Focus Fanatics Forum banner

Duratec manifold spotters guide.

1 reading
43K views 54 replies 20 participants last post by  Red_Sonja  
#1 · (Edited)
OK, during my engine build for 2010 I needed to retain a stock Intake Manifold for class rules, so I ended up looking at alot of stock IM's used on various DURATEC engines and this is what I have learned.

First off, all of the DURATEC Manifolds for FWD vehicles are black plastic. Only the Ranger uses an aluminum manifold.

Second, there are two types intake manifold control systems used on the DURATEC Engine.

The "Tumble Flap" device is a simple butterfly valve located in the manifold runners within 1/2" of where it mates to the cylinder head. This is mainly an emissions device to improve combustion in the engine by creating a "tumble" motion in the intake airstream as the air enters the cylinders.

The "Runner Control" device is another butterfly valve buried deep in the center of the manifold. This is an engine performance tuning device that allows the ECM to switch between the long or short path through the manifold. The longer path is used at lower RPM's to enhance low end torque, the short path is used at higher RPM's to improve peak power.

Details:

I have personally handled 3 types of DURATEC Manifolds:
2005 D20 Focus
2004 D23 Focus
2006 D23 Escape

These 3 manifolds use a unique combination of the 2 control devices as follows:

The D20 Manifold only uses the Tumble Flaps
Both D23 manifolds use the Runner Control flap.
Only the D23 Focus Manifold uses both the Tumble Flaps and Runner Controls.

Pics:
D20, note how narrow it is in the middle. (no Runner Controls)
Image


D20, this only has the Tumble Flaps, there is a single vac actuator and solenoid located under the TB.
Image


D23, wider in the middle to make room for the Runner Controls
Image


D23, may have only Runner Control or could have Tumble Flaps also.
Image


Image


These are shots of where the Tumble Flaps would be. The first pic is after existing Tumble Flaps were deleted, leaving the holes in the runner where the shaft would normally pass through.
Image


This one is from a D23 Escape which was not mfg with tumble flaps so the runners have no holes in them.
Image


Final techincal notes. Since I was doing lots of computer simulations for my engine build, I needed to get accurate runner dimensions/lengths.

This is what I came up with.

The ports are ovals and have a width of 1.9" and height of 1.3". This yields a CSA of just over 2 square inches. This appears to be the same for all 3 manifolds.

The D20 has a single intake runner path approx 14" long.

The D23 with the Runner Control flap has 2 paths through the manifold with the long path being approx 17" long, and the short path being approx 11" long.

All runner lengths were calculated from the parting face where the manifold meets the head to the point where the individual runner meets the common plenum chamber in the manifold, measured through the approximate center of the runner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRLNKN and Fredness
#4 ·
warneej has the Cossie IM, it's actually his donated stock take-off manifold that I have bolted on my race motor.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Cossie IM has very short runners, not more than 5-6" inches long.
 
#8 · (Edited)
I had to use the stock D23 manifold for the class rules, since it's technically an engine swap the manifold and TB from the donor engine was a required.

As it turns out, if I had a choice between the D20 and D23 manifolds, I would have picked the D23 anyway. Having the different runner lengths means I can get a bit more low end torque from the longer runner, and keep it pulling to about 7250 on the short runner before power starts to drop off significantly.

Since I don't have a racing close ratio gearset in the trans yet, having this extra flexibility in the torque/power bands is a big plus for road racing.

In my case, according to the simulation, having the 11" short runner gets my peak BHP close to 250. (we'll have to see what the dyno says) which is about 20BHP more than what I could hit on the 14" or 17" runners.
Image
 
#14 ·
If we need Cossie Manifold measurements I'm sure I could come up with some. Yes the runners are very short and have trumpet style velocity stacks on the ends. There is also a large rounded triangular (point down) plenum as the main chamber. We'll work some science and come up with some numbers..
 
#19 ·
I just want the best of both worlds, with the standard gear ratios in the MTX75, I need as much low end torque as possible, so flipping from long to short runners @ about 5500 RPM works for me. If I run on the short runners only, I will probably loose about 15ftlbs TQ in near 3500-4000 RPM range, and about 7HP.

I think that's certainly worth keeping the runner control operational, the "tumble flaps" pictured above have been removed.....
 
#20 ·
Awesome write-up. I was always curious about those those intake runners. The tumble flaps that you talk about for better combustion, for emmissions, Would that be for a little more torque on a street car? I see you can do that to a mustang motor, but I know thats a V/8 car. thanks again.
 
#24 ·
I have updated my engine build thread, working on a custom header and need to get a billet crank too.

I got the runner control flaps to work by modifying the strategy for the tumble flaps. Since I deleted the tumble flaps that worked OK.

If you end up with larger cams, the longer runner does not seem to improve low end torque like I expected. My dyno session showed the long runners did not make any more power down low, but I have some radical cams. I still left the system operational, but I think its just about useless and would run OK on the short runners alone, but that will ultimately depend on what cams you select etc.
 
