Focus Fanatics Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
anyone know a brand selling performance cams that would fit a 2.0L 2005 zx5?
 

·
Registered
2012 Focus SE hatchback black
Joined
·
731 Posts
Esslinger Racing and Massive Speed System have a pretty extensive product page if you are considering going to the point of getting into the inside of a Focus engine. If this is a daily driver then I don't suggest it however. You will drop in MPG significantly and you might also get reliability issues once you start going to more extreme mods.
 

·
FF Affiliate
Joined
·
31,290 Posts
anyone know a brand selling performance cams that would fit a 2.0L 2005 zx5?
You wont loose MPG or reliability if done properly , If your looking for a bump in Performance then find a 2.3 head and intake manifold , change to stg2 cams , Comp Cams , Crower Cams , change the springs , Surface the head .020 , A good Custom Tune I can help with and you will see a an easy 30whp + gain , MPG might actually go up a little when drive normal

Tom
 

·
Registered
2012 Focus SE hatchback black
Joined
·
731 Posts
You WILL loose MPG on a performance tune and with cams especially. That's absurd to say that MPG would go up. Turbo engines are more efficient and powerful from the factory yet will get less MPG than their NA counterparts to get the same reliability.
The factory reliability will be lost in a Focus or any other car when putting in more aggressive cams and increasing the compression ratio over the factory specs like milling/shaving the head. More strain is put on everything. Might be a little, might be a lot but that's another claim that is not accurate. I mean this is just very common knowledge. Most of the time that you add performance you lessen reliability especially in the list of mods you gave. Do you think the rules of physics have changed with the advent of computers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Actually if the cams are not too aggressive it may be possible to gain mileage. The cams need more lift generally and not much duration, the engine then picks up enough torque in low-mid that you then don't need as much throttle to achieve the same power. And compression alone almost always boosts mileage, you are doing more work with same engine. Although a .020" cut is one almost to simply true up the head, not much increase at all there. Advance the intake cam and retard the exhaust and it both widens and lowers the low-mid torque band from increased overlap and delays exhausting to make maximum use of the power stroke.

We used to build engines with up to 50 more hp. (V-8s) that you would be hard pressed to find any lowering of reliability where you could see it at all and some few DID get better mileage. If one wrote the tune now to let the engine stay in OD longer at lower rpm with hard parts biased that way you could increase mileage by lugging the engine a bit more. What if you bring the TCC on to lock faster? How about lowering the amount of ATX coast clutch drag to let car roll easier?Just lowering the EGR amount can increase mileage too, it's usually a 10% amount that will not burn and it not being there then lets the engine run easier to loaf around with less throttle. Timing advance then works better too. A good set of small tube headers can increase mileage if installed alone or in careful combination, talking a true header not the shorty type crap so commonly sold as such now.

Look at some of the magazine project cars in the late '70s and early '80s, some few actually did increase mileage along with hp. with carefully chosen parts and they put BMEP numbers up to show it.

The physics do not change, it's the use of them that can. Reliability? The cars now can go 300K miles, I'd take one that made 25 more hp. to maybe not go quite that long before dying, I've done it before. Some part combinations work so well it is worth losing a little reliability over them so long as one grasps that. When Tom says reliability doesn't change he means the reliability as seen by the end users, they will not be able to tell the slight difference and not even important if one wants higher performance. It's always a tradeoff but sometimes not dead even.
 

·
Registered
2012 Focus SE hatchback black
Joined
·
731 Posts
No, but it would be nice if it did. You get to choose HP or economy not both with the originally mentioned mods on a NA 2.0L. Compression, cams, and performance tune on a 2.0L. Those were the items quoted here.
Taking metal off the head will obviously increase compression but with that comes more stress on the stock crank(reliability). Pistons and rods too actually. Also, as I recall more compression also means that you have to reduce ignition timing.
Any cam with more lift and more duration(99% of the time when adding lift unless it's a custom grind) will not be as gas efficient, period. There is no argument otherwise.
A tune done for performance will also sacrifice gas mileage to achieve more power. Messing with the OD to kick in sooner would make the engine fall flat when it does and the same with the torque converter which also affects reliability. Nonetheless, it would make little difference at cruising speeds where most of your MPG is realized since the engine is gobbling more fuel to have all that increased power from mods on hand.
Add all three of these mods and you will loose MPG and reliability. In the end, you'll consume more gas to make more power than any that you will save. 2.0L ST makes plenty more power than a regular 2.0L yet it gets notably worse mileage. The RS even more so and this is with expertise of 1000s of hours from Ford's engineers. There's many examples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,897 Posts
A higher compression engine is more efficient the whole reason they moved to direct injection. Direct injection engines can run higher compression ratios without the fear of detonation and pre-ignition. If you increase the compression ratio and you get a tune you simply have the tune made for a higher octane fuel. No need to reduce ignition timing.

