Dahl88

Hi mates, i know this have been discussed a 100 times before, as i read everything there is to read on the net, but im still curious


Im converting my 1.6 cvh xr3i EFi to zvh one of these days. Im pretty set on doing it NA, since turboing it will cost around over 1000 in legal permits alone (I live in Denmark), and i cant get it motted with a full zetec under the hood.

So i got 2 questions:

What is the BHP potiental in a 2.0 zvh? I was considering running somekind of faster cam with solid lifter, 4 branch manifold and throttlebodies of a motorbike, or maybe bike carbs.

How high can you rev on of these and can you get around 160-170 bhp without getting a ridicolous shitty car in the low revs?

Also, can you run bike carbs and the edis or alone, or should i go for ITB and spend some money on a standalone ECU ?

Roosie

iTrader: (8)

Its a shame you live in Denmark i built a 2.0 N/A ZVH which is not needed anymore and is for sale as i went 16v in end. it has a AL Development ZVH N/A spec head which is fully ported polished and compression is perfect for 2.0 zetec engine.

this engine was going to be about 160bhp with bodies

djmca

I used to run an 18 ZVH with big valve head, kent cam, 4 branch manifold and full stainless exhaust, polished/ported and skimmed head on R6 bike carbs. Id say it made around 130ish


You cant rev any higher than a standard CVH as its the valve springs etc in the head that are the weak link. You dont need to rev that high anyway unless your running a full spec race cam with top end power.


I ran the standard dizzy setup although you will benefit slightly from standalone ecu

Dahl88

How much was the engine going for mate? A shame about the different countries!

Dahl88

thanks for the reply! Not to be rude, but is 130 all? Seems low since my thashed 1.6 cvh efi with nothing but a sportex system and a KN filter made 114 rolling roaded, with a dead MAP sensor.. Bet yours sounded MAD tho!!

I've seen some CVH's rev for around 7500-8000 without valve float, both used standard ford springs, since the aftermarket are sh!te.

I've heart about 2.0 zetec on carbs with 160 bhp out of the box, Does the CVH head kill THAT much performance?

djmca

To be fair the power i got from the zvh is only an estimate, it was probably restricted by the limited advance curve of the distributor. Also bear in mind it was a 1.8. Some 1.8 Zetecs only make 115 bhp.


Im now running a 2.0 Zetec on bike carbs which is standard apart from a 4 branch and stainless exhaust. I would say it is around the 160 mark and the difference over the ZVH is amazing


I dont think the CVH kills the power, more that its old technology now and the Zetec heads flow much better

Dahl88

At the time, the N/A zvh is the only way for me to go, Will discuss with the MOT guy to approve for the 16v zetec, but even if he does, the best i can do is a bloody 1.8 zetec.

so you dont find the zvh a lot torqueir ?

djmca

Oh yes the ZVH has a lot more torque, the difference over the standard CVH is noticable


Im not in anyway slating the ZVH. In many ways it is better for some people. It looks more original and many of the original CVH parts can be retained. Im just saying not to expect massive power from it although im sure some people have done this successfully with the 2.0 bottom end.

Dahl88

Thanks for the reply mate!

I saw a na 2ltr zvh in fastford make 176 bhp on cam, 4 branchen and itbs, and headwork .. thats pretty solid, no idear if it was at the fly tho, it was just stated as "BHP"

Tbh i startede to think about either paying the money and progress with a zvh turbo in the long run. They easy run 200+ bhp and that will be pretty damn fast in a 850kg car

On the other side i love the sounds of carbs/itbs,(never heard a zvh tho) and i can tune my cvh efi in n/a form and eventually progressive to a full 2.1 zvh n/a at a later stage, and reuse the 4 branch, cam, carbs and megajolt.

People are telling me itbs/carbs sucks for daily drivning tho?

djmca

I did turbo my ZVH through the bike carbs for a while but because they were in a plenum chamber i missed the sucking noise of them! They do sound awesome on any engine, much more responseive than Webers. They are easier to use, cheaper to buy and more economical to run IMO.


The ZVH doesnt sound any different as its the same head. I was running an EFI head like yours, the only problem being that they dont do an off the shelf manifold for the EFi CVH. I had to get one made specially as the ports are a different shape


My car is only used for shows/weekends so i cant comment on daily driving but it starts/drives fine. I know carbs can be a bit of a pain to setup initially but once they are done they dont require much maintenance.


I had looked at moving to ITBs last year but basically concluded that there would be no real power gain over carbs on my standard Zetec and the cost would have been sky high for little/no gain.

Dahl88

Would you consider a 1800 zetec to be a better option than the 2.0 zvh?

djmca

Again its really personal choice whether you want to modify your car or keep it standard within reason


Obviously the ZVH retains most of the CVH originality where as the Zetec is completely modified


Performance wise i dont know that there would be much of a difference but obviously the 16v would be better revving


The reason i went for full Zetec was to be different and also i really wasnt happy with the ZVH conversion. Just never felt like a proper engine, i know that sounds silly but its only my opinion. I always had it in my head that it was a botch job!

Dahl88

I really cant decide, tbh i like the look at the ZVH but on the same time i like the noise from the 16v!

Im actually came to terms with my project, and im going for the 1.8 zetec, UNLESS i can get a permit for the 2.0.

Is there any real different between and NA tuned 1.8 130ps and a 2.0 zetec ? (thinking cams, 4 branch, nofiz and bike carbs)

Thanks again!

djmca

If you mean is there much difference between a tuned 1.8 and a standard 2 litre then i wouldnt think so


A tuned 2 litre though would be more powerful again

Dahl88

I was thinking about if both was equally tuned mate

djmca

Then i would say the 2 litre would have higher power and torque output