1.9l hybrid
Posted: April 13th, 2005, 2:17 pm
Page 1 of 1
Posted: April 13th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Putting that hybrid engine in our car? Short answer, no. Slightly longer answer, sure...if you want to do a lot of custom modification to make it work.
Posted: April 13th, 2005, 3:21 pm
mainly saying this because what the difference between the bp 1.8l & ford 1.9l
Posted: April 14th, 2005, 2:50 am
totally different engine from the mazda genre dohc series
the CVH is a very historical engine, and has proven itself across the pond over in england.. the 1.6L CVHs, found in the escort rs turbo's, utilize a true hemispherical combustion chamber setup and have seen well over 300hp on their 1.6l mfi setups. here is a thread i started on one of their boards http://www.passionford.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110898
Now, stateside, Ford used the mazda bg chassis and designed the ford escort shell around it, known as the 91-02 escort (91-96 2nd gen and 97-02 escort 3rd gen sedan, 98-current zx2)
Utilising the bg chassis they designed factory mounts for the ford cvh engine to be compatible with the mazda bg chassis
That said, ford detuned the cvh here stateside (91-96) and made the 1.9L SEFI, bored out accordingly and encompassed it with a longer stroke setup, with learnburn combustion chambers shaped more as a heart in a way. They detuned the cvh for economical purposes and utilised it's torquey nature for a great gas milaged car, where it can be seen to have over 40mpg.
In 97 they released an upgraded cvh engine, the 2.0l spi, with larger intake and exhaust valves, possibly more stroke than the 1.9 (that i'm leaning towards, but not that much) and a split runner setup in the intake for each cylinder, one for torque powerband (low rpm) and one for hp powerband (high rpm). They still utilised a lean burn combustion chamber, tho.
With all this said, we have made over 300hp on the 1.9l block mated with the 2.0l spi head, a hybrid. http://www.cardomain.com/id/jeffescortlx He's the guy that put the myth to an end back last fall, and has seen great numbers on an otherwise stock setup, from the 1 7/8" exhaust to the stock ignition timing and fuel maps. 212whp 263ftlbs of torque at only 16psi at 7.6-7.8:1 compression ratio NA mode.
By him doing this, it has shown us a lot about what we have. We are looking into (or as I will down the road
) into completing the combustion chamber to a true hemispherical design and possibly matching the setup with pistons to account for the added volume and utilise the full transfer of power so to speak per cyl.
Once we do this, and the stroked nature of this engine, we will undoubtedly (with tuning and fi) see well into 400ftlbs with upgraded rods and the like.
So for swappability to be there, it's a no brainer; if you have a bg chassis design it will work, with all needed goods transferred.
Basically our community involves bpt swaps and most importantly development of our economy-applied cvh's into mean powermakers, and it is happening. It's a great source of info on both the mazda and ford end of engines.
Btw the zetec was designed from the cvh, as well as ford taking info obtained from the bp and applying it to a dohc setup.
Anything that may seem unclear as I have outlined above please give me an email or PM or reply here and I will gladly go into it in more depth.
the CVH is a very historical engine, and has proven itself across the pond over in england.. the 1.6L CVHs, found in the escort rs turbo's, utilize a true hemispherical combustion chamber setup and have seen well over 300hp on their 1.6l mfi setups. here is a thread i started on one of their boards http://www.passionford.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110898
Now, stateside, Ford used the mazda bg chassis and designed the ford escort shell around it, known as the 91-02 escort (91-96 2nd gen and 97-02 escort 3rd gen sedan, 98-current zx2)
Utilising the bg chassis they designed factory mounts for the ford cvh engine to be compatible with the mazda bg chassis
That said, ford detuned the cvh here stateside (91-96) and made the 1.9L SEFI, bored out accordingly and encompassed it with a longer stroke setup, with learnburn combustion chambers shaped more as a heart in a way. They detuned the cvh for economical purposes and utilised it's torquey nature for a great gas milaged car, where it can be seen to have over 40mpg.
In 97 they released an upgraded cvh engine, the 2.0l spi, with larger intake and exhaust valves, possibly more stroke than the 1.9 (that i'm leaning towards, but not that much) and a split runner setup in the intake for each cylinder, one for torque powerband (low rpm) and one for hp powerband (high rpm). They still utilised a lean burn combustion chamber, tho.
With all this said, we have made over 300hp on the 1.9l block mated with the 2.0l spi head, a hybrid. http://www.cardomain.com/id/jeffescortlx He's the guy that put the myth to an end back last fall, and has seen great numbers on an otherwise stock setup, from the 1 7/8" exhaust to the stock ignition timing and fuel maps. 212whp 263ftlbs of torque at only 16psi at 7.6-7.8:1 compression ratio NA mode.
By him doing this, it has shown us a lot about what we have. We are looking into (or as I will down the road
) into completing the combustion chamber to a true hemispherical design and possibly matching the setup with pistons to account for the added volume and utilise the full transfer of power so to speak per cyl.Once we do this, and the stroked nature of this engine, we will undoubtedly (with tuning and fi) see well into 400ftlbs with upgraded rods and the like.
So for swappability to be there, it's a no brainer; if you have a bg chassis design it will work, with all needed goods transferred.
Basically our community involves bpt swaps and most importantly development of our economy-applied cvh's into mean powermakers, and it is happening. It's a great source of info on both the mazda and ford end of engines.
