Talk:Ford Duratorq engine

Copied from my talk page (I thought it would be better placed here):

First, the DLDs aren't generally non-intercooled. The 1.4L engine is non-intercooled, but only in the regular turbo 8-valve version. The 90/92PS 16-valve design is intercooled and uses a variable nozzle turbo, but it'll disappear soon as it can't pass Euro 4 emission regulations. The 1.6L is only available in intercooled 16-valve VNT form. The 1.8L isn't related to this design at all, it's an update of the Endura engine.

Then, there's a big mess with the ZSD design applications. First, the 2.0L 8-valve 90/110PS versions as found in several Citroen and Peugeot models are 100% genuine PSA designs, part of the Peugeot EW/DW family, and predate the Ford/PSA partnership. The 136PS 16-valve version is a ZSD but uses the same cylinder casings (85*88mm) as the Peugeot, hence the confusion.

Next, the 2.0L used in the Transit and Mondeo is not the same engine as the Ford/PSA cooperation, it's a different design with 86*86mm bore and stroke, it debuted in passenger cars with the current Mondeo and predates the Ford/PSA partnership.

The 2.2L PSA/Ford has yet to make its debut, it'll happen around mid-2006. The Peugeot/Citroen models use the Peugeot DW12 engine (2179cc, 85*96mm), and the Mondeo and Jaguar X-Type use an enlarged version of the Transit/Mondeo engine (2184cc, 86*94mm), so they're completely unrelated. The 2.4L is based on this design and not part of the Ford/PSA partnership either.

Speaking of Peugeot engines, I managed to find info on the modern families of Peugeot engines (X, TU, XU, EW/DW and ES). I'll add them saturday. --Pc13 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections, Pc13 (talk · contribs)! I'm just doing detective work on this engine family so I really appreciate a knowledgeable person's help. I was interested in the novelty of a shared engine family. It is odd that unrelated engines share the exact same displacement - perhaps Peugeot contributed the block design? --SFoskett 15:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have the exact same displacement, but it comes pretty close. 85x88mm makes for 1997cc, and 86x86mm for 1998cc. It's not explicit in the press-release, but I believe for the 2.0 L engine they decided on keeping the PSA cylinder casings because the tooling at the Douvrin factory was already made for it. Interestingly, there will be two 2.2 L designs in the PSA/Ford partnership. Passenger models will use the 2179cc (85x96mm) PSA displacement, but LCVs will use a new 2198cc (86x94.6mm) displacement. The PSA engine can't be used in RWD vehicles, whilst the Ford Transit block can. --Pc13 15:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I did some work on this as you can see. I created the List of PSA engines stub and the PSA EW/DW engine page. More obviously has to be done! --SFoskett 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will have to split out the Duratorq families into different pages and use this as a disambiguation page like PSA HDi engine. --SFoskett 16:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What should we call the split pages? Ford DLD engine or Ford/PSA DLD engine? And is the ZSD the name of the JV engine or just the Ford? --SFoskett 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is a PS? I assume it's a horsepower rating of some sort. Since the PS disambi page doesn't have an explanation, perhaps one could be made here or added there with a link here?--24.6.207.223 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial vehicles

What about Ford Transit and other commercial vehicles. They are not covered here, even though they are marketed with Duratorq engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.105.42.201 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error on main page: Puma engine family does not include the "W" family 2.5L and 3.0L engines. These engines are designed by Mazda and have no commonality to "Puma" engines. "W" family Mazda engines are used in the Asia Pacific Ranger and Everest / Endeavour (India) models.

Problems

Searching the net, I find hundreds of references to unsolvable problems with this line, so I am adding a section to point this out. $\alpha$ 10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) $\alpha$ 08:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Duratorq engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bore/stroke in infobox

Are these figures correct? The smallest sizes given are bore=89.9mm×stroke=92mm which in a minimum 4-cyl configuration comes out as >2.3L, a rather larger capacity than many of the engines in question. I mean unless I'm just having a bad maths day, which is always possible. --Vometia (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

York engine

This article states the Duratorq replaced the York engine used in the Land Rover Defender. The York was definitely not used in the Defender. 176.252.44.214 (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]