When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just been doing a spot of reading... I notice that although the 2.0 esp is a good 40 hp down on the ST it's only a second slower from 0 - 60.
Now I have read various articals that say although very strong the 6 speed getrag is a lazy box, which would suggest that the reason for the apprent lack of acceleration on the ST or should that be the better acceleration of the 2 ltr is down to the 5 speed unit?
With this in mind, is it a popular modification to fit the 2 ltr MTX box to the ST engine? If it is what sort of difference has it made if any? Is it a viable modification? I understand there are issues with the 6 speed using a dual mass flywheel, but I assume as you can fit the the 6 Speed to a 2 ltr block the reversal is also achievable by using a 2 ltr flywheel on the ST block?
I have not driven and ST170 but imagine it is the same as the Puma and XR2i with VCT an dnormal engines. The VCT engines are designed to give good low down tourque and should be better were it matters, 30-50mph etc.
I don't really see the comparison to be honest mate... The puma has a 5 speed box that in essence an evolution of the XR box with slightly different ratio's, they have totally different engines and have very little in common with each other.
One of the primary and well documented critisims(sp?) of the ST is the slugishness. The 6 speed is a lazy box on the 170, it's more suited (in my opinion) to the higher power ZT conversions that actually have the power to pull the gearing. With this in mind, this is why I would have thought the closer gearing of the 5 speed box would suit the ST engine and power.
i got an st 170 and would agree a 5 speed box would be better unless your revs are right up there but i dont like to drive like that all the time so i also get lazy driver how sad am i
I had a 1.8 zetec collection which had the same 5 speed as the 2.0 IIRC. Have driven my mates ST170 very hard on several occasions, and have to say I definetly preferred the box in my 1.8! The 170 box must be stronger though surely?
That is generally the case G, although I drove a 1.8 recently which had lift up reverse, that usually indicates an MTX g'box, unless it was retro-fitted.
MTX is said to be the strongest recent gearbox, as the RS one (IIRC) uses a modified MTX with Quaife internals? Isn't the 6spd a Getrag box?
having both a st170 and a 2.0 esp i to would agree with what you have said . i think the st170 has been slighty wasted with the six speed box. with a 5 speed i think the car would have been alot better
Well I'm already runnig a 2.0 on MTX in my ESP, so in theory, is it just a case of transplanting a 2.0 Duratec lump?
if you mean transplanting an St170 engine into yours then you will need the loom and ecu to go with it. Plus it has a different bottom end so I dont know whether the MTx box will be a straight swap onto a duratec engine. If you can get an MTx flywheel onto the duratec box then you're good to go.
Not entirely acurate... The ST170 is in essence a 2 ltr Zetec with a VVT/VCT head, the blocks on the Zetec and ST are virtually the same, the bellhousing on the MTX and the Getrag are the same, hence why people use the ST Getrag for the ZT conversions...
In theory the ST engine will require the ST dualmass flywheel removing and replacing with the 2 ltr one. Then it's a case of what Mr Yeti said.
Don't forget the driveshafts are completely different until the outer CV joints.
I run a MT285 box (with solid flywheel & vauxhall clutch) on my mildly tuned 2.0, and certainly wouldn't go back to a MTX75. Even allowing for the extra gear, the spacing of the ratios is far more even. Also the change is far slicker without the double syncro, especially with some mods to the selector mechanism.
gearbox
gear cables
gear lever/linkage unit
flywheel
clutch
Right, I've found an ST170 Engine with everything... According to Yeti's post I should already have the above in my 2.0 shouldn't I? So just a case of getting the driveshafts too?
Last edited by CarbonRick; 29-03-2008 at 02:13 AM.
There is no problem running speedos with either the IB5 or MTX Focus gearbox. The calibration is in fact in the PCM which converts the Vehicle Speed Sensor (VSS) signal to a serial signal on the OBD data highway. It also outputs a 'calibrated' pulse for legacy items such as cruise control and volume control on the radio.
The VSS sensor 'looks' at a plastic/metal wheel on the diff (which replaces the speedo worm gear in earlier cable speedo boxes) which has 26 teeth. so 26 pulses per driveshaft revolution.
The only mismatch is with an ST170 PCM/Gearbox. The outputs from the PCM are still the same, but the pulse rate from the gearbox is much higher. This is because the MT285 was never designed to drive a mechanical speedo. The VSS just looks at the crownwheel. So it outputs 89 pulses per rev of the driveshaft to the PCM.
So to use any other box with a ST170 PCM, or, to use a ST170 gearbox with an ECC-V Focus PCM (as I do) you either have to pay Ford to correct the PCM calibration or fit a frequency modifier. Ford can do the PCM calibration to correct for different wheel/tyre options; I don't know if they can do the major change needed for a gearbox swap.
I use a frequency modifier marketed for bikes, but also used by kitcar fraternity. Its called a Speedo Healer. It just goes between the VSS and the PCM and programmed with a pushbutton and a few switches. Unfortunately the Ford VSS is non-standard (according to the Speedo Healer manufacturer) so a couple of resistors are needed as well.
OK, its a self fit, but the unit is cheaper than even getting Ford to look at your car. Its also useful for minor recalibration for swapping wheels/tyres.
There is no problem running speedos with either the IB5 or MTX Focus gearbox. The calibration is in fact in the PCM which converts the Vehicle Speed Sensor (VSS) signal to a serial signal on the OBD data highway. It also outputs a 'calibrated' pulse for legacy items such as cruise control and volume control on the radio.
The VSS sensor 'looks' at a plastic/metal wheel on the diff (which replaces the speedo worm gear in earlier cable speedo boxes) which has 26 teeth. so 26 pulses per driveshaft revolution.
The only mismatch is with an ST170 PCM/Gearbox. The outputs from the PCM are still the same, but the pulse rate from the gearbox is much higher. This is because the MT285 was never designed to drive a mechanical speedo. The VSS just looks at the crownwheel. So it outputs 89 pulses per rev of the driveshaft to the PCM.
So to use any other box with a ST170 PCM, or, to use a ST170 gearbox with an ECC-V Focus PCM (as I do) you either have to pay Ford to correct the PCM calibration or fit a frequency modifier. Ford can do the PCM calibration to correct for different wheel/tyre options; I don't know if they can do the major change needed for a gearbox swap.
I use a frequency modifier marketed for bikes, but also used by kitcar fraternity. Its called a Speedo Healer. It just goes between the VSS and the PCM and programmed with a pushbutton and a few switches. Unfortunately the Ford VSS is non-standard (according to the Speedo Healer manufacturer) so a couple of resistors are needed as well.
OK, its a self fit, but the unit is cheaper than even getting Ford to look at your car. Its also useful for minor recalibration for swapping wheels/tyres.
[Quote = pdfbt40; 6828066] Todo está redactado como a cómo el www.ffoc.co.uk .
Como dije 26 pulsos por eje impulsor 360 grados
89 pulsos por revolución del eje impulsor.
La frecuencia del pulso para la velocidad depende de las ruedas/neumáticos.[/QUOTE]
I think I've understood it. Those resistances need to be placed in parallel.
The thing is, between the speed sensor and the Speedohealer or between the Speedohealer and the ECU?
23-02-2008, 12:28 PM
5 speed on a 170?
