Embrace The Ew!

[base-1 17]

from post 1...

 

EW10J4 (140PS) 1997cc, 85mm bore and 88mm stroke, 45mm big ends, 212.5mm block height, 33mm inlet and 29mm exhaust, 28.4mm cam followers

 

EW10J4S (180PS) 1997cc, 85mm bore and 88mm stroke, 45mm big ends, 212.5mm block height, 35mm inlet and 31mm exhaust valves, 30mm cam followers, variable cam phasing control

 

Rods on the S are bushed and have different pistons.

 

Found some interesting pics here;

 

http://www.weekendra...id=21578&page=1

 

 

I actually stripped that engine (or its successor) down after a failure 2 or 3 years back. The head was scrap IIRC. Coventry Uni's practical side of things like this is pretty bloody pathetic so I wouldn't pay any attention to anything like specs of this. Dave who runs the workshop is a knowledgeable, experienced guy but he can't do everything himself and the cars all suffer from being worked on by dumb students who just don't know what they're doing. It's a real shame as they have had some good stuff in there.

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

Is the oil pump incorporated into the cover on the left of that pic?

Similar to the Levin BZR by the looks of things.

[welshpug 1,657]

yeah, runs on the nose of the crank directly.

[Paul_13 212 1 Cars]

Eliminates the weak link of the chain I guess

[Tesstuff 222]

 

What ever way you look at it its a genuine 30-40 bhp increase on what a standard 180 engine makes, they rarely make 175bhp from what i have seen.

 

 

No surprise as it isn't a 180bhp engine, it is a 180ps one.

[Matt180 31]

In general, anything below 180 bhp/ps is pretty much taken as equal. Its actually 177.6 bhp. Like i said, i have never heard of 1 make near that in standard form. Most i have seen hit low 170s.

[Sandy 191]

To answer Cameron's question... What do you want to achieve? If you're just looking for a headline power figure on a standard head, then I would expect the 180 head to be what you want, but if you want to make an engine that works better over a wider rpm range and generally feels more responsive and alert, I would expect the 138 head to work better. Moving on to modified heads, the 180 head, much like the Mi16, GTI6 etc, has inlet big ports that are basically going to flow well as they are, but flow alone does not make a good engine and the improvements I've made to the delivery on my XU engines by using modified XU7 heads over the XU10 and RS heads, applies similarly to this engine with 138 vs 180.

You post sounded a bit pointed, like I favoured a modified 138 head over a 180 head, as though is generates more work/money for me, well if that was the case I'd tell everyone to bring me a 180 head that I could basically re-finish, cut the seats and bang out for maximum profit, rather than the week or so of back breaking porting it takes me to turn a 138 head into a race head!

[Cameron 16]

I'm not looking to achieve anything, I'm going Duratec remember! I was just trying to apply the brakes briefly as it looked (to me at least) like people were starting to be sold on the 138bhp engine idea for the wrong reasons. I'm not making a dig at you, I think you may have read between the lines and found something that wasn't meant to be there.

 

What I meant is that I get the impression you'd choose the 138 to work with because the extra meat in the ports would give you the most freedom to work them to the shape you want; and from your point of view (as a race engine builder) that's absolutely fine, you have the necessary skill, knowledge and tools for the job. For the people interested in an EW10 conversion however, I'd imagine the vast majority would be looking for good power straight out the box and good response to one or two bolt-on parts. Now that may not be what the 138 can offer in standard form, so they'd be better off forking out a couple of hundred £££ up-front for the 180.

 

If someone asks you which engine you prefer, you'll tell them honestly that you'd start with a 138; but they may get the impression that that's because it's more cost-effective to tune, only to find out down the line that it isn't true. If it is true, fair enough! But someone had to ask the question!

Edited May 16, 2012 by Cameron

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I think Cameron has made his point very clearly in that post, and yet again, the pivotal point of these 'debates' is the key question: what is the application?

 

Summed up nicely by Sandy and Cameron.

 

Gloves off and back to the technical stuff please.

[welshpug 1,657]

I think the main issue is that they're from car equipped with far more complex vehicle wiring systems (maybe only on the face of it?..)

 

So its very difficult to just drop one in, even if the mounting isn't actually that difficult at all, the wiring seems a barrier, as does the cost of donors, I had a brief look around for donors and found a few dozen low mileage 138's for £150, cheapest 180 was £700 bare.

