Ford Scorpio Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Ford Scorpio Forum
        (https://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl)
      

        General >> Give/Need advice to/from others >> BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995  2 li re 16 valve
        
(Message started by: donal on Apr 28^th, 2008, 11:00pm)

Title: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by donal on Apr 28^th, 2008, 11:00pm

Hi There

I have a ford Scorpio 1995 2 litre 16 valve injected automatic executive saloon. I would be grateful if someone could tell me what the bhp for this engine is.

Many thanks
donal

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by taliban aka Cheekyboy2 on Apr 28^th, 2008, 11:15pm

according to the handbook its 136...

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by 98scenic on Apr 29^th, 2008, 6:59am

Quite a bit down on the 150bhp on the same engine fitted to the RS2000, I also notice that the torque figure is down too

Anyone have any ideas why the power is down so much ?

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by scorpio_man on Apr 29^th, 2008, 7:04am

hi there

it's not the same engine, as such. a few changes have been made. most notable is the torque curve.

see http://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/manual/engines/dohc16v/DOHC16VDescript.pdf

hth

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by 98scenic on Apr 29^th, 2008, 7:11am

Thats quite a few changes !

However, I would have expected the Scorp engine to have more torque than the RS2000, yet it appears to be around 15nm down, although its max torque is produced some 300rpm lower

Even so, I doubt its torque curve is significantly better than that of the RS2000's

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by amigafan2003 on Apr 29^th, 2008, 8:58am

Four main reasons for the drop in power:-

Compression ratio is down from 10:3 to 9.8
EGR system
Exhaust system is tuned to quietness on the Scorp, rather than power on the RS2000.
EEC-V maps for the Scorpio's aren't as "aggressive" as the maps for EEC-IV controlled RS2000's (RS2000 maps apparently assume 95 ron fuel where as EEC-V maps assume 87 ron fuel)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by donal on Apr 29^th, 2008, 11:24am

Hi taliban aka Cheekyboy2

Thank you for the information. I have seen 136 PS in the handbook but I didn’t know if this was the same as bhp

Many Thanks
donal

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by TiberiuS on Apr 29^th, 2008, 12:22pm

PS is a European version of horsepower. IIRC it's around 98% of bhp.

Haven't compared the power curves but I would've expected the Scorpio version to be tuned for more low/mid torque rather than high end bhp. It's also a heavier car and geared a lot taller so go figure what that means for the 0-60 times even before you start taking power away through EGR, restrictive cats and silencer boxes and the auto sucks a good deal of engine power too before it gets to the wheels (figures of around 15-20% on most RWD autos compared to maybe 10-12% for the average manual).

Regards, Bruce.

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by donal on Apr 29^th, 2008, 4:58pm

Hi Bruce
Thank you for this information the ford Scorpio owners manual can be quite confusing.
Many Thanks
donal

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by Tons_of_fun on Apr 29^th, 2008, 5:21pm

What i dont understand about the 2.0ltr is why is it so slow when compared to the 2.3 version ? ? ? There is only 9hp difference but over 2 secs slower to 60 mph :o.Surley 9hp wont make that much difference !!!

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by 98scenic on Apr 29^th, 2008, 5:26pm

I guess its the torque difference ?

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by Highlander on Apr 29^th, 2008, 6:15pm

PS is short for Pferdestärke which funnily enough is German for Horse Power ;)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by taliban aka Cheekyboy2 on Apr 29^th, 2008, 8:04pm

i think the reason for the scorp lump being down on power compared to the RS2000 (other than the excellent technical replies) is probably cos thats what ford wanted, longevity, more reliable workhorse, and of course if you wanted your scorp a bit more sporty then you had that option (for more dollars) with the bigger engines and the cossie.
does it really matter if figures from some years ago put one 2 seconds slower than another? in the real world will it notice? and always bear in mind ; how accurate are these figures? even on brand new vehicles they dont relate to real world; are they tested on streets? with various road surfaces? wind speed/direction? or on a closed circuit? rolling road?....

