aerobod - near CYYC

There shouldn’t be any issues in starting or smoothness of running of a fuel injected car on E10. E10 become widely used here in Canada about 25 years ago and all petrol since the end of 2022 is now E10. In cold conditions some ethanol is actually beneficial to absorb any free moisture in the fuel to prevent fuel line freezing between the pump and injectors when the temperature is below -20C. We used to buy small bottles of Fuel Line Antifreeze that was basically neat ethanol, to add to a tank of fuel in the winter, but E10 made that unnecessary.

Hi Bob, DIN73379E fuel hose is suitable for E10 fuel, assuming integrity is otherwise good.

It seems that there is a 1/8" BSPP magnetic plug sold by a Dutch company and made in Italy: https://smeertechniek.com/en/products/aftapplug-met-magneet-1-8-bspp-1

My Duratec rebuild thread has a fair amount on throttle linkage, blank position (depends on injectors used), injector adapters, etc, page 7 onwards, here: https://www.caterhamlotus7.club/forums/topic/272933-tear-down-and-rebuild-of-my-r400-duratec-engine/page/7/ In summary on your points: - If using the standard plate Jenvey filter backing plate, the linkage position may be determined for you, under is the default, but may interfere with components. - If you use the Bosch "green" injectors, you will need to go in-head and blank the throttle body ports, they are also EV1 style with MiniTimer plugs as opposed to the standard EV6 injectors with USCAR plugs. I bought some adapters, but you can always buy the replacement R500 sub-loom from Caterham. - You will need to choose the throttle body size, I went with 48mm, but stock 420R power would favour 45mm for torque presevation, highest power if going with other major changes would favour 50mm. - The standard Jenvey mini Econoseal TPS connector is not compatible with the Caterham Econoseal one, I cut off the Jenvey one and replaced with a matching one to the Caterham loom - Can't help you with the throttle cable routing, as my car is LHD - If you are using the Bosch "green" injectors in the head, the standard fuel rail can be used with the same fuel line - I had some clearance issues with the filter backing plate and the main radiator hose beneath it, solved by shortening the hose a small amount and moving it towards the engine a bit - You will need to determine trumpet length (I went with 90mm) which will determine the filter depth used, you will then need to cut a bonnet hole if it is an S3 (optional on SV), my engine replacement thread details an accurate method to do this.

I think they are likely scenarios, Colin. I don’t want to adjust the map due to it being optimised for use without the suppressor and switching maps is dangerous if I forget to switch back to the correct map when removing the device. I think the only significant detriment in staying with the same map is higher fuel consumption than optimum on track at WOT with the device fitted.

It does, but I need to balance the restriction vs noise reduction. 18 plates gives me about 6dB noise reduction from previous measurements, I’m hoping for 4 to 5dB with 24 plates. The absolute noise reduction may not be as much, but the noise measurement devices on the exhaust side of the track should see a higher reduction due to the flow not pointing directly at them, with it being radial to the exhaust exit instead of axial to it.

The thin one deflects hot exhaust gas away from the edge of the fibreglass wing, the angled front piece is to deflect cones when hit at autocross, which is where the noise restrictions I had to comply with were brought in about 5 years ago.

