I know zetecs look better on paper,but its out on the road that counts...
i need you guys to help me make up my mind bein that i dont know anyone with/been out in a zetec'd turbo rs!!!! what i want people to take into acount is:- If there was a 250bhp CVH and a 250bhp Zetec turbo what will be the faster car??????? Thing is my mate had a 1600 low comp'd with big turbo etc mk3 fez turbo,and in all the months it was on the road he NEVER got beat in it on the road!!!!he recons it was runnin around 230-240 BHP and it scared the hell out of every1 that went out in it. It pulled from his dads 350 bhp rwd saff on the motorway!! saff was runnin 30psi of boost,he was runnin 17psi!! He Had one of them really accurate G-Tec Pro thingys which measure everything you would want it to.He recorded 13.1 , 13.4 & 13.5 qtr miles on it!!! he also was consistantly recording 5.0 - 5.4 0-60's all day long as well.. To check out how accurate it was he did 0-60 trials at silverstone last year and recorded a 5sec Dead!!!!!! the only thing that was a close tear up was with a 480bhp supra round our way,which may i add ... he was on the supras bumper from the green light right up to 120mph befor the supra stared pulling awy very slowly. The fez also used to get round to 150mph with a 1000rpm to go,but it was to scary to take such a little car any faster. IM just scared to invest my money into something that could potentially be slower. HELP ME All views will be taken on board!

 

each to there own mate you have only got to look at Christians and Tony turbo`s series 2 with the 1600cvh (slightly modified of course) and there top speeds they can reach to know the cvh has big potiental.

The zetec has its own bonuses but i have`nt got a clue about them some of the zetec guru`s will tell you on here but as said before its up to you and what you want from your engine

The cvh has a big power surge when the boost kicks in and the zetec is more like a long pull from the word go and they pull like a train when they get goin.

i might be wrong on the above, but the cvh and zetec guru`s will put you straight mate

Andy

 

see my sig for my answer, LOL

 

The Zetec and ZVH Engine'd RST's have alot more low down Torque.

In the real world, this will make a nicer overall car on the road.

However, it's no myth, Zetec's just don't like to rev like a CVH. I know that the likes of Sunny and Paul J are at the top of the tree with their FRST's, but it has taken ALOT of development to get that far. Personally, I would choose a 250bhp CVH over a 300bhp Zetec.

If I took all the bits off my engine and fitted them to a decent Zetec Engine, I could probably make 350-400bhp quite easily, but thats just not for me.

CVH all the way!!

 

I'm quite suprised you say they don't like to rev Christian, I thought quite the opposite!

Guess you learn something new everyday! lol

You have to take into account the different costs involved aswell mate, what these are I dont know!

 

i would be interested in everyones comments on this topic too and rightstuff them g tech thingys arent as accurate as you think their shite

 

Dont get me wrong,i love the feel of my cvh coming on boost even though im running a mere 18psi for 213bhp but im hearing of more and more cvh heads ripping rocker studs out every day...i knhow the engines are getting on a bit now and you've got to expect it.but when i build this next engine,i want good power,but i want it to last and be reliable.I just dont know what to do.im just scared that i will invest my money in a zetec,and not feel that turbo punch in at 3500rpm.i know the zetec is smooth throughout,but i want it to scare the hell out of me.

 

I understand what you are sayin sufsRS about the g tech pro,cos thats what we thought aswell, but we know the silverstone equipment aint shit and it wasnt far off of that.. like i said he never got beat by anything. and he had a very long list of decent motors he beat aswell including m3's, lotus elise exige,a 270bhp 1900 fez that had cossie manage ment etc running 22psi while at the time my mate was only running 15psi!!!!
my mates engine spec was:-
Stage 3 head with 35 kent cam
low comp mahle pistons 7.3/1
cometic head gasket
lightend and balanced bottom end
4x4 cossie turbo,360 degree bearings,60 trim compressor,48 exhaust
matched port inlet manifold
grs intercooler & Rad
k&N
Biege injectors & Colins stage 2 powerchip
uprated pump.
thats about it.
Thing is that isnt a massive spec in comparison to some of these motors on here,yet the times arent far off at all.my point is does it warrent spending all this cash on diferent management etc to not really go that much faster??????????????

 

I think there are couple of things to ask yourself:

a) what kind of power delivery do you want
b) how much are you willing to spend

I think you will be able to get more bhp/Ł from the zetec, but either way I reckon for the kind of power you seem to be describing (300+ bhp) you are going to be looking around Ł5k + for it to be built if you want it to be reliable.

