

I was worried the offset would be too much, but it actually helps sneaking the hose thru the corners between tubes.  Looks just right.

Here's the finished water pump pulley.  Really pops!

Dusterbd13-michael
Dusterbd13-michael MegaDork
8/29/19 12:38 p.m.

Tell your daughter that pulley is awesome, and if she wants to do one on commission.....

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
8/29/19 12:54 p.m.
Dusterbd13-michael said:

Tell your daughter that pulley is awesome, and if she wants to do one on commission.....

I'm sure she would!  She's a nut for art projects.

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
8/31/19 3:35 a.m.

In reply to TVR Scott :

I have a '66 Ford Cortina Mk1 that a PO modified with a 4.3 Chevy V6, T56 transmission and 8-inch Ford rear end.  I'm considering other engine/transmission options and found this thread while surfing for info on Duratec/Ecoboost engine swaps.  A few questions:

  • Why did you go with the 2.0l Ecoboost rather than the 2.3l?  It seems like a 2.3l from a (RWD) Mustang might have been a little more plug and play.
  • You indicate you considered the 3.7l V6 but went with the 2.0l.  On paper they seem to have similar performance characteristics and weights, but I expect the 2.0l is easier to fit.  Can you elaborate on the 2.0l I4 ca, 3.7l V6 choice?
  • If money wasn't a consideration, would you have used a Tremec TKO transmission or what you have?

For reference, some of the Duratec conversion parts sold by RetroFord UK might be of interest to others considering this conversion (e.g., engine mount kits, etc.):

http://www.retro-ford.co.uk/shop/catalog/duratec

 

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
8/31/19 9:21 a.m.

In reply to patentgeek :

I see that's your first post - welcome to the forum!

I'll do my best to answer your questions.

The 2.0 vs 2.3 decision was based a lot on availability of donor engines.  The 2.0 is super common in CO and they're cheap.  I can buy a low mileage 2.0 for $1000 or less without any trouble at all.  The 2.3 is quite rare and they tend to be more like $2500.  And every crashed Mustang looks like it hit a bridge abutment at 120 mph.  At the time I could get a control pack for either one.  Now the 2.0 control pack has been discontinued, so it would be a harder swap.

Power-wise the two engines end up being sort of close.  The 2.3 revs a little higher where the 2.0 is a low-end torque-monster.

The packaging is similar between the two, as best I could tell.  The 2.0 has fit reasonably well, though I've had to play a few games getting parts to fit down low.  The alternator specifically needed to be moved in about a 1/2".

I really liked the idea of the V6 (and still do!).  Torque is fairly close to 2.0 and the V6 engine is a bit more free-revving.  I test-drove a 2013 Mustang V6 and found it to be a terrific package.  With the V6 I wouldn't be messing with intercooler mounting and piping.  Ultimately I was worried about control on the V6.  Now I feel pretty confident that I could just send the stock ECU out to get the alarm system turned off.  Also availability on this package is more difficult - if I were to go this way I'd find a complete wrecked V6 and remove everything I needed.

If money was no object I would definitely use a TKO!  This is a much more expensive option, but would be a very nice way to go.  It's still on my list for down the road when I have 5-grand burning a hole in my pocket...

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
8/31/19 1:07 p.m.

Thanks!  Glad to have found this site.  I appreciate the time you've put into documenting your work.

The 2.0l Ford control pack drama must have been really annoying.  SCS-Delta still offers a 2.0 stand alone engine management system, and as you pointed out earlier, it simplifies installation somewhat compared to the Ford system.  However, troubleshooting could be more difficult with a non-OEM control system.

The V6 is appealing due to the lack of plumbing (turbo, intercooler, etc.).  I suspect it might be a little tall for my application, so I'd like to find a dimensioned drawing to gauge fitment.  I'll have to read through the 3.7l V6 installation threads (RX7, etc.) you provided for more details.  The V6 seems to have a much smaller installed base, so fewer aftermarket goodies are available, but the stock specs would more than meet my needs.

Zetec engine conversions are popular amongst UK Cortina owners, and there are well engineered conversion kits available for that.  But if I go to the trouble of installing a different engine, I'd prefer to use something that is more state of the art.  I was originally planning to swap in a lighter version (GM Performance Al block + Brodix Al heads) of my current 4.3l V6, but it's a 50 year old design, and I would feel better having a Ford mill under the hood.

 

 

 

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
8/31/19 5:45 p.m.

