Sorry to steer this thread off course, it avoids starting a new one!
As I understand it the 1.3 OHV Endura-E was established in 1959(ish) as the Kent engine and has since morphed into numerous different engines, such as the Valencia, HCS and CVH. Does anyone know how different these engines are? I thought that the CVH had a hemi-spherical chamber, with 8 valves 'opposed' and a central overhead camshaft? If this is the case, how closely related to the OHV engine can it be? Or is the only commonly shared component the engine block?
If the Endura-E were the same basic design as the Kent crossflow, I would have expected the bore measurements for engines of a similar capacity to be not too different; from what I understand they are quite different. I understand this can be by altering the stroke of the engine; say for example by using a smaller bore and a longer stroke, but I would have expected the bore to have been consistently near the maximum safe value for the engine, and using different crankshafts and therefore a different stroke to alter capacity, as this is easier to accomplish in a manufacturing sense.
If anyone can shed any light on this for me it would be much appreciated; constant referrals to apparently related engines that are in fact, in my eyes at least quite different, is intruiging.
And just in case anyone cares to explain, what is different with regard the 'High compression swirl' engine, other than a presumably high compression ratio?!?!
Thanks in advance
|
The original CVH was 1.3 and 1.6 in the Escort and Orion, a 1.4 was introduced later as well as a 1.8 mounted longtitudinally in the Sierra. The 1983 ish 1.6 CVH RS 1600 engine (solid lifters as opposed to hydraulic) was a very sweet revver, also the RS Turbo could be tuned to well over 200bhp.
|
To be a tad pedantic. The original CVH was 1.1 (not in UK), 1.3 & 1.6. In 1986 they became Lean burn (different pistons & chamber shape) and a 1.4 was introduced thee can all run unleaded. SO the range was 1.1 (not UK), 1.3, 1.4 & 1.6.
The 1.8 is an American derived CVH used in the US Escort and eventually in the Euro Sierra and has very little in common with the other CVHs lots of bits are not interchangable and it has a roller cam etc.
The Kent Crossflow engine originated in 1967 in the Mk2 Cortina and the Valencia is a derived version with 3 main bearings an lots of other differences. The earlier 997 & 1200 engine isn't a Kent engine.
Jim
|
|
|
|
As I understand it the 1.3 OHV Endura-E was established in 1959(ish) as the Kent engine and has since morphed into numerous different engines, such as the Valencia, HCS and CVH.
OHV did not morph into the CVH. OHV (Kent) morphed into exactly the same engine layout approximately 3 times (once in early eighties, then HCS in 1989, then Endura and Endura-E in the 90's. Although looking similar, each different variation was slightly different from it's predecessor in terms of part numbers. The most noticable difference was the block. This lost first its distributor in 1989 then its fuel pump when CFi was introduced in 1992.
Does anyone know how different these engines are? I thought that the CVH had a hemi-spherical chamber, with 8 valves 'opposed' and a central overhead camshaft? If this is the case, how closely related to the OHV engine can it be? Or is the only commonly shared component the engine block?
There are NO shared components apart from maybe ignition coils. The CVH (Compound Valve angle, Hemispherical combustion chamber) has a cam-belt, hydraulic tappets. Blcck is completely different to. (I could be pedantic and say the CVH is an OHV engine, but that'll just confuse everyone!).
If the Endura-E were the same basic design as the Kent crossflow, I would have expected the bore measurements for engines of a similar capacity to be not too different; from what I understand they are quite different. I understand this can be by altering the stroke of the engine; say for example by using a smaller bore and a longer stroke, but I would have expected the bore to have been consistently near the maximum safe value for the engine, and using different crankshafts and therefore a different stroke to alter capacity, as this is easier to accomplish in a manufacturing sense.
The original Kent engine was designed with one block. The capacity came from using different camshafts with different strokes (and heads of course).
And just in case anyone cares to explain, what is different with regard the 'High compression swirl' engine, other than a presumably high compression ratio?!?!
Partly a marketing gimmick I think. Swirl gives a leaner burn and this is what Ford needed in the late 80's with emissions testing on new cars. High compression for the same reason.
|
Thanks for this information.
I didn't realise it was quite so complicated; from what I have read, it would seem that the evolution of this engine has been oversimplified, and that instead of ever being comprehensively re-worked, it has instead been very gradually modified throughout it's life, with the addition of new cylinder heads etc. when the need arose.
With regard the 'original' Kent engine having only one block, does anyone know how much it was changed before it ultimately became the Endura-E? You mention this was the most significant difference, this being the case the link between the OHV Kent and the Endura-E must be fairly limited, with just the basic architecture being the same? Such as Oil galleries? Would you expect the bore centres of the Kent and Endura-E to be the same, or are they so distantly related that they have been designed differently? As I said, I recall being surprised by how different the bores were between the older Crossflow and todays Endura-E, although without personal experience it is possible these measurements are incorrect.
From HJ's report he mentions problems regarding Oil emulsification and blocking of oil galleries with regard the Endura-E, is this an inherent design fault or is it a result of the way the car is typically used (i.e. short runs etc.)?
Finally, you mention Endura and Endura-E in the 1990's; I had no idea there were different renditions of this engine, have you any information about how different these engines were?
Thanks in advance
Ben
|
I've been running a Fiesta 1.4CVH since new in 1992. A few months later that model was fitted with a cat and the engine changed to 1.4 CFI (fuel injected). My 1.4 has been completely reliable and doesnt suffer the mayonaise which is so prevalent in the 1.1 HCS engine. (I've also got one of those as well.) I do an oil change generally every 6-8 months which is about 2500 miles.
The 'swirl' referred to above is a shaped combustion chamber designed to promote better scavenging.
|
|
|
The block design dated from 1959, before they put a crossflow head on it. It was then (1959) the 105E engine. Look for simularities at www.smallfordspares.co.uk/plate.phtml?PlateID=123
I'm not sure when the crossflow head was added.
I think as regards to bore centres etc being the same, I think Ford have made enough engines over the years for the engines to look the same but be different enough in every carnation for certain bits not to fit from one to the other. Oil galleries will most likely to have been changed as engineering flow analysis improved, but only in side and shape, they've probably never been re-routed.
I never knew about any blocked galleries. I'm not completely sure there was an Endura before the Endura-E, again this is just something I've heard. But I would have thought there would have been some changes between 1995/6 and 2002 when the engine was discontinued. Probably just a redesign of the electrics.
|
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=28...2
was not really discountinued just modified and name changed again
|
|
|
|
|
mfarrow
As you say the Kent and CVH were completely diferent, but there were many versions of the kent engine. Originally there was the 997 3 bearing crank 105E Anglia engine, plus later 1200 (Anglia and Cortina) units, plus a 1340 (early Classic) 3 bearing units. All had a common bore size and capacity changes were achieved by using a different crankshaft stroke. Big end failure on these bigger engines at <20k miles was common. The 1500 Cortina was a 5 bearing engine. All had inlet and exhaust on the same side of the head.
The Mk2 Cortina used only 5 bearing engines in initially 1300 and 1500 capacity, soon replaced by the 1300 and 1600 'crossflow' units. These incorporated bowl in piston combustion chanbers, as opposed to the flat top piston design of the previous engines.
An 1100 5 bearing crossflow unit joined the range with the 1987 Escort.
However, the Fiesta 950 and 1100 used the Valencia Engine, which went back to a three bearing crank. Visually similar to the Kent, this engine was actually very different. Early 1300 push rod Fiestas used a 5 bearing unit, more like the Mk1 escort GT engine, even down to the twin choke Weber carb.
Regards
JS
|
|
|
|
|
|