Obviously the turbo that you choose will play a part in how much power you get and how it drives, ie smaller turbo for less power but more drivable, or big turbo for bigger power but possibly less drivable (will give you a kick in the back once it kicks in!)

What do you want from the enigne? something you are going to be using on a regular basis or something that you are mainly just gonna be taking out for a blast?

 

I Think im gonna have to have a very long think about it and count the pennies

 

Was this at Ford Fair one year mate?

Cos I think if you ask around on here there's been some very dubious times recorded using their equipment!

 

yes mate,i think it was at ford fair. you might of saw his fez. it was black,really low wis a grs intercooler and 3door cossie wheels with black inserts

 

zetec head work is very pricy.

 

zetec's better. stronger, larger capacity and my 1.8 revs just lovely thanks bolt a tubby on and you won't need headwork anywhere near as soon up the power tree as the old 8v heads. and no rattly head! saw a mint red S2 at a show, looked really good, running 250brake or summat. started it up and... taptaptap. gutted.

 

Whether an engine is classed as 'Revvy' isn't just governed by whether it will reach the rev limit.

Explain to me why there are no ZVH's or Zetec's that have achieved decent top speeds apart from Sunny and Paul J (and they both have massive BHP)? I say its because they just don't rev as nicely higher up in the RPM range.

I'm not being bitchy, they both have their merits, but for me, the CVH is staying.

 

LOL - You want to hear mine. It sounds fairly tappy when cold. But then it is on Grey Injector which click rapidly and solid lifters. At the end of the day, who cares how it sounds when it's cold, it is how it drives that is important.


CVH for me

 

Same here...

 

i have to agree, i love my cvh, considered going zvh, but decided that i love my 1600 lol

i love saying ive got a 260bhp 1.6 lol

 

thats so true i've had a big spec zvh built due to me spending big ŁŁŁ on my cvh head and custom newman cam which i had over from my 1.9cvh..for me to build a proper zetec i was looking at Ł1100 for the head work Ł400 for cams the cost was just adding up

 

exactly mate,also i may add that the cvh has a bigger powerband than the zt or zvh,its not just pub bhp figures its the driveablilty of the cvh that does it for me,the cvh has around 1k more revs than the zt or zvh

 

Based on this subject, are 1.8 sierra blocks, (or a standard RS block bored out to 1.8/1.9) any good?

I too am also having a mass-debate (sorry ) over whether to go ZVH or stay CVH, personally to me a ZVH just isnt a true RS anymore. The logical explanation to get even more power to me would be to bore out or get a sierra block, but no-one seems to run one so im guessing this doesn't produce good results?

I'm all for CVH though, and for those who moan about noisy top ends just get your wallet out and buy a nice new cam and some hydraulic lifters, it will be quiet for years then, instead of trying to run your originally supplied 150,000 odd mile cam with thick oil

 

CVH nice and easy to work on..

And going by tony turbo and c&b and NMS lads they can make big power

 

Good topic!

I love the idea of being able to run as little boost as possible but still achiving massive power - which the zetecs seem to do.

But I also love that kick of power that the CVH provides, even on a T34 it still gives you a shuve in the back.

For me 1905cc CVH gives me the best of both worlds. Able to run lower boost to achive the same power as a 1.6, low down torque like the zetec and still have the charactoristics of a cvh.

 

mine is a zvh - yep it has took alot of work - and shit loads of money

but its not just the engine that is the probs

i destroyed my standard box after about 300 miles of it being on full boost (14psi) and the box had only covered about 10k previous. also u wil need a paddle clutch of sum sort.

i agree wit the comments that the zvh is very smooth through the range.

being honest if i regret anything its the fact i didnt go for a complete zetec version with the 16v head.

also if u go for a zetec or zvh u gotta go for a bigger turbo in my opinion - so i went for a t34

 

MMmmm intresting stuff

Well ive just recently sold my stg 3 2wd cos , and my next car is defo going to be another S2 Some people say im going back the way , but i did enjoy my Little escort more

Anyway im keeping a eye on this topic as its good to know , as the next rst i get will hav to be cvh 1.6 or 1.9 , but its the managment side im worried about , and will have to make at the least 200@wheels

So im looking forward to this as my last one only made 160@wheels and at the time it was very very nippy

So god knows what your car feels like christian , but it does inspire me lol
How mucho money is in the managment side of things ? roughly ? and what boxes are ppl running these days in there big power rst`s ? quaife diff ?