I read through the 3.7 V6 RX7 and Fox Body Mustang conversion threads and surfed around for info on an off-the-shelf stand alone engine management system.  It sounds like the original system can be re-flashed to eliminate the passive security system, but that still leaves a lot of electrical unknowns to sort through.  The RX7 conversion thread indicates the 3.7 has a width of ~29-inches; a "height" of ~28-inches;  a length of ~24-inches; and that the oil pan measures 2-inches in front and 6-inches in the back.  I'm not sure how much I trust those numbers (i.e., not sure if that includes intake manifold, etc.), but I suspect the overhead cam design is much taller than my current 4.3l pushrod V6, which doesn't have much room to spare under the hood.

Given the above, an Ecoboost 2.0/2.3l seems like the better path for my application.  Plus the Cortina Mk1 was originally a 4-banger, so it seems fitting that I return the car to that configuration.

Scott, I don't want to hijack this thread.  I might PM you directly with some questions.

 

 

      •  
TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
8/31/19 6:29 p.m.

No, you're good.  No hijacking has occurred!  An EcoBoost Cortina would be a sweet little package!

Yeah, the 3.7 had very little info out there.  I found one blurry schematic and tried doing some layout work with that, but it was just a terrible print.  I was basically at the point where I would have had to just source an engine and see how it would fit.

Did a little work today on the car.  I've got a big end of Sept work deadline, so most of my energy has been going to fabricating that project.

Here are some little struts for the intercooler.  I'll weld in the sheet metal tabs when I have the car more disassembled.

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
9/1/19 12:56 a.m.

Apparently the Grassroots Motorsports folks don't want me PM'ing Scott directly or adding my Cortina to my garage (paid subscription required?), so I'll continue with some engine comments/questions here.

Today I spent some time researching (normally aspirated) Duratec engines, which were used in various Mazda and Ford cars/trucks in the recent past.  They are less complex than the Ecoboost engines that evolved from the Duratec, but also less powerful for a given displacement.  Supposedly a 2.5l Duratec can be tuned for > 200hp, and that seems to be a popular conversion for NC Miatas in lieu of adding a turbo or super charger to the stock 2.0l engine.  For my Cortina application, it's arguable a 2.5l Duratec would be a simpler/easier install than a 2.0/2.3l Ecoboost, mostly due to the extra plumbing and space required for the Ecoboost turbo and direct-injection components.

All of the above begs the question of how much power is really needed for a car that is mostly driven on the street?  My Cortina Mk1 GT originally weighed less than 1800lbs and had ~78hp.  A 2.5l Duratec engine easily doubles that, and a 2.3l Ecoboost more than triples it.  Those changes probably come with a ~200lb weight penalty for the more modern engine and drivetrain, but we're still talking a power/weight ratio at least equivalent to that of an AC Cobra 289.

Scott, given your TVR is similar in weight to my Cortina and from around the same era, I'm curious as to how you approached the "how much power do I really need" question?

bluej
bluej UberDork
9/1/19 3:47 a.m.

In reply to patentgeek :

Nothing says you can't also turbo a duratec mill, but I doubt it will have the same throttle response of the DI ecoboosts. I have an '01 B2300 w/ a fusion 2.5 in it, and my wife has a '15 MKC w/ 2.0 EcoBoost, so at some point when I get around to turboing the 2.5, I'll be able to better comment on the comparison, but the engine management side of the duratec + turbo is looking a lot easier.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/1/19 8:58 a.m.

In reply to patentgeek :

Yeah, you're officially in the wrong spot for Duratec info.  My knowledge is not at all deep on those versions.  I've learned a lot about swapping a 2.0 EcoBoost, but don't mistake me for an expert.

As far as hp to weight goes, I will be at around 2000 lb and 250 hp, so about 8 lb per hp.  The untold story is the 360 lb-ft of torque at 3000 rpm.  This motor is lots of fun in stock tune in my - much heavier - Focus ST.  With the premium tune and a much lighter car it should be a real hoot.  And people have been putting high power V8's into the TVR chassis since they were new.  It should handle the power very well.

If you want a turbo four, I think the EcoBoost motors are some of the most advanced available.  They use all the tricks available to modern engine manufacturers, and it's all stock stuff.

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
9/1/19 11:48 a.m.

Agreed a Duratec with a turbo or super charger would likely not match the performance of an Ecoboost 2.0/2.3l.  And from what I’ve seen on the Miata forums, those modifications are very spendy.  If a turbo is desirable for performance reasons, it makes a lot more sense to go with the Ecoboost from the get-go.

