The
Duratec ‘vs’ Endura-E
Introduction
In late 2002, Ford replaced the
Ka’s long serving 1·3 Endura-E with the 1·3 Duratec 8v.
The Duratec 8v is related to the
Endura-E - in simple terms, it uses a different head on the same block.
Why
Duratec 8v?
Many people have expressed their
disappointment that Ford didn’t use a sixteen valve engine - but these
individuals have perhaps seen that the Ka doesn’t have a “16V” decal on it, and
they want this! However, the engine
configuration is irrelevant except in that it can tilt, but not
determine, where across the rev range the engine produces its power and
torque. To determine where the engine
produces its power or torque, you look to the camshaft profile, ECU coding, induction and exhaust systems. To
simply want a “sixteen valve” engine because it has sixteen valves is a bit
short sighted.
The reason why Ford redesigned the
Endura-E, rather than design a completely new engine, is primarily for cost
implications. The Duratec 8v shares some
components with the Endura-E, and these components did not require
redesigning. In fact, this is quite a
common trick within the car manufacturing sector - old engine designs are
re-used time and time again. If it’s
not broken, don’t fix it!
What’s
it like to drive?
On paper, the Duratec produces
more power, slightly more torque, thus offers greater performance - yet is more
fuel efficient.
|
Engine |
PS |
@ rpm |
Nm |
@ rpm |
|
1·3 Duratec |
70 |
5,500 |
106 |
3,000 |
|
1·3 Endura-E |
60 |
5,000 |
105 |
2,500 |
|
Superchipped 1·3 Endura-E |
63 |
5,900 |
110 |
2,300 |
However, raw figures do not tell
you how it drives. In isolation, the
Duratec well at lower engine speeds, feels “good enough” the mid-range, and
pulls well at higher engine speeds.
The Duratec’s disadvantage is that
Ford have married an engine that produces more acceleration higher up in the
rev range with taller gearing so it’s harder to access the greater grunt. Comments that the Duratec is much quicker
over 70 mph make me smile when the legal speed in the
On the road, the different gearing
and power delivery translate into two Kas that are simply as quick inside the
speed limit so as one cannot tell. The
Duratec is noticeably less willing and flexible around the town, especially
with the 3·62 final drive, but on
the open road using the upper gears, it’s difficult to tell the two apart. However, it becomes obvious when you extend
the engine, either to overtake, or you just feel like it /cough/. Whereas the standard Endura-E will pull to
the high 40s in second gear, the Duratec is still going well in to the low 50s,
and again, the Endura-E drags itself to 70 in third, and the Duratec sweetly
pulls through. This will be partly
associated with the gearing, and partially with the revvier engine.
Come to a motorway gradient,
though, and it’s the 1·3 Duratec 8v that has the driver grabbing for a lower
gear before the 1·3 Endua-E.
Summary
When comparing the Duratec 8v with
Ford’s excellent 1·25 litre Zetec-SE, I find it
somewhat lacking. Yes, the Duratec has a
better low down response, but it doesn’t have quite the sweet, revvy nature of
the Zetec-SE donk (which revs up to almost 7,000 rpm), and there is no
advantage in terms of fuel consumption.
Do I prefer it to the standard Endura-E? This is
a difficult question to answer. The
Duratec feels hamstrung by the tall gearing.
Yes, it’s a nicer engine per se, but as a package, I prefer the
Endura-E’s low down thump. Perhaps if
Ford used the 4·25 final drive with the 1·3 Duratec 8v it would be a better
package, but it wouldn’t be as economical as the older 1·3 Endura-E!
Head
to Head
There is some debate amongst us Ka
enthusiasts regarding the relative performance of the 1·3 Endura-E and the 1·3
Duratec.
Duratec fans will tell you that
the engine’s greater power output and keener pull at higher engine speeds means
that it’s significantly quicker than
the Endura-E. Unfortunately for them,
this does not translate to a quicker car on the road. In isolation, it feels quicker, but driven
keenly in convoy, the Duratec certainly doesn’t pull away from the
Endura-E. When it comes to hill climbing
abilities, there are a limited number of scenarios where the Endura-E ekes out
a small advantage compared to the Duratec.
There are also a limited number of situations where the Duratec ekes out
a small advantage over the Endura-E, but back to back, there’s nothing in
it. Neither can overtake the other with
any degree of conviction.
However, driven back to back
against the standard Endura-E, the Duratec has significantly less heave in the
bottom third of the engine speed range, the two are level pegging it in the mid
third, and it feels better in the top third.
In snap-open throttle experiments
from 10 mph in second gear, the standard Endura-E punts forward, whereas the
Duratec’s engine note changes speed and it merely accelerates. From 20 mph, the Endura-E also still has the
immediate advantage, but the Duratec isn’t quite so sluggish. From 30 mph, the it’s difficult to put
anything between the two, but as the speeds rise so the Duratec is pulling
better.
In terms of maximum speed, the
Duratec model does have a higher speed and I would expect better acceleration
over around 80 mph from the Duratec. But
this is of academic interest!
Superchipped Endura-E
The above table illustrates the
claimed increase in engine output for the superchipped (Bluefin’d) Endura-E but showing where
Kermit produces peak torque. Although
the improved output looks rather insignificant, the headline figures only show
part of the story. The chipped Endura-E
also produces over 90% of peak torque from 1,500 rpm to 4,500 rpm. Notably, at 2,100 rpm, the chipped Endura-E
is producing more torque than the standard Endura-E could ever produce.