Ford Scorpio Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Ford Scorpio Forum
        (https://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl)
      

        General >> Give/Need advice to/from others >> 2.0 or 2.0?
        
(Message started by: faffi on Jun 6^th, 2010, 8:43pm)

Title: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by faffi on Jun 6^th, 2010, 8:43pm

I haven't found anything on the main site describing the head gasket issues the troubled at least one of the 2-litres initially. I spoke to a shop manager once who said they had made a fortune changing head gaskets on them and he also mentioned how disappointed they had been to find the old engine underneath the new DOHC head.

I don't know if this was a problem with just the 8V or just the 16V or both - anybody know? I suppose, however, that most will have been rectified by know.

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Matt on Jun 6^th, 2010, 8:54pm

may have been just an issue with the 8v'er the 2.0 16's ive stripped have all had a 3 ply metal gasket, same with the 2.3's although the latter tends to crack its head on inlet side between cyls 2 and 3 if the thermostat housing cracks and its ran with the leak. you can fit the 2.0 16v compete top end on a 2.3, makes a very nice engine indeed as the 2.0 engine is the same as the rs2000 so combined you get a 2.3 liter rs lump :D

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Tons_of_fun on Jun 6^th, 2010, 9:14pm

The head gasket issues were only related to the 8 valve type 14 engine as fitted to Granada Scorpios from around 1990 onwards ( why they dropped the pinto engine i'll never know ). The same engine was carried across to the scorpio, but by this time all associated problems had been cured. Not a bad lump really, but not as sweet as the 16 valve (imo).

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by faffi on Jun 6^th, 2010, 10:04pm

on 06/06/10 at 20:54:14, Matt wrote:

you can fit the 2.0 16v compete top end on a 2.3, makes a very nice engine indeed as the 2.0 engine is the same as the rs2000 so combined you get a 2.3 liter rs lump :D

The 2.3 has a top end (at least) developed by Cosworth, but perhaps that's not as cool as having an RS2300 :)

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Highlander on Jun 7^th, 2010, 2:29pm

Wasn't it the balancer shaft that Cosworth developed?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2-3-rs-turbo-engine-i4-n7-/320544373681?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CarsParts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM&hash=item4aa1eefbb1#ht_500wt_1154

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Mike H on Jun 7^th, 2010, 2:51pm

on 06/06/10 at 22:04:15, faffi wrote:

The 2.3 has a top end (at least) developed by Cosworth, but perhaps that's not as cool as having an RS2300 :)

More so, I would've thought http://livinginthepast-audioweb.co.uk/images/misc/unsure.gif

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Matt on Jun 7^th, 2010, 6:42pm

yeah 2.3 has a top end but a crap one, the clown who decided to make the inlet out of plastic needs a slap, if they let go and the engine is run for even a short amount of time it cracks the head. the 2.0 uses an alloy one and the heads look a bit meatier. cams are same as rs2000 ones.

i really want to build another one of the 2.0 and 2.3 hybrids, the one i build in my old estate made it shift, but i want to do it slightly different and use the rs manifolds and ecu :D

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by faffi on Jun 7^th, 2010, 8:01pm

I would guess that the twin balancer shafts in the 2.3 robs both power and willingness to rev. The benefit is smoothness, of course, and also the ability to rev the engine a bit higher before things starts to break, everything else being equal.

I presume the inlet manifold from the 2.0 doesn't fit the 2.3? Anyway, both the 2.0 16V and the 2.3 I have driven/owned were both fairly lame when it came to performance. Top end is (barely) acceptable, but the lack of torque below 4200 rpm, give or take a little, is annoying to say the least. You need to rev them to their redlines to make them go anywhere, and even then it isn't anything you'd ever call even remotely exciting.

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Matt on Jun 7^th, 2010, 8:12pm

Quote:

I presume the inlet manifold from the 2.0 doesn't fit the 2.3?

it does but the whole 2.0 set up is better, uses twin 50mm intake butterflys rather then one large 60mm, heads are stronger as there is more meat on it. as i said before the 2.0 16 head is the same as the rs2000 one

balance shafts can be removed and the drive holes plugged. internals are very strong as everything is meaty inside them, the exhaust manifold on both 2.0 and 2.3 (same manifold) fitted to the scorpios could be better

Title: Re: 2.0 or 2.0?
Post by Mike H on Jun 8^th, 2010, 6:42pm

All sounds very encouraging! Didn't know that

on 06/07/10 at 18:42:34, Matt wrote:

the clown who decided to make the inlet out of plastic needs a slap

That explains a lot! http://livinginthepast-audioweb.co.uk/kbf/surprised.gif Cos I'm like, how the hell do you crack an inlet manifold. An exhaust, more feasible