Yes I know this particular engine is not direct injection. One of the main reasons why we have been able to make engines not only more fuel efficient but also make more power especially torque is because of the higher compression ratio which direct injection allows with just 87 octane on many vehicles.




Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2006 ZX5 2.0, 2004 ZX3 SVT EE. 2004 ZX3 SVT
Joined
·
2,633 Posts
A higher compression engine is more efficient the whole reason they moved to direct injection. Direct injection engines can run higher compression ratios without the fear of detonation and pre-ignition. If you increase the compression ratio and you get a tune you simply have the tune made for a higher octane fuel. No need to reduce ignition timing.

Yes I know this particular engine is not direct injection. One of the main reasons why we have been able to make engines not only more fuel efficient but also make more power especially torque is because of the higher compression ratio which direct injection allows with just 87 octane on many vehicles.




Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
Only issue I have with di is the carbon buildup from the pcv system. The new Mustang has a hybrid system with an extra set of injectors that spray on the valves for cleaning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,897 Posts
Only issue I have with di is the carbon buildup from the pcv system. The new Mustang has a hybrid system with an extra set of injectors that spray on the valves for cleaning.
I have three vehicles with direct injection. One with 115,000 miles on it. Really no problems at all. Also nothing special about the mustang. I believe Toyota did this from day one not only does it help clean the intake valves obviously, but it also makes the engine even more efficient with better power delivery.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
'A tune done for performance will also sacrifice gas mileage to achieve more power.'

How? What if you change the premise to be a tune for performance AND mileage? I see the conditions mentioned after that sentence above but they are not necessarily true. You simply lock up say the converter or OD more and then at going open loop you loosen it back up. With a tune you can free up or retrap things all over the map. At cruise you are in closed loop and nothing to do with full power at all. Software is all about the conditions you put the mechanical parts in right THEN as you need them. Like turning off injectors at decel. How do they get back on if suddenly you need full throttle??? Why do we bother with switching off EGR for max power? Why do I already get much more power at open loop vs. closed even now? I get mileage at closed loop and then when my dead old zetec needs more power I have to go deeper into throttle and suddenly there is 3X as much instantly and you can be sure that is lost mileage, but I don't have to drive it like that all day.

Somebody in denial about say tuneable intake runners to cover both mileage and power and switching off cylinders even for same among a bunch of other things

And if we are 100% locked into 'the way things are', how did we ever get from 90 hp. 2 liter engines with 22 mpg in the '70s to 130+ hp. 2.0s that get close to 40 mpg now????? AND using 10% ethanol which lowers mileage.

The above post argument even disallows a throttle, what do you use it for? You open it a little to drive slower with no performance and then you dump it wide open to get much more and the mileage switches around there too. Prudent driving gives you BOTH. F-cking with the software is simply an extension of that. Or, a tune.

One could ask why the 90 hp. engine used 8/1 compression but did not live as long by half as one nowadays at 9/1 or even higher. Mostly due to the computer and what is a computer but a software application device?

'Also, as I recall more compression also means that you have to reduce ignition timing.'

Although a general rule not cast in concrete, some engines you can do both. As in more and more. BTDT. In fact being able to tells you other things about the engine and leads to specific things to tune it. Ever seen people shorten cam timings to go much faster? I have.
 

