Ford Focus RS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Starting the journey from scratch!

I bought a brand new Ford Fusion 2.0 EcoBoost cylinder block.

There are a few differences from the RS block and also from the ST block.

First, the deck. As seen below it’s a different casting and it’s no longer fully open, but still more open than the ST block, and there is no big hole to weld. I’ve read somewhere that the deck of 2.0 blocks was higher, resulting in a decrease of compression ration when used with a 2.3 crank and rods/pistons, and that the fix was to use longer rods designed for a Mazda engine, supposedly 1.27mm (0.05”) longer. I measured the deck height to the best of my abilities (deck to one of the gearbox bellhousing threaded holes) and I got the exact same value compared to my RS block, so I guess the deck height is identical. The bellhousing is critically centered around the crankshaft axis so it’s a decent reference.

The water pump housing is integral to the block. On the RS it’s a separate part that is bolted on, and machined with the block to make the engine front flat, so the housing is paired and can not be used on another block.

The block comes without the dowels (head, front cover, starter motor, gearbox bellhousing) and without the small water pipe.

Some of the plugs are missing and, unlike the RS which use threaded plugs this one use giant pop rivets that must be ordered separately.

Other plugs are threaded like the RS and can be carried over. I don’t know yet if there are any other surprises, I’ll carefully compare the RS block and this one side-by-side.

There is no fundamental differences between the 2.0L and 2.3L blocks, the difference in displacement comes 100% from the stroke, so essentially from the crankshaft. This is a new casting and the most recent to date. Hopefully it incorporates the learnings from the previous blocks.

The Ford cylinder bore honing is very light and the bores are very smooth. This is probably the perfect hone for the stock rings, with very good seal from new and no oil consumption. I am going to ruin that and make a slightly coarser honing. I believe this is necessary for the thinner rings of my new pistons.

What I want to achieve is a 2-step plateau honing with deeper valleys than stock to carry more oil, so I’m going to do just a touch of 180 grit followed by a light pass at 500 grit. I’ll link a video below that explains it all if you have the patience to watch it.

The old-school stone (and home made) honing will require some breakin, and the engine will probably consume a little more oil than stock, not a problem.
Automotive tire Wood Gas Motor vehicle Auto part
Gas Auto part Bicycle part Rim Machine

Automotive tire Rim Auto part Gas Engineering

Automotive tire Household hardware Material property Bicycle part Rim


Everything you ever wanted to know about honing (and then some!) “Ring Seal Soup” on YouTube:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
And.....................................what kind of motorized mayhem do we have planned for our new Klimate Kult outrage device? ;) Goin' in the RS or something else?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
@axelr ...how much to build me a long block?
I want stage 2 head with piper 285 cams. carrilo rods with mahle pistons...light crank and BS delete. will pair with 6758 Borg Warner.
you rock!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Starting the journey from scratch!

I bought a brand new Ford Fusion 2.0 EcoBoost cylinder block.

There are a few differences from the RS block and also from the ST block.

First, the deck. As seen below it’s a different casting and it’s no longer fully open, but still more open than the ST block, and there is no big hole to weld.

The water pump housing is integral to the block. On the RS and ST it’s a separate part that is bolted on, and machined with the block to make the engine front so the housing is paired and can not be used on another block.

The block comes without the dowels (head, front cover, starter motor, gearbox bellhousing) and without the small water pipe.

Some of the plugs are missing and, unlike the RS which use threaded plugs this one use giant pop rivets that must be ordered separately. Other plugs are threaded like the RS and can be carried over. I don’t know yet if there are any other surprises, I’ll carefully compare the RS block and this one side-by-side.

There is no fundamental differences between the 2.0L and 2.3L blocks, the difference in displacement comes 100% from the stroke, so essentially from the crankshaft. This is a new casting and the most recent to date. Hopefully it incorporates the learnings from the previous blocks.

The Ford cylinder bore honing is very light and the bores are very smooth. This is probably the perfect hone for the stock rings, with very good seal from new and no oil consumption. I am going to ruin that and make a slightly coarser honing. I believe this is necessary for the thinner rings of my new pistons.

What I want to achieve is a 2-step plateau honing with deeper valleys than stock to carry more oil, so I’m going to do just a touch of 180 grit followed by a light pass at 500 grit. I’ll link a video below that explains it all if you have the patience to watch it.

The old-school stone (and home made) honing will require some breakin, and the engine will probably consume a little more oil than stock, not a problem.
View attachment 360350 View attachment 360348
View attachment 360349
View attachment 360347

Everything you ever wanted to know about honing (and then some!) “Ring Seal Soup” on YouTube:

Looks like a 2nd generation 2.0 Ford OEM block... Are you going to top it off with a 2.3 RS head, or can a 2.0 Fusion (or ST) head be modified to perform similar to the 2.3 head? Thanks!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,038 Posts
@axelr ...how much to build me a long block?
I want stage 2 head with piper 285 cams. carrilo rods with mahle pistons...light crank and BS delete. will pair with 6758 Borg Warner.
you rock!

