Looking at the engine specs for the new Mondeo, I was surprised to see how apparently punchy the 1.8 TDCi motor is:
--> 1,753cc Lynx TDCI belt-cam diesel: 92kW (125PS) at 3,850 rpm; 320Nm (236 lb ft) torque [340Nm (251lb ft) on transient overboost] at 1,800 rpm.
--> 1,997cc 16v Duratorq TDCI belt-cam diesel: 103kW (140PS) at 4,000 rpm; 320Nm (236 lb ft) torque [340Nm (251lb ft) on transient overboost] at 1,800 rpm.
Is the Lynx a newer motor than the Duratorq, or is it older? There's not much difference in performance or emissions and both can have 6-speed boxes.
Any pointers gratefully received :)
|
The 1.8 "Lynx" is a mechanically older design based on the MkI / II Mondeo 1.8TD unit though since being fitted with a CR injection system firstly in the 115bhp Mk1 Focus in late 2001 it has been renown for its refinement and drivability.
I assume you are looking at the Ford website, I wonder whether the torque figures for the 1.8 are an error, if so the error is repeated on the S-Max and Galaxy spec pages though this is understandable if it is database driven.
The 30-60 in 4th time for the 2.0 S-Max is a fair bit quicker indicating that it is more torquey.
|
Thanks Cheddar, makes sense!
Still mad keen to test the 2.2 twin-turbo motor but looks like we'll have to wait until next year :-/
|
I'm not sure Cheddar actually covered it there.
Looking at the 30-60 times I guess Cheddar looked at the 1.8 being 12.3seconds and the 2.0 being 9.2 seconds. Yes quite a difference.
However, the 12.3seconds for the 1.8 is only with the 5 speed gearbox. If you get a 6 speed box (the 2.0 already has a 6 speeder), the time for the 1.8 is then 10.3seconds for the 1.8, not far behind the 2.0.
Hope that helps
a900ss
PS - I've got a 1.8 TDCi S-Max!
|
From HJ roadtest of the S-Max:
ENGINES/TRANSMISSIONS
1,999cc 16v Duratec chain-cam petrol: 107kW (145PS) at 6,000 rpm; 185Nm (136 lb ft) torque at 4,000 rpm.
2,522cc Duratec belt-cam petrol turbo: 162kW (220PS) at 5,000 rpm; 320Nm (236 lb ft) torque at 1,500 - 4,800 rpm.
1,753cc Duratorq TDCI belt-cam diesel: 74kW (100PS) at 3,850 rpm; 300Nm (221lb ft) torque at 1,800 rpm.
1,753cc Duratorq TDCI belt-cam diesel: 92kW (125PS) at 3,850 rpm; 340Nm (251lb ft) torque at 1,750 rpm.
1,997cc 16v Duratorq TDCI belt-cam diesel: 103kW (140PS) at 4,000 rpm; 340Nm (251lb ft) torque at 1,750 rpm.
Durashift 5-speed manual 2.0i and 1.8 TDCI; Durashift 6-speed manual 2.0 TDCI and optional on 1.8 TDCI. No auto.
2.0 has 340Nm, 1.8 has 340Nm as well. The 100PS engine isn;t fitted to the S-Max.
My guess is that the 2.0 holds the torque for longer than the 1.8.
|
That 1.8 engine is a self-contained showcase for the benefits of common rail. Compared to the same oily bits run by traditional mechanical injection, you get 35 bhp more, and nearly twice as much torque.
Cheers
DP
|
|
The 1.8 is only an 8-valve engine, the 2.0 16-valve. The 16v is more drivable as it allows more and better engine management control at both low and high revs. Same goes for the Focus TDCi engines, the 1.6 and 2.0 are 16-valves and the 1.8 is 8 valve.
|
I've got the 1.8 115ps TDCI in my C-Max. It's an excellent motorway cruising engine, with lots of torque, and very economical on a run.
There are some minus points though. Due to its cast-iron block it's quite heavy, and takes a long while to warm up. It's noisier compared to the PSA developed 1.6 and 2.0 engines, though this is more obvious when idling or at very low revs.
Compared to the 1.6 115ps PSA engine it has 20% more torque in the mid-range. I imagine the 125ps version is even better.
One plus point is that it's extremely reliable compared the newer PSA developed engines, which have been known to suffer from EGR problems (amongst others) in the past, though more recently built engines apparently have most of the problems ironed out.
|
|
|
|
That 1.8 engine is a self-contained showcase for the benefits of common rail. Compared to the same oily bits run by traditional mechanical injection you get 35 bhp more and nearly twice as much torque.
I agree 100%!
>>The 1.8 is only an 8-valve engine>>
And no worse for it.