·
Registered
2012 Focus SE hatchback black
Joined
·
731 Posts
Again... this is about a MK2 2.0L Durtatec that's stock with hypothetical planned mods of cams, performance tune, and milling the head down to raise compression and the effects of those mods on the powertrain of this car especially with a performance tune to achieve 30+ HP. The conversation here by some seems to easily wander to more general and broad engine theory and operation. You're not going to get me to disagree with more generalized known engine principles. This isn't about any newer Duratec or any other engine with these supposed mods.
Cutting the OD and torque converter on and off like that will REDUCE RELIABILITY and longevity in the trans and converter. At cruising speeds you're still running the performance cams regardless of the tune. You can't tune out the lift and duration that those cam lobes are always spinning. The era of this engine also doesn't have VCT which would at least mitigate it a bit. The cams don't magically disappear, sorry.
Ford's engineers designed that engine that is very reliable and gets very good mileage. If you want to extract more power than you have to give up mileage and/or reliability. You don't have to like it, it just is. You can theorize and state all the opinions that you like but no one posting on here knows more than the manufacturer's various engineering departments. Those people have more experience, training, and knowledge than you or me. If you want to modify and alter the result of 1000s of hours of testing and tweeking that they did to make the final product then you will make the final product less reliable and efficient to gain HP.
amc49 take a breath. You also seem to think that I'm dead set against making any mods. I'm not but if you go that route then just accept that you're not smarter than ANY engineer in Ford's employ. You can't tune and mod something to your will without consequences in reliability, gas efficiency, and/or performance when working off of a corporation's fine tuned and tested design for being all around reliable and gas efficient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
any manufacture company design can be improved on. Their goal is to make the most profit by making parts as cheap as possible with less quality control. Replacing cams is just one area where improvements can be made by making the motor more efficient without adhering to emission control standards by the EPA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Agreed. The OEM is locked into a much bigger window than the common person looking to change things and the former often overlook better narrow result since the design teams are constantly arguing with each other. The engines come out much more as a result of engineer wars than they do them all lining up to be in sync.

Beyond that I have gone far enough, If I properly respected the engineers I would be afraid to touch anything they think up. Necessity though has forced me to look at them accurately and I'm not impressed on the whole. But then I had my fill of them back in the LTV Aerospace days, Dad knew a bunch of them that frequented the garage from his A-7 Corsair II days and many were to me dumber than dirt. A few were even whacky.

Going to school for such things just sets you in the conventional box, I prefer to stay out of it. It has made me countless thousands of dollars doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
X2 on that. Carefully picked hi-perf mod parts CAN increase mileage, maybe they affect reliability but if the difference is small enough buyer never notices it, it becomes a red herring. Perception being 9/10 of reality.

I will flat say as well you should be able to go from 8/1 or 9/1 compression to 10/1 and no reliability penalty at all and you will pick up mileage most of the time doing it. If 10/1 compression breaks an engine early you most definitely are running the wrong engine, it is overly delicate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
My point is more like if the engines can go 300K miles now then even giving up 50K of that to get more power is not necessarily a drop in reliability so much as a change in viewpoint and many would go for that if the modded engine does what they want. And MANY of the owners still find ways to kill the dead stock engines WAY before the 300K potential they have making the absolute reliability point somewhat worthless.

I had a 360 inch Javelin that ran 15.20's 15.30's. I put a 800 Holley DP on it to replace the OEM Ford Autolite 4300 series 650 cfm 4 bbl. The huge carb which by all accounts should have killed the car did not, it with ATX then busted off 14.50s all day long 1/4 mile. Yes mileage sucked but the car was so much more fun to drive and what I'm talking about. I wanted more and after a couple years it's cammed headered, ATX tossed for 4 speed and 4.44 gears and turns mid 12's, the car still lasted until close to 80,000 miles and I loved every minute of it. Worth it I thought in the days when most cars lasted 120-130 K. Reliable? It never failed to start and run even at the last, just was tired. Later I came by a 360 Hornet and did the same 800 Holley thing again and stopped there. The car lasted to 135K miles like that. The mileage again wasn't great but never intended to be so. Reliable? as in DEAD reliable. Again, only tired but still running. The carb alone added some solid 30 hp, by any way I can figure it.

The engineers can do whatever they want but overall reliability is more determined by the owners than the builders, one has to grasp that.

Mileage? We had one LTV engineer back in the early '80s who dogged high-perf and mileage like a hawk, he was constantly changing this or that at the shop on his cars looking for both and several times found it only to change things looking for more or somewhat different things. I bet I put 5 cams in his stuff, he was always showing me the newest mileage cams and parts and like a little child at the candy store. Pretty good at the work himself, we eventually let him on as a part time worker at the shop, he was underpaid but didn't care. He just wanted to mod cars.

Pop built both 372 and 383 inch SBCs for the big truck he towed a trailer with to vacation with Mom and both got better mileage than the OEM 350 that came in the truck. You can have a good mileage combo but if overworked the mileage can drop off to be worse than a bigger engine driving around on less throttle. The situation just has to be right to happen. The engines above used 450 cfm carbs instead of OEM 650 QJets which in that situation kill you on mileage. He used mileage intakes and cams as well. The engine made more power than the 350 as well.

Yes, other engine types but they are all air pumps, zeroing in on one engine type is death.
 

