New Cougar Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm sitting here with the 2001 Ford powertrain service engineering book. I look under duratec and it says "2.49 Duratec". WTF? I looked at last year's book and it's at 2.5 liters. Well, I got down to some number crunching and the specs say that the 2001 duratec has a bore of 81.66 mm and a stroke of 79.50. Last year's had the bore of 82.55 mm and a stroke of 78.44. This results in 4 cubic inches lost in the 2001! What happened!?!?!?!?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Yup, they made som serious changes, but boosted the compression a tad bit to make up for the power, and honestly, you can feel a diference in torque, I think the 2001 has a tad bit more, but yes it's true, it's a different engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Yes this is true. This is also why the 2001 Cougar Requires a 5W20 oil and nothing else. Otherwise it could do damage to the engine, and void the warranty!! I know what your saying what is 5W20? I said the same thing when I took it in for my first oil change. A thinner oil is needed due to the engine changes! It's $2 more per litre of the **** too!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Compression has stayed the same at 9.7:1. Torque specs from ford also say the same [email protected] So ford spent millions on this project to take away 4 cubic inches? What a waste of money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
I have to agree with you RiverRojo!! I've driven the 2000 and obviously the 2001, and I can't tell a difference in preformance!!
 
G

·
Maybe Ford shouldn't put any more money into developing a car that they are planning to cancel in 2003... Who the hell runs that show anyway?
 
G

·
The Duratec isn't only used in the Cougar, not by a long shot.
I'm willing to bet the changes have something to do with emissions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The x type's bore is 7.33 mm bigger than our duratecs. Who the hell at ford thought this would be cost effective? I don't think that ford would put this 2.49 in the jag. Putting regular gas in a jag is very degrading to the nameplate. Plus, why would ford put 40 LESS hp in the jag? This is a mystery indeed.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top