Scott, I took a quick look and the internet says the 2.0l Ecoboost is rated at 240-250hp and 270-280 ft*lbs.  How are you boosting torque to 360 ft*lbs?

For reference, the internet shows the following specs for variations of the 2.3l Ecoboost:

  • Mustang (2015 è): 310hp @ 5500rpm, 350 ft*lbs @ 3000rpm
  • Focus RS (2016-2018): 350hp @ 6000rpm, 350 ft*lbs @ 3200rpm
  • Lincoln MKC (2015 è): 285hp @ 5500rpm, 305 ft*lbs @ 2750rpm
  • Explorer (2016 è): 280hp @ 5600rpm, 310 ft*lbs @ 3000rpm

Good-Win Racing offers a 2.5l Duratec to swap into 2.0l Miata NC models.  Their dyno shows ~200hp and ~200ft*lbs using their headers, mid-pipe and muffler.  Obviously the Ecoboost 2.0/2.3l engines are much more powerful.  However, the high pressure direct injection fuel pump mounted at the back of the head interferes with the Miata firewall, whereas the 2.5l Duratec is a plug-and-play swap.  That explains why there aren’t a bunch of Ecoboost powered NC Miatas running around.

In my earlier posts I forgot to mention that I'm converting my Cortina to rack-and-pinion steering, coil-over front suspension and modern disk brakes on all four corners.  So the chassis should be a lot more capable than a stock Cortina Mk1.

I think it’s time to put my Cortina on my lift and take some measurements to get a better idea as to fit.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/1/19 12:19 p.m.

Premium fuel tune on the Control Pack gives this torque curve:

This upgrade is available for the Focus ST from Ford Performance as well.  The only thing you do is install colder spark plug, upload the new tune, and run premium fuel.  It's really hard to beat.  All this on a stock engine retaining a warranty.

SkinnyG
SkinnyG UltraDork
9/1/19 2:35 p.m.

I love the 3D printing, but are you sure it's going to be strong enough?  I'm worried it's going to crack and fail pretty quick.  Are you going to do some sort of fiberglass or something to reinforce it?

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
9/1/19 8:47 p.m.

I spent today taking measurements of my Cortina.  I was also able to extract additional measurements from the 2.3l Ecoboost engine dimension pdf using the Adobe Acrobat Measuring Tool.  It looks like fitment will be tight in a couple of places, so I have a few questions/comments:

The Ecoboost drawing shows 505mm/19.9" from the center of the crank to the top of the direct injection pump, and I measured 19.1" from the center of the crank to the top of the top (cosmetic) engine cover.  Approximately how far does that cover extend above hard parts?  Or in other words, how much clearance could be gained by removing the cover?  The Ecoboost is a very tall engine, and clearance seems to be tight at the front of the engine due to the hood slope.

It looks like the alternator clearance relative to the left frame rail will be tight as well.  Scott, how much closer to the block were you able to move the alternator with the modifications you made to the alternator casting and the custom mounting bracket?  You also mentioned a mini racing alternator - - - is that a generic (small) alternator or something made specifically for the Ecoboost?

The high pressure direct injection fuel pump complicates fitment as it extends ~4.5" from the back of the block.  My Cortina has a bubble extending from the firewall at that location to house the vent motor that pulls air from the vent at the base of the windshield to the heat and defrost vents.  The bubble was modified by the PO to clear the distributor at the back of the Chevy 4.3 V6, so modifying it further to accommodate the direct injection pump isn't a big deal.  Worst case I might lose defrost and heater vent functionality, but that's not a huge deal in California.  This is important because moving the engine as far back as possible increases hood clearance at the front

The engine drawing shows the oil pan steps down from a depth of ~2" in the front section to ~4" in the middle section to ~6" in the back section.  It looks like I'll have sufficient cross-member clearance, but it might be a little tight, so I'm curious as to the availability of another oil pan with more clearance in the front?  I couldn't find anything other than the really expensive Mountune dry sump system.

 

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/2/19 8:22 a.m.
SkinnyG said:

I love the 3D printing, but are you sure it's going to be strong enough?  I'm worried it's going to crack and fail pretty quick.  Are you going to do some sort of fiberglass or something to reinforce it?

All those parts can be considered temporary right now.  I'll be tweaking the design a bit as I get the all the piping sorted out, and will probably reprint them at least once.