Any help appreciated

Its bloody trying to find a decent shell

Im liking john lavericks S2 which is for sale , its the right colour and condition

 

Rab, when I was talking to Rab about this the other day IIRC he said that the RST box will handle a fairly big power CVH engine, it's just RST diff's that are apparently shite! lol

Whats the average cost of getting a CVH to reliabley (sp) run 300bhp etc?

 

its the torque that is the problem

 

sure thing, everyone has their own experience and opinions based upon that, and in N/A form at least I've had zetec and cvh. My zetec rips through the revs more than my cvh ever did in any spec. I had the cvh revving off the clock with rally cam, rs16i head, ported, solid lifters, the lot. The zetec feels more comfortable hitting the higher rpm, probably better balancing done at the factory i guess, designed to be smooth and to much closer tolerances than the cvh. The cvh would go off the clock, but it wasn't as "revvy" as the 1.8 zetec I have now. hard to explain, it just roars off much faster.

 

ha ha.i guess i have found a touchy nerve amoungst us all. sometimes its hard to tell if we are actually going forwards or backwards when it comes to thses big power motors.i know it is each to their own,i know it was impossible for me to decide which to go for in the first place and that is why i brught up the topic.i cant help thinkin though...... if i wanted a car that had massive amounts of SMOOTH power i would get very bored,very quickly,and keep throwing more and more money into it(which is very easy to do without even realising it!!!)and still not get satisfaction from it.At the end of the day they are RALLYE SPORT TURBOS And if you want a Rally?Race style feel then its NOT GONNA BE SMOOTH,because from what ive seen of Turbo'd Motorsport cars they are far from smooth.As for reliability issues,Ive always said IF YOU BUILD A ENGINE PROPERLY ,RUN IT PROPERLY(management eg Perfect fuel/Air Mix And safe margine boost) There should be no reason for it to break.(This includes not abusing it) I THINK I WILL STAY CVH!!!

 

CVH For me

Zvh

Zetec - I havent got the money for the transmission or the power id want from one

 

LOL steady, thats fighting talk

 

Apart from failing fuel pumps, failing looms, failing altornators or faulty components......... yeah it should never break

 

well if you want smooth power, go for a bigger engine on less boost, if you want bugger all then hit you in the back like a sledgehammer then get a 1.3 and slap a T4 on it lol. bit extreme but illustrates the point? smoother power curves are less brutal on 'boxes too.

 

cvh all the way boys,none of this zvh lash up shit

 

well ive been the cvh route

and now im going the ze vh route ,

tbh smooth seamless power woud be fine if the cars still pulling ?

dont get me wrong i liked the kick i got when my cvh came on boost

but i like the idea of cubic capacity and like its been said it all boils down to what u want from the car ??

i still havent decided which turbo im going for but i think id be happy with something thats going to give me lots of low down torque

id settle for 200 240 bhp with a bucket load of ft lbds


was thinking for the t34 route but mabey ill just stick with a stage 3 t3 ?

what u reckon lads


big power low boost = works for me


but yeah turning into a good post this

 

il reserve my judgment on full zetec turbos until i drive one,i dont like the sound of ''smooth'' power delivery though cvh turbos are good engines and can easily produce alot of power and be reliable at the same time (to a dagree) if done correctly ie not running 22psi on a standard engine

 

So based on this, why aren't people boring out a CVH block or using 1.8 blocks?? surely this would give even more power?

 

Smaller engines rev faster

 

Because we have a turbo fitted to the engine instead. An increase in capacity will only benefit a normally aspirated engine or a turbo engine when it's off boost. When on boost, the turbo forces the air into the engine so capacity make little difference...

 

DazC


right, the way I see it is as follows....

power is equivalent to how much air gets pushed in, burnt and thrown out, so if you have a 1.6 running at 100% efficiency it will burn 1.6 litres of fuel and air per cycle.

so if you add a turbo and run it at 1 bar then it's running at 200% efficiency and burning twice as much as a naturally aspirated could possibly burn if it was running at 100% efficiency (which a cvh will never do) so then if you increase capacity to 2 litres and run it at 1 bar then you will be running 200% of 2 litres which is 0.8litres more air and fuel burning per cycle. significant?


I mean this in no way to be patronising or bitchy, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty much all self taught so am no way all-knowing. just trying to figure out whats best.