Small build question. | Ford Escort Owners Association (FEOA)

Small build question.

Discussion in '3rd Gen 1997-2002 2.0L SOHC' started by sketchman, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. sketchman

    sketchman FEOA Member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    USA
    I'll be putting together a 1.9 block and a 2.0 head for my 3rd gen soon(hopefully soon), and I have 2 "simple" choices.

    Either I can use the stock HG or a copper one. I've read enough that I'm not worried about corrosion from the copper, so that needn't be mentioned. What I do care about is not losing too much compression when I change from the domed 2.0 pistons to the dished 1.9 ones. Hence the coper HG which comes in 0.020" thick easy and cheap from eBay or RockAuto.

    The stocker(measured quick and dirty with a digi mic) shows about 0.083" at the fire rings. I'm guessing(thoroughly) around 0.078"-0.080" after torquing the head down, so using the CU HG would give a NICE bump on the uber cheap, and I know they take abuse very well.

    I'll do actual measurements with clay when I start the build, but I'm just looking for opinions right now.

    I did search, but all I found was warnings not to use a CU HG(which I'll obviously ignore), and an OLD build that I didn't see a finish to where a CU gasket was mentioned.

    I believe the method will be:
    1. Clay with stock old HG to find actual C/R and see if I want to bother.
    2. Possibly decide to use the CU one instead and still clay it to find what I'll end up with, C/R wise.

    Again, apologies if this info is already somewhere. I looked and didn't see it.

    I appreciate any input.
  2. ShakeZilla19

    ShakeZilla19 My name is ^^^

    Messages:
    3,154
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    263
    I'm guessing your going to boost it?

    I would use the Cu HG either why; just because they don't blow and are re-useable. The only issue I have with the Cu HG is that you have to use RTV around the oil and water passages.

    My opinion GO COPPER!
  3. sketchman

    sketchman FEOA Member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    USA
    No boost. I don't like the idea of domed pistons for several reasons. It's either flat top or dish for me. I would have preferred flat, but the 1.9 is THE one to go with for my needs, and it is dished so I'll live.

    Long term, I plan to go carbed N/A with it, but keep it streetable with small individual carbs, and relatively moderate C/R, + a header.

    Oh, and whole reason for the build is that my bottom end is toast, so it needs done anyway, and a 1.9 bottom end is available to me VERY cheap, so....

    Cool, so that's 1 for the copper. I'm leaning that way myself.
  4. white-lightning

    white-lightning FEOA Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Salem, VA
    Why do you not like domed pistons? The 2.0L is a non-interference engine.
  5. madmatt2024

    madmatt2024 FEOA Member

    Messages:
    9,830
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    383
    Location:
    Upstate N.Y.
    The engine you are building is going to be gutless and get poor MPG. The 1.9 pistons with the 2.0 top end has a pretty low compression ratio, lower than most cars came with from the factory. You would be lucky to even make the 88hp that the 1.9 originally made.

    Where are you located? I know a yard about an hour from me that will sell any engine for $100 and they are loaded with rusted out 3rd gens with good engines.
  6. sketchman

    sketchman FEOA Member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    USA
    I don't like the CC shape they create. It's just not desirable from a performance standpoint. Granted it works well enough, but I still don't like it.

    Do you have specs to back up the first part of what you said? I may be totally of base here, but I don't yet believe it'll be that bad at all. Especially if I use the copper gasket. Look at the following pics.
    SPI CCs - making 110hp and 125tq with a "thick" composite gasket @ 9.2:1 C/R
    [​IMG]
    1.9 D shaped CCs - making 88hp and 108tq with a "thick" composite gasket plus ports that don't breath as well @ 9.0:1 C/R
    [​IMG]

    Now, my engine will have a rebuilt head that has had some taken off to resurface it + possibly using a coper gasket that is FAR thinner than the composite one + the better breathing system of the SPI head and intake.