Btw the zetec was designed from the cvh, as well as ford taking info obtained from the bp and applying it to a dohc setup.
Anything that may seem unclear as I have outlined above please give me an email or PM or reply here and I will gladly go into it in more depth.
Posted: April 14th, 2005, 3:06 am
Now THAT is an answer! 
Posted: April 15th, 2005, 9:50 am
basicly the engine would fit but would take alot of custom work, thats what i figured
I figured it would fit but i have no where near thebudget to get it working
I figured it would fit but i have no where near thebudget to get it working
Posted: April 17th, 2005, 11:32 am
No it would be that much work. It is pretty a straight swap as long as you can get your hands on complete '91-'94 Escort/ Tracer/ Laser front clip. This is because the MX-3 and Escort are built on the BG 323 chassis. Like with swapping in the 2.0l Zetec mechanically it dropped in where you run into trouble is mating the Ford engine harness to the Mazda under dash harness. Even the EGT with the Mazda engine has mostly Ford harness under the dash.
Posted: April 19th, 2005, 12:43 pm
there is a difference between chassis and unibody.Yoda wrote:No it would be that much work. It is pretty a straight swap as long as you can get your hands on complete '91-'94 Escort/ Tracer/ Laser front clip. This is because the MX-3 and Escort are built on the BG 323 chassis. Like with swapping in the 2.0l Zetec mechanically it dropped in where you run into trouble is mating the Ford engine harness to the Mazda under dash harness. Even the EGT with the Mazda engine has mostly Ford harness under the dash.
the MX3 is desginated the EC chassis and there are differences (with the swaybars & entire rear suspension & longer control arms in the front for example).
The MX-3's unibody is essentially teh same as the Escort/Protege/323 w/a slightly different wheelbase. This is the reason the stuff bolts in. That & the fact the Escort's 1.9 used an F-series mazda gearbox
Posted: April 19th, 2005, 10:52 pm
Gro Harlem wrote:there is a difference between chassis and unibody.Yoda wrote:No it would be that much work. It is pretty a straight swap as long as you can get your hands on complete '91-'94 Escort/ Tracer/ Laser front clip. This is because the MX-3 and Escort are built on the BG 323 chassis. Like with swapping in the 2.0l Zetec mechanically it dropped in where you run into trouble is mating the Ford engine harness to the Mazda under dash harness. Even the EGT with the Mazda engine has mostly Ford harness under the dash.
the MX3 is desginated the EC chassis and there are differences (with the swaybars & entire rear suspension & longer control arms in the front for example).
The MX-3's unibody is essentially teh same as the Escort/Protege/323 w/a slightly different wheelbase. This is the reason the stuff bolts in. That & the fact the Escort's 1.9 used an F-series mazda gearbox
Good to see that you agree the MX-3 is built on the BG 323 chassis. The Mazda CA & EC chassis and the Ford KF chassis are all stretched version of the basis BG 323 chassis no matter how you word it. Even the 4dr is a stretched version of the basic 3dr BG chassis for that matter. If you have ever stripped down a 323 H/B and a MX-3 you will find the mounting points for 323 only equipment welded to the basic unibody. As far as the suspension goes that depends a lot on the market the car was intended for. I don't know about you but I have been interchanging MX-3 and 323 suspension parts isn't the mid '90's, along with guys like Dave Lauzier either because they were easier to find used, the manufacture hadn't cross reference the existing 323 p/n# yet or in the case of Dave the parts were lighter or not power assisted. The 323H/B with the BP-DE as found in Europe and in small numbers ('90-91) in Canada had the same anti-roll bars with the solid end-links as the MX-3 would eventually have when it was release on the market in late '91. In a lot of the old European catalogs this version was referred to as the BG1 to differentate the 1.8L chassis. I have a set of MX-3 and 323 control arms over at the shop the only way I can tell the difference is that the set for the 323 don't have the tab for the end-link. The difference in the track width is actually the spindle casting. Even these are a carry over from the 323F. I don't know about the rear cross member either. The aftermarket replacement with lateral links with the molded urethane bushing intended for the 323/Protégé/Escort bolted in without changing the track width. And I've had a AWD rear cross member assy bolted onto a EC chassis with no problems at all. The only real difference I found is the MX-3 has boxed trailing arms like the CA chassis where the 323/Protégé trailing arms are a "C" channel. If you really start looking into the various parts that make up the MX-3 mechanically almost every P/N# pre-dates the release of the EC platform. Over the past 12 years I have poked and prodded worked on probably 120 to 130 MX-3 (AZ-3 and Presso) and well as a large number of (BG/ CA) 323 in 4 different countries. (The good thing about travelling on business.) Just in the Canada and the US market cars I have spotted at least 3 significant variations of the MX-3 chassis. Even in Mazda's system they list a break point some were toward the end of '93 and after 'late '94-'95 you start to see some (BH and CB) 323 looking parts. When you are basing your opinion primarily on your own car and that of a few friends that live in the same area I can see how you can form an opinion where this in the way it is. Looking over a larger sample of cars and related models you start to see the bigger picture that you don't see under the body panels. Mazda is especially bad for this due to there isn't one dedicated assy line for a single model type so at the time you car was build the car in front on the line was a MPV and the car after is a 323h/b followed by a MX-5 where my car could have been following a GTR and have a Demio after it.