·
Registered
2012 Focus SE hatchback black
Joined
·
731 Posts
The pistons are absolutely different between the two. This I know is fact. Whether the metallurgy is the same or not I haven't seen any specs as of yet but I'm definitely not taking your word for it. Regardless, to say that Ford didn't at least reinforce/strengthen the pistons used for a higher compression application is pretty naive and quite frankly stupid. When more power is planned for an engine change Ford has always historically added more material and/or bolstered the design. That applies to rods too especially in a higher compression AND increased power output application.
The heads are very different(obviously). For you to say that the earlier lower compression head is as strong as the later higher compression head is foolish. Much of the head was changed.
Ford improved the oiling paths in the TiVCT block as well so there is a difference unlike your lie. Additionally, the TiVCT block is designed somewhat different. It has improved oiling and the MK3 head isn't compatible with the MK2 block.
I call bs on your MPG claim and unfortunately there's no way to prove it either way. You'd say whatever to make yourself look right at this point and I have no faith in your supposed MPG claim especially when using more aggressive cams. That's just silly. You see a threat to your income by someone exposing your exaggerations and lies. You want to lash out and you'll say anything to keep that gravy train going. This makes you a snake oil salesman and completely untrustworthy.
You have the saying all wrong btw(big surprise). It goes: "It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it." You should think about that phrase as it pertains to you.
It's at least nice to see that you used the phrase "more stupid" in your last post rather than your normal "stupider" line that you usually say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Somebody calling BS on better mileage using higher-perf parts clearly has never been there. I built a 100 hp. 2.3 SOHC for MII once using a 2.0 SOHC intake which does not direct bolt on, I had to make a manifold adapter plate for it. The reason is the OEM 2.3 1st gen intake was about the worst manifold ever made for a car being below horrible. Track cars picked up on the 2.0 intake and easy to make the plate and Esslinger even used to make them. The intake really popped a lot of power into the engine and with a true nice equal length header (I used Hooker) could bump the engine up a good 25 hp and maybe more. I lightly ported the head while really spending time on the short turn radius and to match the intake, advanced the cam, and did some specialized valve work too. The head got cut about .060" or close to a one point increase on the 8.5/1 OEM ratio. When done that car would stay dead even with and even out pull a new fresh 130 horse zetec. The horrible gas mileage did not equal the zetec but it DID go up some 20+%, enough I noticed it instantly. And no OD on the car at all. The head intake port even mismatched the intake as the original head port was flat bottom D-port and I simply ported the round 2 liter intake port to match the best fit and left the overhang alone. I modded the carb as well as the intake runner entry in manifold which was worth 2-5 hp. alone as the runners really woke up doing it. The Weber copy 5200 carb was the early big 270 CFM one massaged inside to clean up the bores and had the main air bleeds modded which was worth supposedly 5 solid hp too. One reason why the mileage jumped as well, the original bleeds were too rich. I modded the power valve tip-in point too.

That car I looked at as making 130-140 hp. when done, it was a totally different engine; I was very pleased with the way it turned out. The only thing I didn't like was the short legs of the 3 speed C-3 ATX, I wanted to change it to a manual OD early A4LD but the car was destroyed in a hailstorm before I could get the parts together.

If you have a doggy four cylinder you drive around a lot in converter slip, bump the power up and the extra power can allow you to not be so deep in the throttle and the mileage comes up. I drove that car 40 miles one way to work, the difference was obvious. The car clearly used less gas in steady state 55-70 mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Maybe we can all just settle down a little bit. I for one may have been mostly right but now forced to look at my part in things on this thread. Does it really matter that much to be right? I normally say yes but now not so sure. This discussion being a sign of bigger problems.

Is this a car site or a fight club?

One can be dead right and the biggest loser at the same time. BTDT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
I am a master at taking posts off track. Things can evolve, but up to us to control where that evolution leads.

'The OP asked a question that had nothing to do with mpg.'

Not so in many many cases, the cam(s) can have huge impact on mileage. Not thinking so shows one has not done it. And before somebody gets all up in my face I have likely changed enough of them; can't say how many exactly. That's the NON-STOCK ones. If twin cam it's even worse, the install attention to detail itself can make you or kill you. To most of you it will take a stretch of the imagination just to realize you may well have to change most of the tappets just to get the cams in right, most of you are never ready for that and it is only the start.

You can make some mileage with them but commonly not as they have to go in particular to the desired end result. With intake lobe center mainly but if you are whacky enough then exhaust can be a mileage losing issue too.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,570 Posts
Gentlemen, keep the thread on topic or other actions will be taken. The OP asked a simple question. Post your information and move along. If you have a disagreement with someone, take it to PM.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top