Are you just asking for parts or with labor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: axelr

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
And.....................................what kind of motorized mayhem do we have planned for our new Klimate Kult outrage device? ;) Goin' in the RS or something else?
Yes the RS. It’s an experiment and learning experience first and foremost.

Whatever problems I introduce by mistake or by ignorance, even if the engine completely fails, it will still compare well against some of the horror stories that pop up here from time to time with high-priced long blocks or builds from well known companies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
@axelr ...how much to build me a long block?
I want stage 2 head with piper 285 cams. carrilo rods with mahle pistons...light crank and BS delete. will pair with 6758 Borg Warner.
you rock!
Haha I’m flattered but that’s only engine #2 and the first one failed. Not in a big way but I still missed something while building it.

Besides that, that brings an interesting point: it takes a long time to do everything, equalizing the rods and piston weights, grinding, porting, lapping, honing, gapping rings, measuring valve lash… a commercial shop would only produce a couple of units per month at that rate. They have to find efficiency somewhere because they cannot spend 200 hours per engine. Racing shops will do it but a nice 4-cylinders costs upwards of $50k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Looks like a 2nd generation 2.0 Ford OEM block... Are you going to top it off with a 2.3 RS head, or can a 2.0 Fusion (or ST) head be modified to perform similar to the 2.3 head? Thanks!
I have an RS cylinder head. I don’t know about the Fusion head, maybe it can be used but I think the RS (and Mustang) are the ones with the integrated exhaust header and the double exit that mates their turbo. The ST head is different in that respect and some head variants have 4 exhaust ports I think. I’m using all RS 2.3 components except the block casting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Today I cleaned the bores after my honing experiment. The crosshatch is not as pretty as the machined ones for sure, but that will do. The bores are soft to the touch but scratchy to the nails, which is what I wanted. Of course this is where the tribologists starts laughing but at least I tried a deep RVK and medium RK, whatever that means. I could not resist doing a light touch by hand with a 3000 grit just to clean up the surface a little better. I hope the bores finish isn’t going to boutcher the rings on initial startup.

After that I set the ring gaps (0.45mm and 0.6mm this time, or 0.005 x bore diameter for the first ring and and 0.007 x bore diameter for the second one) and finally assembled the pistons and rods. I’ll install the bearings at the last moment but other than that the rods and pistons are ready to go.

What I did for the ring gaps this time is put a ring in the bore and measure the gap as usual. Say I found 0.3mm. Then I removed the ring and measured the free gap (the ring gap when the ring is standing by itself) with a precision caliper, which I zeroed on the value found.

The value itself is irrelevant. I was targeting 0.45mm so I set my instrument to 0.15mm from the zero I had just set, which is the difference between the 0.3mm I measured and the 0.45mm I wanted.

I could then use the caliper as a gauge to set the free gap to what it was + 0.15mm. I could quickly check as often as I wanted while filing.

When that was done I deburred the ring very slightly, put it back in the bore, and checked my final value. I only needed a small correction to nail my target value. I found this much more efficient than repeatedly deburr and put the ring back in the bore, use the feeler gauge to estimate progress, and rince and repeat until the target is reached.

This time I used diamond files to trim the rings by hand. I have one of those abrasive wheel rig with a little crank but the grit on the disk is very coarse, like 80 grit, and it does a terrible job because of that, I don’t know what they were thinking. I used a 240 grit file to trim quickly and a 600 grit file for the fit and finish.

The files worked very well and quickly, and with the caliper trick I avoided many round-trips to the bore to check progress.

Automotive tire Bicycle part Silver Rim Automotive wheel system

Tableware Dishware Plate Table Ingredient

Automotive tire Automotive lighting Font Audio equipment Auto part

Motor vehicle Gauge Gas Font Household hardware
Product Wood Electric blue Kitchen utensil Clock

Hand Hand tool Tool Wood Blade


Automotive tire Stairs Rim Automotive design Tints and shades

Automotive lighting Light Drinkware Headlamp Audio equipment
White Light Drinkware Nail Finger
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
365 Posts
The Ford cylinder bore honing is very light and the bores are very smooth. This is probably the perfect hone for the stock rings, with very good seal from new and no oil consumption. I am going to ruin that and make a slightly coarser honing. I believe this is necessary for the thinner rings of my new pistons.
Coarser honing would likely just require a longer break in time before oil consumption subsides?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coyote Chaser

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Coarser honing would likely just require a longer break in time before oil consumption subsides?
Yes, and maybe some slight pressure losses during that time. This remains to be seen. I still gave it a touch of 500 grit as a 2nd operation so in theory I should have deeper valleys from the 180 grit and flat tops from the 500 grit.

