Tuning Ford TDCi Engines

It could be - it would depend on gearing. But for most people most of the time, the turbodiesel would be quicker.

Modern small capacity, high tech diesels are no heavier than their petrol counterparts. Some will rev to 5,000 rpm, but produce something like 90% of full acceleration from 2,000 rpm in any gear you pick. So 90% of full acceleration from 2,000 rpm to, for arguments sake, 4,000 rpm, why is this any worse than something of a similar capacity, similar peak power output, but between 4,000 rpm and 6,000 rpm?

The diesel's gearing will almost certainly make this acceleration easier to use compared to the petrol engine.

Reply to
DervMan
Loading thread data ...

But we already know the Duratec is a heap of old scrap iron.

Reply to
SteveH

But oil burning engines usually are.

Reply to
SteveH

I dunno, the Metro one I have is no polystyrene part!

Jim

Reply to
Jim

Turbos aren't heavy...

Reply to
Lordy

No, it's not an Italian engine, c'mon sharpen up.

Reply to
DervMan

ummmm I think we have had this discussion before.....

Reply to
Theo

Several times, heh!

Reply to
DervMan

does that mean it won't require so many rebuilds?

Reply to
jeremy

If they both put out 68bhp, then the top speed will be the same, assuming the same top gear and weight.

Reply to
jeremy

You mean on the assumption that both engines were able to produce 68 bhp at maximum speed?

If one engine produces peak power at a higher engine speed than t'other, it would need shorter gearing.

Reply to
DervMan

I think you'll find that the average Ford lump would require rebuilding before an Italian lump.....

Reply to
SteveH

You truly genuinely believe this, don't you?

Reply to
DervMan

I somehow doubt many Ford engines would be as sweet as the 8v TSpark engines in my Alfas at 120-odd thousand miles.

I'd also point to the absolte gem of a Lampredi twin-cam with 130k miles on it in my ex-Fiat Spider. And that was getting on for 30 years old. How many Ford engines at 30 years and 130k miles would still have been running as well as the day they left the factory at that age and mileage?

See, what people don't understand is that the Italians are _very_ good at building the oily bits - they only had a bad reputation for bodywork (which has been a non-issue since about 1990 when they started to galvanise everything) and slightly iffy electrics.

Reply to
SteveH

Odd that the 1.8 TD was sweeter at 108K than it was at 70K than it was at

30K.

Kermit's better at 45K than he was at 10K.

A lot of them; just the other day I was looking at a couple of mark two Escorts. One had just 30,000 miles on it, the other had something like

160,000 miles... both in fine condition. Not perfect - both had little oil leaks, and the 160K engine looked like it had never been cleaned, but they went well enough.

They make great engines, perhaps, but they also need careful looking after. How many Fiat engines will be in anywhere near good running if they're driven for 30,000 miles without a service of any description? Yet many Fords have just this "maintenance," and I don't mean modern ones at that.

And my Cinquecento had rust coming through the middle of the tailgate!

Reply to
DervMan

I had an escort 1.6 tdi beside me at the lights tonight. It was obvious he wanted a race!!! Just sitting there, with a few revs on, >just< keeping the turbo spinning. He dropped the clutch just right, only causing a slight hint of wheelspin (them escorts don't half "rise" at the front on a fast takeoff).

..... And my old long stroking low geared eta still outdragged it!!!

(Look theo ... no citroen ax mentioned).

Reply to
SDD

Ooooh, I like those.

If I had the space for a big old barge, I'd definitely have to add one to my collection.

Reply to
SteveH

My 150k mile XR4x4 was as sweet as a very sweet thing. Had little drive to the front but other than that was fine. Original clutch and gearbox as well.

Driven some 120k+ mondeos and they are still good.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

"SteveH" also wrote earlier in thread...

Mental note, alfa engines are heavy as well as s**te. :-p

Reply to
Andrew Jewitt

Yes it does. It's old and high mileage. I wouldn't try doing what I'm doing in a Cavalier or Mondeo. Mind, a Cavalier would have rusted away by now. And how many L-plated Mondeos are left out there?

And lets not forget the 14 year old 75, either. That just keeps running

- no mean feat for a car designed in the late 60s.

At the time, the 2 cars I had to pick from were an ageing 33 and the equally ageing 75. The Nissan came along cheaply, and was ideal for commuting from Milton Keynes to South Wales on the M1 / M42 / M5 / M50 a few times a week. Once I'd moved down here and was commuting on A roads, I found that an Alfa was better suited as it kept me entertained.

It's not a _problem_ it's _designed_ to use oil. Failures are entirely due to lack of driver education. You don't buy a specialist Italian Sports Saloon and treat it like a Mondeo.

Well..... back in the late 80s, 150bhp from 2lt of 8v engine was something very special. Even Honda struggled to match that specific output from their VTEC lumps. So we're talking about something fairly specialist and exotic, especially for it's time. You can't compare an engine designed back in the 60s with a modern 16v lump designed in the last few years.

It's a testament to Italian engineering that Alfa could produce something so special that was so reliable.

There are today, yes. But this is close on 40 years on from when Alfa first penned the all alloy twincam.

It's very much about how it's produced - technology has moved on a long way, so it's quite amazing that Alfa were so far ahead of the pack.

Reply to
SteveH

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.