Ultimately they'll end up some stronger material.  Might be a carbon-filled printed material, maybe machined aluminum, maybe a molded carbon part based on something printed.  I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

MrJoshua
MrJoshua UltimaDork
9/2/19 9:06 a.m.
TVR Scott said:

Premium fuel tune on the Control Pack gives this torque curve:

This upgrade is available for the Focus ST from Ford Performance as well.  The only thing you do is install colder spark plug, upload the new tune, and run premium fuel.  It's really hard to beat.  All this on a stock engine retaining a warranty.

The new turbo torque curve is finally delivering what the turbo promise has been forever-like having a bigger engine when you need it and not when you don't. I still need to work on wrapping my mind around all that low end torque on a turbo setup.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/2/19 12:13 p.m.

In reply to MrJoshua :

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous.  My ST is all-torque-all-the-time and the TVR will be dialed to 11.  I really hope it doesn't pop the transmission like right away.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/3/19 3:18 p.m.

I'm getting more of the cooling system laid in and figured out:

I figured out a nice way to cut silicone tubes. Place the tube inside a close fitting metal tube, and then trim off square with a sharp razor knife:

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
9/11/19 1:17 a.m.

Scott, looping back on a question I posted earlier:

How much closer to the block were you able to move the alternator with the modifications you made to the alternator casting and the custom mounting bracket?  You also mentioned a mini racing alternator - - - is that a generic (small) alternator or something made specifically for the Ecoboost?

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/11/19 6:48 a.m.

In reply to patentgeek :

I moved the alternator in .40".  This was a combination of milling down the top mounting ear and making a lower profile bottom mount.

There are generic mini race alternators out there.  I didn't want to spend the money to get one.  As far as I know there are none that are specific to the EcoBoost motors.  They're all generic.  That was one reason I avoided it - I'm not clear on how the wiring would change.  It's probably simple, but we all have our strengths!

patentgeek
patentgeek New Reader
9/11/19 11:31 a.m.

In reply to TVR Scott :

Thanks!  I expect the stock alternator is a single wire, as are most of the generic mini race alternators, so electrical should be pretty straightforward.  At least compared to fabricating a mounting setup and figuring out belt tension to accommodate the geometry change.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/11/19 12:44 p.m.
patentgeek said:

In reply to TVR Scott :

Thanks!  I expect the stock alternator is a single wire, as are most of the generic mini race alternators, so electrical should be pretty straightforward.  At least compared to fabricating a mounting setup and figuring out belt tension to accommodate the geometry change.

Well, there is one big wire, yes.  But then there's another plug that has three other small wires.  And those are part of a sub-harness that connects to the main harness and to the B+ fuse.  Hence my confusion.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/17/19 9:03 p.m.

Managed to steal a little time this afternoon to finish the welding on the expansion tank.

Just need to make up one more radiator pipe and the cooling system should be complete.

TVR Scott
TVR Scott HalfDork
9/18/19 7:22 a.m.

This past weekend my daughter and I headed over to the Colorado British Motoring Conclave.  This is the annual British car show here in Denver, and I was hoping to find some stock TVR's to look at.  I used to take my 68 Spitfire, but it's been at least 15 years since I've been.

Didn't find a single TVR, but we saw some cool stuff anyway!

Right off the bat, we were invited to crawl into an Austin Healey race car:

This one was built up back in the 80's for Production class.  Super nice owner.

Pretty old Triumph.  I've never ridden a motorcycle, but I find myself dangerously attracted to these.  Midlife crisis?

Clean and well sorted old Lotus.  I'll bet that would be a hoot at the autocrosses.

Lucy has a Lego James Bond Aston Martin very similar to this.  She was excited to see the real-deal.  The car was beautiful.  Lucy also got several compliments on her t-shirt!

I like the machined parts on this GT-6.  Nice attention to detail!

People were very encouraging of kids to sit in their cars.  This 1925 Rolls Royce was a stand-out for sure!

And the newer Bentley with the required Grey Poupon:

And of course Lucy was a fan of this MGB!  It was actually a very nicely sorted example.

Overall impressions:

We got there a bit late and some people were already leaving.  Probably would have seen more before lunch time.

How can there be so many Austin Healey 3000's in Colorado???

Fewer Spitfires than there used to be.  Getting rare?

The classic Mini has been claimed by the younger generation, and they are doing good things with them.

Lots of new and old Lotuses of all types.

Lots of friendly people, encouraging kids to look, touch, sit in, discuss.  Good to see people enthusiastic about the future generation.

Our Preferred Partners
cN5qGgOBhSH2ijIYfDAJ9j2YFuGkpouSuuAWlknCYGXouObNShp2o6h49v1LjU35