>>, the 2.0 16-valve. The 16v is more drivable as it allows more and better engine management control at both low and high revs. Same goes for the Focus TDCi engines, the 1.6 and 2.0 are 16-valves and the 1.8 is 8 valve.>>
While the 2.0 16v is the superior engine the 1.8 8v is as refined and fuel efficient as the 1.6 16v as well as being more punchy.
|
While the 2.0 16v is the superior engine the 1.8 8v is as refined and fuel efficient as the 1.6 16v as well as being more punchy.
The 1.6 is at least 10% more fuel efficient and the 1.8 makes a whessing noise the 1.6 doesn't make, otherwise the 1.8 is a fine all round engine.
Has anyone found a different source for the 1.8 and 2.0 PS and torque figures ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure Cheddar actually covered it there. However the 12.3seconds for the 1.8 is only with the 5 speed gearbox. >>
Good point.
|
|
Its very suspicious that the 1.8 and 2.0 have identical torque at identical rpm, you wouldn't expect that. I suspect a 'cut and paste' error here....
|
Well if this source webpage is accurate:
media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?releas...1
and the same engine is in the new Mondeo then the peak torque is 285Nm:
"Duratorq TDCi 1.8-litre diesel engine - This tried and true variation of Ford's Lynx diesel offers 125 PS and a peak torque of 285 Nm. Two proven transmissions will be available, the Durashift MTX75 5-speed manual or the Durashift MMT6 6-speed manual"
|
and the same engine is in the new Mondeo then the peak torque is 285Nm:
That fits with the 210lb/ft quoted elsewhere.
|
|
|
Just looked at the specs section on the Ford website for the Galaxy and S-MAX.
For the 125PS version of the 1.8TDCi it does indeed say max torque is 320Nm (340Nm with overboost) and at the same revs as the 2.0TDCi. I'm surprised if this really is true.
But if this is correct and also because it's 125PS arrives slightly lower down the rev range (3700rpm and not the 4000rpm needed for 140PS in the 2.0TDCi) then I might look in the 1.8TDCi if I go down the new Mondeo route later this year.
Then I remember my current 2.0TDCi is said to have nearer 147PS than the quoted 130PS. And the emissions are the same so it depends on lease costs (company car).
|
Yes the tuning chipping companies typically quote a std Mondeo 130 as around 147bhp, it is also a little more torquey at 330/350 rather than the 320/340 for the Ford / PSA engine, though strangely the website does not quote the two figures (as it used to) for the 2.0 as it does for the 2.2 though mentions transient overboost as a feature.
I reckon the 1.8 is around 285/300 in comparison to the 2.0's 320/340 and that the data quoted is erroneous.
|
Cheddar I would agree that the data looks erroneous. If it was the same 1.8TDCi in the current Mondeo it would be okay/good but not so sure on the new Mondeo/Galaxy/S-MAX in comparison. It will be capable enough but they are big cars. If the 1.8TDCi had lower emissions (as a company car driver) it might be different but CO2 appears to be around the same as the Ford/PSA 2.0TDCi.
I might phone Ford technical out of curiosity tomorrow - a premium rate number but I'll not pay it myself.... planning ahead for my next company vehicle ;-)
|
|
The media.ford site yopu posted quotes 285nm, this is the same as a few sites I looked at, 4Car and 5th Gear IIRC which quoted 210lb/ft, the C-Max 1.8 is quoted as 280/300nm, albeit a 115bhp version of the engine, so 285/perhaps 305nm for the 125bhp version is about right.
|
|
Does anyone know how the transient torque works in these engines and under what conditions is the overboost triggered ?
|
The wastegate is ECU controlled, and under certain full throttle operating conditions, the overboost program allows slightly higher boost pressure (together with additional fuel) for short periods of extra power and torque.
Lancia were doing this on the Delta HF Turbo back in the 80's. These used to have a little green light on the dash which would come on to tell you when it was happening, if the boot up the backside didn't give it away.
|
I interpret it slightly differently:
That the ecu / engine will provide additional torque (not power as such*) when it is really needed i.e underload and depending certain perameters such as throttle position etc, this so it gives a real slug of torque when it is needed and not when it is not needed which improves the drivability, and perceived refinement. A slug of torque at an inapropriate time can can make a car feel unruly, i.e. pulling out of a side turning in first.
*Even if overboost is not called upon at low revs then max boost will still be achieved at higher revs so overboost does not effect max power.
It is really a marketing term to cover the ability of the ECU to provide additional torque when it is required and not when it is not required.
|
*Even if overboost is not called upon at low revs then max boost will still be achieved at higher revs so overboost does not effect max power.
Yes, but if you increase torque at a given RPM (relative to not using overboost), you also increase power at those same revs.
I agree, peak values should be unaffected - I believe the manufacturers only quote a peak torque hike, not a peak power hike.
It is really a marketing term to cover the ability of the ECU to provide additional torque when it is required and not when it is not required.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
