Retro-Fitting The Vvt Head To Ew10J4

[Jabo 3]

Hey guys

 

I plan on getting my hands on the VVT head from an EW10J4S and fitting it to my J4; as long as it's do-able.

Having not seen a J4S head in the flesh I don't know what else I'm going to need from the engine bay to make the mechanism work.

I'm assuming I'm going to need part of the loom/full loom from the donor car. Is there anything else that will have to come with it?

 

I'm thinking I'll have to go with Megasquirt or similar for management. I could have the Marelli ECU mapped for the new head but apparently it's a real pig to work on.

 

Any recommendations from you kind folk are greatly appreciated

Edited April 22, 2012 by Jabo

[Josh_Quant 27]

I dont think it is

[welshpug 1,657]

Is this still in a 206/307?

 

There are routes to more power from the 138 engine that don't involve taking it apart, namely some throttle bodies and a decent exhaust, inc manifold if you can stretch that little bit extra, that'll get you past 180 bhp and more torque than the 180 engine.

 

I'm not particularly familiar with the VVT hub or how exactly it works, I think sandy may now as he's built a few good EW's recently.

[Jabo 3]

Citroen C5 mate, my road car. Bodies and exhaust would surely cost more 3 or 4 times what the head would cost?

Might even be possible to fit the proper J4S management into the C5 and match it up with a Lexia...

[welshpug 1,657]

In that case you'd do much better in buying a 16v HDI and getting it mapped!

[Jabo 3]

No tractors for me thanks ;-)

 

In that case you'd do much better in buying a 16v HDI and getting it mapped!

[welshpug 1,657]

Don't remember seeing a DW10 (or 12) anywhere near any tractors...

 

tuning a n-a 2.0 engine in a 1600 kilo car seems a bit pointless to me.

[Jabo 3]

Hah, I dunno where you get your figures but the unladen weight of my vehicle is 1385kg.

And, more power is NEVER pointless :-D

 

tuning a n-a 2.0 engine in a 1600 kilo car seems a bit pointless to me.

[welshpug 1,657]

I did not say more power was pointless, just your route to power is not the one that would reap most bhp+LBFT per £.

 

basically, you've bought the wrong car!

 

its like buying a 1.1 205 and tuning that, when you could buy a gti, but they never made a C5 gti...

Edited April 22, 2012 by welshpug

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

Not that I would ever buy a C5, but surely the route to more go in that car (if you must) is to drop the 3.0 V6 in it, I would have thought it could potentially be a more or less bolt in conversion as well...

[Jabo 3]

Nah, the V6 is less than a second faster than the J4. Plus that would result in anciliaries, new engine mount, loom, management, probably gearbox.

If the head can be retro-fitted to the J4 and the J4S's ECU can be mated to the C5 with a Lexia then that would basically be a 44bhp upgrade for a few hundred quid. I don't understand the lack of enthusiasm

 

Not that I would ever buy a C5, but surely the route to more go in that car (if you must) is to drop the 3.0 V6 in it, I would have thought it could potentially be a more or less bolt in conversion as well...

[welshpug 1,657]

how about the ew12 lump then, or a complete 10j4s

[RossD 44]

You might have to get creative with the manifold, I think I'm right that the J4S is quite different to the J4 one - It may not mate up with the standard exhuast.

 

The power in the J4S is all at the top end, so unless you're driving flat out everywhere its not going to feel any different to the J4 imo! Its sounds like a fun project though, if you do it make sure you take some pics and post them up here

[Jabo 3]

I do drive flat out everywhere lol I went from a T16 turbo'd Rover 200 hatchback to this so I miss the power!

 

You might have to get creative with the manifold, I think I'm right that the J4S is quite different to the J4 one - It may not mate up with the standard exhuast.

 

The power in the J4S is all at the top end, so unless you're driving flat out everywhere its not going to feel any different to the J4 imo! Its sounds like a fun project though, if you do it make sure you take some pics and post them up here

[welshpug 1,657]

Begs the question, why the hell did you buy a C5 then?

 

Not exactly renowned for being speed machines

[Jabo 3]

At the time I needed a runabout and it came up at a good price. I've kept it for a year now as it has the space I need and it's very comfy.

 

Begs the question, why the hell did you buy a C5 then?

 

Not exactly renowned for being speed machines

[Tesstuff 222]

Nah, the V6 is less than a second faster than the J4. Plus that would result in anciliaries, new engine mount, loom, management, probably gearbox.

If the head can be retro-fitted to the J4 and the J4S's ECU can be mated to the C5 with a Lexia then that would basically be a 44bhp upgrade for a few hundred quid. I don't understand the lack of enthusiasm

 

Proof you haven't a clue. Less than a second faster to do what?

 

The most cost effective upgrade is a straight swap for the v6, as mentioned. The bits you mention would all come included in the package. Package price a few hundred quid for loads more real world performance.

 

The bhp upgrade would be more than you are mentioning for that other ridiculous idea, but the torque upgrade would be immense, you know torque, that thing that makes you go faster?

 

The lack of enthusiasm as you call it is due to you not yet knowing when to listen to good advice.

[Jabo 3]

Edited, was talking guff.

 

Proof you haven't a clue. Less than a second faster to do what?

 

The most cost effective upgrade is a straight swap for the v6, as mentioned. The bits you mention would all come included in the package. Package price a few hundred quid for loads more real world performance.

 

The bhp upgrade would be more than you are mentioning for that other ridiculous idea, but the torque upgrade would be immense, you know torque, that thing that makes you go faster?

 

The lack of enthusiasm as you call it is due to you not yet knowing when to listen to good advice.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Jabo

[welshpug 1,657]

are you saying the EW10 has 200 lbft?!

[marksorrento205 80]

Where is the pop corn smiley when you need one

[welshpug 1,657]

Edited, was talking guff.

 

ROFLMAO

[Jabo 3]

The 0-60 mph times quoted everywhere seem to point out that the V6's 215lb/ft of torque (vs the EW10J4's 140lb/ft) doesn't make it much faster in the real world.

[welshpug 1,657]

0-60 does not give a particularly accurate guide to "real world" performance and behaviour, it merely shows that it has a set of gear ratios that make the most of the power available over a very short range of speed.

 

a friend used to have a 306 with a V6 in it, this would push a low boost Rotrex supercharged gti6 along with ease, even with a 50 bhp deficit and less torque, the band of torque and area under peak made it quite a bit quicker.

[Jabo 3]

Anyway, we are side tracked here. If you're not going to contribute in such a way as to assist in completing the proposed cylinder head swap then don't bother posting.

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

The 3.0 V6 has TWO more lb/ft of torque,

 

I don't know the figures from the top of my head, but I refuse to believe that is correct. A 2.0 16v 4 cyl that needs the tits revving off it to make its 175bhp, versus a gutsy 3.0 V6 that has loads of pull from low down, only 2 ft lb different? No way. I'd have thought the 2.0 16v will make MAX 150 ft lb and the V6 will easily be around the 200 ft lb mark.