The break in should not be too bad as it’s not really coarse, it’s supposed to be a plateau honing that is finer than traditional honing on the top, but with deeper ruts added. Traditional honing is at 220-280 grit.

One thing I’ve seen is it’s challenging to clean. I did at least four cleaning passes then oiled, and I still cannot get a clean rag, there is still some stains I have to clean again before final assembly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I have one problem: I don’t know how to pop the rivets that plugs the oil gallery on the Fusion block.

The rivet’s stem is 6mm in diameter (about 1/4”) and the rivet itself is 15.75mm in diameter. It would take a giant river gun to pop these. Any idea?

I ordered a 1/4” rivet gun on Amazon that came today, but I found out that dimension refers to the hole the rover goes into, not to the rivet’s stem. Those Ford plugs are much bigger.

This is one area where the RS block is better designed: the RS block uses much larger threaded plugs with an internal hex sockets.

Font Household hardware Gas Auto part Cylinder
 

·
Registered
2017 rs
Joined
·
11 Posts
Like to know how you got those rivets in, don't like the idea of rivets in the oil galley to begin with.
Wondering if you can tap those holes for pipe plugs instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Like to know how you got those rivets in, don't like the idea of rivets in the oil galley to begin with.
Wondering if you can tap those holes for pipe plugs instead.
I called a tech advisor at my designated dealership and they said they never dealt with a bare block, the guy actually did know they could be ordered directly and could not offer any advice regarding how to pop those rivets. I mean all it takes is a rivet tool, albeit a giant one.

The more I look as the Fusion block, the more I like the RS block. The casting inside the RS block is smooth and clean and the 2.0 is coarse and rough. Some might say it’s more surface area in the water jackets, others might say the 2.0 block is cheap mass production. The RS has generous threaded stainless steel plugs, not rivets.

There are also a few water holes in the 2.3 head gasket that are blocked by the 2.0 Fusion block. I have to see if I need to drill them or not. Those holes were made for a reason.

Light Product Black Automotive engine gasket Audio equipment
Photograph White Light Product Black

I’m going to the machine shop tomorrow and we’ll work something out, tap, press-fit, or pop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
Like don't like the idea of rivets in the oil galley to begin with.
Wondering if you can tap those holes for pipe plugs instead.
Yeah we settled for pipe taps (conical) and plugs + special « aviation » sealant. My machinist says they commonly do that to replace press-fit plugs with something more robust and reliable.

My first idea was to tap to M18x1.5 which happens to be very common (O2 sensor and oil plugs) but then you need a washer or O-ring and there is only 4.5mm before you touch the timing chain guide at the front. Maybe a flat head hex socket plug would work, but not for this time.

RS wins 2-0 for the oil gallery plugs.

The 2.0 block deck finish is decent but not perfect. I asked them to skim it to get the same finish as the head.

They also have a profilometer, they will run some roughness measurements on my home-made honing and retouch it if needed.

There is very little margin as I already did the ring gaps but they say the can do a « half thou » pass (about 12 microns) with a diamond hone if correction is needed. That would bring my 0.45mm ring gap to 0.53mm which is still okay. More on this later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Factoids:

The oil jets are fairly complicated and include a check valve. It might be a good idea to test them during rebuilds, or replace them. I know from personal experience that an oil jet failure leads to engine damages.

Also, the stock ring pack appears to be made by Mahle (from the ‘m’ etched on the rings).

The stock pistons are actually very good-looking, with anodized top ring land, 1.2mm ring pack, and durable skirt coating. They get bad rap because they don’t resist detonation for very long, but that’s a tuner issue, not a piston issue.

One can see some fried oil deposits underside, on the exhaust side of mine (these are the original pistons that came with the car, about 112’000km if I recall correctly- tuned to max out the stock turbo) - a thermal barrier coating on the crown should help with that and help the oil life a bit.

Finally, the Ford piston pins are conical towards the edges. This is a lightening trick that was common for ages on refined race engines. It’s nice to see this on a stock engine. I think the Ford guys did a great job (well, Ford and Ricardo.) The only terrible things in the stock engine are the connecting rods.
Finger Household hardware Material property Wood Tool

Font Plastic Liquid Electric blue Transparency
Brown Wood Finger Material property Hardwood


Automotive tire Wood Rim Automotive design Automotive wheel system

Look ma, no det 😎
Helmet Automotive lighting Personal protective equipment Gas Auto part
Blue Automotive tire Rim Audio equipment Carbon
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top