 

That difference would buy you some bodies, add an ecu to both engine packages, end result would be more power and torque from the 138.

 

 

oh and an epic soundtrack

Edited May 16, 2012 by welshpug

[Cameron 16]

I'm really not sold on the 138 getting more power and torque than a 180 with similar tuning.

 

I think that article someone linked earlier is misleading.. using an ex-BTCC ECU, bespoke carbon fibre airbox and exhaust manifold, all designed and mapped by an ex-BTCC engine tuner is not equivalent to running a set of Jenveys with a Pipercross filter on Omex 600 or Emerald!

 

Matt's 180 engine on ITB's & cams broke the 200bhp mark with ~170lbft, and I'd imagine a properly designed exhaust manifold would free up an extra 5-10bhp and a few more lbft too!

 

You then need to think about the limits of the 138 head.. Longman achieved 190bhp, but could that be the most that it would be able to make? I don't imagine cams would add much more on top tbh.. maybe another 5-10bhp? To go and modify that head to match / beat the 180's flow potential is going to cost more than the difference between buying a 138 and a 180 engine in the first place.

[welshpug 1,657]

using an ex-BTCC ECU, bespoke carbon fibre airbox and exhaust manifold, all designed and mapped by an ex-BTCC engine tuner is not equivalent to running a set of Jenveys with a Pipercross filter on Omex 600 or Emerald!

 

why? Longman used Jenveys, airbox was used as its a road car.

 

Doesn't matter which ecu it is, that wont make one bit of difference to the power.

[Tesstuff 222]

You know that is not true Welshpug.

 

There is a vague idea of what is what just from the examples given.

 

Matt spends money on a 180 and ends up with 200-210.

 

Longman spend money on a 140 and end up with 190.

 

This clearly shows the 180 being a further development of the 140 has less to have done to it. It is already nearer the optimum to start with.

 

My question now would be why the Longman model with extensive work and expense isn't showing the same 200-210 as Matt's.

[welshpug 1,657]

What is not true?

 

My question now would be why the Longman model with extensive work and expense isn't showing the same 200-210 as Matt's.

 

because they did not change the cams.

[Cameron 16]

I'm struggling to see how you expect a head with a lower flow capability to ultimately make the same power.

 

An ECU may not make a huge difference to peak power figure, but for torque spread and therefore driveability it could.. my emphasis was more on the combination of a highly experienced mapper with a very sophisticated control system, your average Dave Walker would struggle to get anywhere close!

 

I'd love to see what other people fitting the 190bhp kit have experienced when using realistic ECU & mappers.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Cameron

[Cameron 16]

There is a vague idea of what is what just from the examples given.

 

Matt spends money on a 180 and ends up with 200-210.

 

Longman spend money on a 140 and end up with 190.

 

Just to elaborate on this too.. Longman got 185bhp from just fitting the throttle bodies, airbox and BTCC ECU. They only got a further 5bhp from fitting a proper tuned exhaust manifold, which suggests to me that you are getting well into the region of diminishing returns with the un-modified head! I get the impression that with non-structural top end mods you'd struggle to break the 200bhp mark.

[kyepan 291]

I'm struggling to see how you expect a head with a lower flow capability to ultimately make the same power.

 

are you not thinking of them both as blanks though as previously mentioned? one(with more meat on it) with a bit more scope than the other (that's already had the throats done by the factory / larger valves). Or am i getting the wrong end of the stick?

[Matt180 31]

What is not true?

 

 

 

because they did not change the cams.

 

As i said in my previous post, fiitting cams made no difference to peak power. It made more torque though.

 

Ill also point out that my TB conversion was a home made inlet, some retro fitted TB's and short trumpets. Not a properly desinged kit put together by a well known engine builder like longmans. With a proper inlet, TB's and correct length trumpets i dare say it would of made more power.

 

Im throwing another spanner in the works here, my engine runs on a Omex 600 which doesn't fully control the vvc. Im sure Sandy can shed some light on this matter but i would have thought a fully controlled vvc engine would make a few extra horses.

 

My mate with a 180 running Omex 710 (fully contolling vvc) made 196bhp with a totally standard engine.