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by Octavian_P on Apr 30^th, 2008, 7:28am

I have put my hands on some performance certificates containing the 2.0 and 2.3 real power / torque graphs

2.0 16 V has a real power of 125 bhp @ 6401 rpm and a torque of 155 Nm @ 4410 rpm

2.3 16 V has a real power of 132 bhp @ 5498 rpm and a torque of 180 Nm @ 2501 rpm

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by TiberiuS on Apr 30^th, 2008, 12:23pm

Octavian, what are the 'real' power ratings you quoted? RWHP? Seem a bit high for RWHP, peak torque RPM on the 2.3 seems too low for a 4 pot,more like what you'd get from a 6 or 8 :)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by Octavian_P on May 1^st, 2008, 6:47am

Here is it ;D

2.3 (http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=346)
The 2.3 engine is the same that was fitted to the 2.3 Galaxy

2.0 (http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=705)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by 98scenic on May 1^st, 2008, 7:08am

Good links :)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by TiberiuS on May 2^nd, 2008, 10:51am

Peak torque is too low, 2.3 doesn't peak until the mid 4k's,mine wouldn't start singing until almost 4000rpm, although it was nice at those revs if I erased all thoughts of imploding head gaskets and inlet maniolds from my mind ;D

It's a lovely engine but if you guys really want something more meaty than a 2.0, you really gotta move up to 24v territory, then you get the torque (surely torque means more, all this obsession with top heavy BHP tuned power curves ::)). The Scorp is a heavy car, the day I realised my Scorp wasn't born to be a sports car was the day I got overtaken by a weedy Focus TDCi in a cloud of black smoke while I was going full bore :-[

I could outrun an A class Merc with ease, did the same with a couple of 320i Beemers, could keep up (almost) with a 2.5 Mondeo...but if you want to punch above your weight you need at the least a 2.3 with a manual shifter or V6 :)

Regards, Bruce.

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by Octavian_P on May 2^nd, 2008, 11:29am

on 05/02/08 at 10:51:58, TiberiuS wrote:

...but if you want to punch above your weight you need at the least a 2.3 with a manual shifter or V6

The 2.3 could have higher torque because of the double-balancing system. In the oil pan there are two counterweights-shafts which spin in opposite directions (they rob about 15 hp). Bolting on the 2.0 intake manifold to the 2.3 really makes it go ;D

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 valve
Post by 98scenic on May 2^nd, 2008, 11:49am

Im sure with my 2.0 16V Auto I could out drag my wifes 1.4 Corsa Merit Auto, all 50bhp of it :)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by TiberiuS on May 3^rd, 2008, 11:23am

That's my man, punch above your weight ;D

Quote:

Doesn't the 2.0 have twin inlets/throttle bodies? Sounds interesting, any idea what the power increase might be? :)

Title: Re: BHP for a ford Scorpio 1995 2 li re 16 v
Post by Octavian_P on May 3^rd, 2008, 1:21pm

The 2.3 has one intake body with a 60 mm plate
The 2.0 has twin intake body's with two 50 mm plates

Inside the manifold theres a vacuum operated plate which enables or disables the air chambers in the following order:

1) engine part load and < 3200 rpm, plate separates in two chambers forcing each piston to suck air through only one 50 mm plate. This restrictiveness increases the low end torque.

2) engine sudden high load or > 3200 rpm, the plate opens wide allowing the two chambers to become one. This actual lets each piston to suck air through 2x 50 mm plates having an defective section of 100 mm (comparing to 60 mm on the 2.3)

Now the power ratings, don't know really how much. Mine is a manual and the first two gears have simply become brutally (it can wheal spin without dropping on the clutch - it's madness when accelerating on a corner as it doesn't have TCS), i believe it could be an increase of 20 hp. The torque increase also is substantial. With the 2.3 intake i couldn't manage to overtake in 4-th gear when doing less then 40 mph. Now all i have to do is to give it some gas.

It sill have to do some work on it as, the 2.0 ecu has a signal which controls the vacuum solenoid responsible with the operation of the air chambers. The 2.3 ecu has the pin and on some wiring documentations it is stated that it works like the 2.0 but doesn't have the wiring at all. Now my manifold stays with both air chambers opened, this could lead to lower torque and higher fuel consumption when doing low revs.

And now the economical part: the mpg increases a bit !!!
In 3 years of owning the 2.3 the low fuel alarm always sounded some good km before the alarm light went on. Now the low fuel level lights up but the computer still gives me a range of 90-100 km. (it beeps at 80 km range)

I believe that i somehow fix the electrical part, the mpg will increase a bit more along with some extra torque.