    Again, I could very well be wrong, but at this point I'm still going to try it. Oh, and I live in WV, where everything gets scrapped, and junkyards might as well be run by the mafia. It's not an option to find another 2.0 to drop in, I'm afraid.
  7. sketchman

    sketchman FEOA Member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    USA
  8. madmatt2024

    madmatt2024 FEOA Member

    Messages:
    9,830
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    383
    Location:
    Upstate N.Y.
    Ever heard of a 426 Hemi?
    Stock piston
    [​IMG]

    Jeffescortlx says on his cardomain page that it comes out to 7.9:1. http://www.cardomain.com/ride/419565/1993-ford-escort/
    Quote from next page of the thread you linked to.
    Not to mention the more that you take off the head the more your cam timing gets messed up. The more you take off the head the more slack you get in the timing belt. The more slack in the belt the more the timing gets retarded. To bring it back into time you need an adjustable cam gear which is vary had to come by for this engine. If you take off too much the belt could theoretically get too long for the tensioner to take up the slack.
  9. sketchman

    sketchman FEOA Member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    USA
    ^Yeah I found that post after I posted. :)

    But do keep in mind, I would be effectively decking the block, not the head, which is more effective at upping C/R.

    I do know about the old HEMIs. I don't care for them or the SPI domes, but that's my opinion.
  10. madmatt2024

    madmatt2024 FEOA Member

    Messages:
    9,830
    Likes Received:
    397
    Trophy Points:
    383
    Location:
    Upstate N.Y.
    Bad idea. If you deck the block then you run the risk of the pistons sticking up above the top of the block and hitting the head right here. [​IMG]
    There isn't much that can be taken off before this happens and you still won't get the CR that you need. Even if they don't stick up you reduce the clearance in the same spot and once things get hot they expand... Get the picture?

    You still haven't given a valid reason why you don't like domes. "I just don't like them" isn't a valid answer. The SPI pistons aren't even a true dome design.

    I'm not trying to bash, I'm just trying to get you to realize that what you are planing is a vary bad idea before you end up throwing money at something that won't work. With all the machine work this is going to take it would probably cost the same or less to get the 1.9 block bored out to accept the SPI pistons or actually GETTING the correct block to start with!
  11. sketchman

    sketchman FEOA Member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    USA
    Effectively decking the block. Not actually. The block will physically be the same as it is stock. The head will just be closer to it with a thinner gasket. If the pistons don't already stick up out of the block any, then they'll be fine. If they do, then that's an issue I wasn't prepared for.

    Why don't I like domes? For a few simple reasons.

    1. Detonation. The less convoluted the shape of the CC the better. Having a dome sticking up into the head is not the best for this.
    2. Surface area of the piston crown. I want as little as possible within the physical limits of the bore size to keep heat out of the piston as much as possible.
    3. I don't care about being interference, which I'm sure is the reason the SPI slugs have domes in the first place. To get the C/R Ford wanted while remaining non interference. I'll take the "risk" for a better performing CC shape.

    Given the above, a flat top is best, BUT I have to take what I can get. The dished design wins in this instance(if I can get enough compression with it, which I believe I can) for basically not being domed. I know that's a negative argument, but it seems to be the best compromise to me.

    In the end it will probably be called my opinion, so that's why I put it that way first.

    EDIT: Also one other thing. IF IF IF the combo works and produces enough compression for N/A use, it will tighten up the squish area considerably. IF the SPI squish areas on the piston crowns are level or below the block deck height, the stock gasket is a serious hindrance to the job the quench chamber is supposed to do. Having well over 0.070" squish clearance is way too much room, which if the piston squish areas are level with the block deck, the stock comp gasket allows much more than that.

    A post with specs on the SPI engine lists a squish height of 0.036"-0.073". First of all, that's WAY too much tolerance. Still, I'm betting on the fat end of that being closer to reality, and in fact less than reality, which brings me back to my point. It needs tightened up, I think.
    See here:https://www.feoa.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13313

    Again, I'm still doing research and speculating, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

Share This Page