Jon Bradbury
|
| posted on 9/7/05 at 09:03 AM |
|
|
Rattly DOHC
Hi
I've a Ford 2.0L 8 valve DOHC engine in my Robbin' Hood and it is a bit noisy. It's got 100k on the clock but it runs perfectly and
doesn't blow smoke out the exhaust. However there is some rattle in there and I'm a bit concerned it might be the timing chain. I'd
hate it to go whilst I was on a dual carriageway! How can I tell for sure, without dismantling the thing? It's a tight fit in there.
Cheers
JonB
|
|
|
|
|
Petemate
|
| posted on 9/7/05 at 12:48 PM |
|
|
Hi Jon
Worth checking ASAP as, contrary to popular belief, the chains can wear as quick as some modern belts (e,g, my Metro diesel replacement belt is
72000)
The tensioner will probably be well grooved by now also. Many years ago I had a Renault 16GL (1470cc) and at 93000 miles the chain was so worn that
the tensioner (Reynolds type) had almost come out of its sleeve and the chain jumped the sprockets by one tooth. No damage but I replaced it pretty
quick...
Pete
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 9/7/05 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
mmmmmmmmmmm nice job,get a full set of tensoiners as well,they break,the crank sprocket is free wheeling on the crank so dont turn the engine without
the crank bolt being tight
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 9/7/05 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
Chains first suspect but these engines ast least the early ones have a known problem with the little ends at around 100k miles -- although apparently
it usually shows up with a bang at high rpm.
|
|
|
big_wasa
|
| posted on 9/7/05 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
Ive got a full head set for one of those,coming to think of it I can flog you a full engine (still in mot'd car)for less than the price of a new
head set .
So I wouldnt worry if it does go bang ,just get another engine as nobody seems to want them
|
|
|
Jon Bradbury
|
| posted on 10/7/05 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
Yeah, but..
.. I don't want to be stranded in the middle of nowhere with a knackered engine!
Dunno why no one wants this engine. OK it's hard to get tuning bits for it but it is far, far better than a Pinto. More torque, more economical,
lighter, more modern, etc etc.
As you can see, I quite like it.
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 10/7/05 at 01:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Bradbury
Dunno why no one wants this engine. OK it's hard to get tuning bits for it but it is far, far better than a Pinto. More torque, more economical,
lighter, more modern, etc etc.
Actually heavier, more unreliable, harder to tune, more complicated to get up and running, harder to fix and massive.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 10/7/05 at 02:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Bradbury
.. I don't want to be stranded in the middle of nowhere with a knackered engine!
Dunno why no one wants this engine. OK it's hard to get tuning bits for it but it is far, far better than a Pinto. More torque, more economical,
lighter, more modern, etc etc.
As you can see, I quite like it.
It is just modified Pinto block with a screwed up copy of the ancient old unreliable 1962 Lotus Twincam head stuffed on top --- so how can it be
"lighter and more modern".
T
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 10/7/05 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
Totally different block to the Pinto.
|
|
|
big_wasa
|
| posted on 10/7/05 at 05:59 PM |
|
|
AA membership + fresh engine +pay as you go mobile are still cheaper than doing the cam chain on yours
I much prefer the twink to the pinto hence I have one in the sierra but and its a big but .Your looking (when priced before x-mas) at £60 for a head
set with bolts + over £100 chain and sprokets plus chain tensioner and other odds and ends best part of £200..0.
I know you dont need the headset just to do the chain but you would in my opinion do the seals and head gasket whilst doing the job..
|
|
|
big_wasa
|
| posted on 10/7/05 at 06:04 PM |
|
|
Actually heavier, more unreliable, harder to tune, more complicated to get up and running, harder to fix and massive.
Yep
|
|
|
Jon Bradbury
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 08:55 AM |
|
|
OK
I stand corrected.
I still like it though. Can't be arsed swapping it over until I get a different engine (Vx 2.0 Red Top for me).
|
|
|
PaulBuz
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
Dohc
I've said it before & i'll say it again........
A dohc engine with its MT75 g/box is LIGHTER than a pinto/type 9.
The sump has to be cut 'n' shut admittedly, but then so does the pinto.
The torque figure & the rpm at which said torque is generated just plain kills a standard pinto.
If you want a full chat, 165bhp race engine then forget the DOHC, a pinto simply has more parts available .
But the dohc is cheap as chips (or free!!!)
With homebrew manifolds, twin carbs & a megajolt ign. system, i'm hoping for around 140 odd BHP ATF.
 
Rescued attachment Picture 466.jpg
ATB
Paul
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
Not trying to be too clever for my own good, but are you sure on the weights??? The DOHC block is certainly considerably heavier than the Pinto, but
then I suppose the pinto head is cast iron.
The MT75 box is lighter than the type 9 with cast iron bellhousing, but most would opt for the alloy rs2000 bellhousing.
|
|
|
PaulBuz
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
on a set of digital scales my dohc weighs in at 120 kgs without manifolds or alt. but with flywheel. The standard inlet manifold is a quite light
alloy job. (obviously not used on my car)
The dohc is often criticised for being very tall. whilst that is true to some degree (although my car is a standard book chassis)if you look at one of
these engines you will see that almost half of its height is cylinder head....ALLOY cylinder head. To my thinking, this alone must give the car a
better C of G than a pinto would.
ATB
Paul
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 03:36 PM |
|
|
Does it really matter what the weights are. Lets be honest if weight and tunability were the main parameters then no-one would choose a pinto or
DOHC.
I only chose pinto cos it was a proven formula, loads of bits at the right money etc. If you have a DOHC for cheap and not worried about future
upgrades then i see no problem in using it. its only if it fails that you need to worry. 140BHP sounds optrimistic but if you prove this to be the
case i guess other dohc users will be very interested.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
santcliff
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
138.3 @ flywheel from my pinto
http://www.antcliff.co.uk/car/lps-july-05.pdf
Needs re-jetting to sort out the A/F that may give it a little more.
Whats the DOHC showing?
s
One o' cross beams gone owt askew ont' treddle
|
|
|
SteveH
|
| posted on 11/7/05 at 10:32 PM |
|
|
8V DOHC...with a 4-2-1 & a K&N + a tweak of the fuel regulater (All you need is an Allen Key) 140+ have a browse here:-
http://fordsierraclub.co.uk/forum/index.php?
Ohh.... with a turbo & quite a bit of work 230+
|
|
|