#26 ·
well i am now getting more into my build. so i am looking for the idea intake. i like all the info you have posted. i was about to ask a friend that makes intakes & headers for turbo cars to build me a intake. was going to try a idea i have. make all runners 11 or 12 inches. jst trying to get a good idea on how to make it. or may jst get the escape 2.3 intake & go with it.
 
#28 ·
Ill tell you how i did mine maybe his idea is better. When you get the intake off you will see a sleeve that holds the flaps this sleve has little holes that the flaps pivot in. I removed the flap then the flashing that prevents the flap from opening to far and closing to far. I used a dremel and just ground them down flat then polished them like the rest of the intake.

The holes the rod runs threw is larger then the hole on the sleeve. I found some vacuum caps made of rubber that i squished down and forced them into all the holes. Then i put the sleeve back in. Once you mount the intake back on the ports on the head hold the sleeves in tight.

Since the hols for the flap rod is larger the sleeve also helps keep the rubber caps in place.

I built one and ran it for about a year but i made a mistake when i did mine. Insted of just capping the line from the bottom of the block (block breather PCV) i plugged the hole and then hooked a hose from the bottom of the block down tot he ground. I hated it, my car always smelt like oil. The fumes would always creep up into the cab and fogged my window.

Im planning to build another one but this time im not going to vent the case outside but insted run it back threw like it is stock.

The problem i had with mine besides the smell was the lack of bottom end power. The top end screamed with this mod it was the best mod ive done to the car so far, the most noticable. I didnt spend enough time with Tom smoothing out the bottom. Once the flaps are gone it seems to run really rich and robs the bottom end alot. It stumbles and fumbles off the line but once past about 3K it is a BIG improvement.
 
#30 ·
Right and below that the flaps close down causing the air velocity to increase helping the fuel mix better.

So when mine was removed it ran rich cruising on the highway and around town and it hesitated and was a dog from a start till i got up to 3K

Since my car is an auto thats where it seems to shift so it was always a dog unless i shifted it manually and let the RPMs ramp up.
 
#31 ·
Tx - it helps others to hear from someone who's done it!

Seems to me that some got the impression just removing the flaps would help with low speed power & economy.

Feedback that it doesn't helps avoid the mistake of doing it for that reason.
 
#33 ·
I thought the larger engine has a different intake that changes runner lengths? Read through more posts on this intake to find more info about it. The cheaper 2.0 engine they try to make up for the single length intake with the flaps. The 23 intake is a way better design but its a more advanced system and im sure more cost.

One length helps the power in lower RPMs and the other in the upper RPMs.

Or maybe they remapped the way the fuel is delivered?

I think Tom could of fixed my issue in the lower RPMs but i had a second issue deleting the PCV valve caused an oil smell inside my cabin and i couldnt stand it so i ditched everything and went back to the stock one.

If i could of fixed the oil smell in the car i may have stuck with the flapless intake but i was worried it wasnt good for my health so i removed it.
 
#35 ·
When mine were intermittently malfunctioning (bad vacuum hose) the effect I noticed was a definite loss of power at very low throttle openings.

Red_Sonja - to relate this to your Escape question, I might guess that when used in that larger vehicle the engine isn't operating in that same range often (if at all). Combine a larger vehicle with an automatic transmission & I doubt it spends much time in the low rpm range I often use with a manual trans in a Focus. Automatic would let it rev higher to get similar acceleration in the heavier vehicle.
 
#36 ·
My car ran very bad since the day i got it shifting way early ad as often as it could i hated it. Sure it helped fuel economy but it had little to no power ever.

Finally Tom tweaked the transmission and now its better then its ever been. The weird part is my fuel economy got better. All the mods i did i think change the power curve of my engine and the shift points of the stock transmission reduced my economy and power. Once Tom moved the shift points now it seems to be shifting more in its power curve and it helped everything.
 
#42 ·
One main reason I didn't go w/ that i/m. The 23 runs a dual runner length i/m simliar to the svt, but is vacuum operated. The oem works great for me. It doesn't have the cool factor, but works awesome. Do anything install a set of cams & a fwerks header.
 
#41 ·
Recent thread on the knockoff version had one poster who actually installed it satisfied with lower rpm response. He claimed no noticeable loss at lower rpm.

I'm sure the gains are at the high end, and you would loose the tumble flap advantage at low throttle openings.

With a D23, you're not in the '08-'11 group with electronic TB and you can see for yourself how soon the tumble flaps open up. Just open the hood & rev it by hand to see them open. It doesn't take a lot of throttle.

D23 also has the runner length change like the SVT's, you can see that change at higher RPM.

Between the two active changes, the stock D23 manifold is the best at operating over a wide range.
 
#44 ·
Yep, that would be me. [:)] Car feels great with the cosi-knockoff and screams in the mid to upper ranges without noticeable loses in low end. The stock cams are surprisingly good with this setup although I am getting stage 2's and upgraded valve-springs/retainers to really take advantage of this setup in the future. Driveability is highly improved as well; it's really all in the tuning and Tom did a great job with that. Now I am running it with a custom aluminium spectre SRI that has a 3" maf tube and 3" piping all the way with a big velocity stack and cone. Tom was pleased with the results of the 3" maf tube and how much it smoothed out everything.

Image