With my new engine and the change in policy this year at my closest track to meet aggregate noise outputs during a given track day, as opposed to restricting noise levels of specific cars, I decided to remove my noise suppressor. Unfortunately on the last session there they determined I would be pulled off first in our track day club if they are getting close to exceeding the aggregate total, as I was the loudest car at 100dB at 15 metres from the noise measurement devices on the right (exhaust) side of the track. With the old R400 spec engine I was 92dB at 15 metres with the noise suppressor fitted with 18 plates, about 6dB less than without the device. Here is that config: I added another 6 plates (24 total) for use with the new R500 spec engine. Today I decided to datalog driving the same route with full throttle acceleration in as close to the same places as possible, both with and without the suppressor fitted. Up to half throttle, there is no Lambda difference between with and without the device. In the critical areas from below max torque to the redline at full throttle it does affect the Lambda quite a bit. In the 6200-8200RPM range without the device I average 0.85 Lambda, but with the device fitted this drops to 0.79. Qualitatively there is little change in power output as Lambda 0.8 to 0.9 at full throttle versus power output should be a gentle curve peaking around 0.85-0.86 on a naturally aspirated engine, but with only a few horsepower variation over the range. I think I will keep the mapping as-is instead of creating an additional map to swap between, just in case I forget to swap back to the normal map with the suppressor removed, which could give a catastrophically lean mixture. Also, the increased back pressure could increase exhaust and valve temperatures, so the extra cooling from the rich mixture will be beneficial in that case. Likely I should be around 95dB at 15 metres with the device fitted. Most of the track days this year will be with it removed, though.

They have an overtaking protocol laid out here: https://javelintrackdays.co.uk/trackdays/image/Downloads/AN_Instructions.pdf Overall seems to be fairly standard best practice rules, if enforced. Also have similar rules for different tracks here: https://javelintrackdays.co.uk/trackdays/image/Downloads/

The black anodized aluminium cap over the gauze filter has a rubber ‘O’ ring on it. Carefully lever the cap out and make sure the screw holding it isn’t over tightened (approx 6Nm), using shake-proof washer and some blue thread-locker on it. Although a new engine will require 7 litres for the initial fill, you will only get about 6.5 litres in after an oil change when filled 5mm below the dry sump tank mid-baffle with hot oil on a running engine.

With my upgraded Duratec build, Raceline supplied the Helix 220mm 70-6026 clutch friction plate and a matching cover plate.

I would still check a few things, as Neil mentioned, check for air leaks around the intake system and any attached hoses. I would also confirm that the TPS voltage doesn't always correlate to the same TPS site (it certainly always corellates in the current 9A4 ECU implementation on a Duratec). You could log the TPS voltage and site when driving the car, then output the values to a spreadsheet or look at them on the graph. If the values don't always map 1-to-1, then there is some inaccessible modifier in the ECU that is changing them. If the values do always map 1-to-1, then either TPS site 1.0 has been used as the base idle site in the ECU config, or there is still a mechanical adjustment to be made to get it to site 0.0 (or at least below 0.5). If the TPS site stays at 1.0 as the TPS is adjusted such that the voltage drops but the site doesn't, it may just have reached a "floor" value, which can be set in the TPS config that you can't see due to the locked ECU. If everywhere else the same TPS site maps to the same voltage (from the logged info), then TPS input to the ECU is as-expected.

It looks as though the firmware version 992ab94p that you are using is quite limited in idle control. It dates back to either late 2006 or early 2007, going by the notes in the file properties. The only idle control is based on the fuel at the idle throttle site, it is then only modified by ignition advance changes made relative to coolant temperature when the throttle is at the idle site. It is not possible to see what the idle throttle site is configured to or the ignition advance vs coolant temp map at idle with the locked 992 ECU. The only idle related panel you can add is "Idle and Start Temp Site", search in the real-time channel panel selection tree for "idle" and it will appear as a selection.

I wouldn't use the WIX 57035, Pete, it is mainly designed for ride-on lawnmowers and filter to 32 microns, the non-conventional relief valve is set to 0.5 bar. The larger 51348 filter I use (specified as a standard fit for most Duratecs) filters to 21 microns and has a conventional steel bypass valve spring rated at 0.7 bar.

If you don't use a conventional running-in oil, a conventional diesel oil due to the high ZDDP works well. I used Shell Rotella T4 15w40 on my engine. Also, how hard you do the initial ring break-in can depend on the ring gap. A performance engine gap on the Duratec can be as high as 0.5mm and will be fine for hard usage soon after starting, but the Ford spec can be more variable and likely lower (no accurate ring fettling before factory install), leading to the risk of ring-bind and breakage if pushed too hard too soon, as the gap increases slightly as the rings bed in and the friction heat decreases.