 

Matt

[Cameron 16]

are you not thinking of them both as blanks though as previously mentioned? one(with more meat on it) with a bit more scope than the other (that's already had the throats done by the factory / larger valves). Or am i getting the wrong end of the stick?

 

Umm.. not sure. I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick.

 

I'm trying to make the point that the 138 would require head work to have the same tuning potential as the 180, negating any cost saved by buying the cheaper engine.

[rallysteve 22]

Surely depends on the cost of the head mods though. As welshpug says, £500+ difference in the cost of the donor surely makes a difference?

[kyepan 291]

I'm trying to make the point that the 138 would require head work to have the same tuning potential as the 180, negating any cost saved by buying the cheaper engine.

ah i get it, my comment was cost asside. On your point I think it's a grey question with an even murkier answer. The old headline figures vs, what do you want the head to do best, at what rpm, with what cam profile. Arguably with a more blank die to cut into, there is more scope to shape the performance envelope you want though. Cost vs performance would come down to how much time it takes to make the coarse cuts vs fine work in either head's case. Unless sandy cares to share the details of this I don't think we'll get much further with this debate.

 

or more simply, ask for a ball park price in either case, and what to expect from the performance envelope.

Edited May 16, 2012 by kyepan

[Sandy 191]

Some of the comments seem to assume that the 138 head in standard form is massively inferior to the 180 head. That's not the case; it has smaller valves, but lets not get stuck with that old chestnut that bigger valves are always better! They are still a size well suited to a moderately tuned 2 litre. What holds it back is the very mild cams and heavily compromised inlet and exhaust manifolds. The smaller ports of the 138 head will surely ultimately flow less than the 180, but not badly enough to create a chasm between the two and the higher gas speed I favour, to make the engine more responsive over a wider rpm range. I'm repeating myself, but looking at the replies, I think that point was missed before. There's a difference in chasing the best peak power figure and making a good engine overall, my priority is never peak power.

[welshpug 1,657]

Sounds much like the difference between the three later XU7/10 heads, the 7 being a hell of a lot smaller ont he inlet port but same valves as the R, the R flowing as much as a MI16 head apparently, and the RS going that step further, but with SMALLER inlet valves!

 

As many of Sandy;s engines have proven, big valve sizes isn't everything

[Cameron 16]

Fair points, I'll never be convinced about the 138 offering better value until I see someone buy one then tune it to over 180bhp though. Even then I won't be convinced until someone has spent the same money on a 180 and achieved less.

 

In my mind, you want to get the best starting point you possibly can; the 180 already has enough power for most people's engine conversions - i.e. a replacement for the GTi6 - whereas the 138 requires money to be spent on it right from the start in order for it to prove a worthwhile replacement.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

whereas the 138 requires money to be spent on it right from the start in order for it to prove a worthwhile replacement.

 

Yes, but the 180's more expensive in the first place.

 

I think you're chasing your tail here Cam.

 

Someone who finds, buys and fits a 180 will obviously be happy with the apparent low 170s bhp, straight out of the box. For this and the 138, both scenarios will have the same fitting complications.

 

The 180 person will have spent more initially, and may choose to go no further; or they could buy/fit cams, ITBs, ECU, better exhaust etc. Their engine will then get closer to 210bhp and the spend difference if the 138 person does the same, will remain at the difference between the 138 and 180 bare lumps. The 180 person will then not be able to go much further.

 

The 138 person will likely see the 180 person's starting figure after the same mods, but will then (or at outset) be able to do more as they can tailor the head and valves to be more complimentary to the desired output 'envelope'. So peak power may not be the same or as much, but the overall performance may well be better.

 

So the question is whether the lower cost of the 138, plus the costs of the headwork would deliver an ultimately 'better' powerplant, even if the cost is greater.

 

By 'better' I mean it suits the application; and I would summise from Sandy's experience and respectable successes, that a peak BHP hunt and higher figure, more often than not doesn't deliver the goods, as the more rounded and tractable performance by a bespoke engine (which is afforded by the 138 head) produces better results.

 

So at some point, perhaps Sandy is able to give a ballpark figure for the headwork, and see how that stacks up against the 138-180 engine starting price difference. Let's say it offsets that cost about evenly, then the 138 is going to offer a better platform for future upgrades I'd say, providing you can accept that the peak BHP figure might not tell the whole story.