Ford Automobiles Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First of all i should point out that air conditioning refrigerant is dangerous breathed in and in contact with skin, and if realeased into the air can damage the ozone layer, if you decide to remove the AC system, you should really have the refrigerant professionally removed before you start, wear protective gloves and take precautions with spillages etc, the evaporator is mounted inside the heater/ fan unit, if you leave it in situe it is a good idea to leave small lengths of the 2 pipes sticking out through the bulkhead into the engine compartment, if you cut or shear them off flush, refrigerant may enter the heater/ ventilation system. If you remove the evaporator (let me know how you do it, looks like you have to pull the car apart to get into it to remove it) it will leave 2 holes from the heater/ fan unit through the bulkhead into the engine compartment which would need to be blocked..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Why is this in the serious power & tuning topics? Weight makes a big difference to a car, i have "ditched" around 100kgs from my car and less, is definately more, the car leaps forward effortlessly from a standstill, you can really feel the difference on the brakes,and in the handling, the car feels a lot more "alive" starting at minus 100kgs (about 16stone) means adding 100 brings it upto the wieght of an empty car, of course this brings a noticable difference to the economy, too. The AC pump wieghs 7kgs and the condenser (the part that looks like a radiator, just in front of the coolant radiator) + pipes weigh 4kgs, - 11kgs between them, this probably does not sound very much but is significant and it all adds up, combined with other weight saving measures the car was running about -80kgs about the time i removed the AC, the turn in/ steering felt noticably better, probably because the car is a little front heavy and the removed components were forward of the front wheels. When the AC was on it had a noticable effect on the performance & economy, Although the AC pump has a clutch, the pulley etc still absorbs a little power when it is off, that and the small reduction in rotating mass helps the engine pick up and rev through the band quicker, the petrol mk1 / 2 Mondeo i read about that this was done to, revved a lot faster with this mod, not such a big difference with the TDDI, probably because of the (realitively large amounts of) torque of this engine and the turbo lag.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

How do you remove the Condenser/ pipes? it sits in front of and is attached to the radiator, you are supposed to raise the front of the car up, remove the narrow tray under the radiator, support the radiator to stop it dropping and remove the 2 brackets that hold it onto the chassis at the bottom. The brackets were siezed on mine, so i had to cut the condenser from the radiator with a hacksaw and drop it out the bottom, most of the pipes were easily removed, you have to get into the left hand wing (seen from the front) to get at some, best to leave a few cm or leave some of the pipe protruding at the back, where it goes through the bulkhead. The AC compressor pump/ serpentine belt is a bit more difficult, i bought 2 differemt belts from ebay the 1st, was obviosly not going to fit, it was far too long, after an initial inspection/ try, and after reading a specially made tool helps, i decided to let my local friendly mechanic do this one (the belt is very close to the chassis and i have big hands!) A special diagram of the new layout was drawn (based on the stock/ original & modified)- its surprisingly and unnessesarily complicated. Even the 2nd belt did not fit and my mechanic ordered all the possible belts available from his factors, he fitted the one that worked and sent the rest back, i sent the one i got from ebay back.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Apart from the weight saving, and the improvements in performance and economy, the other reason i decided to ditch the AC is because it was not working that well, it probably needed a recharge, with the 2 months in the year it was used (if that) and the 10 it was'nt (im in the highlands, near the Cairingorms) it used to have that wrotten smell you get, when i discovered it was the smell of bacteria growing in the damp conditions of the air ducting, that sealed its fate.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Minus 100kgs = an estimated 1/2 a second off the 0-60mph alone (with no other mods). The lighter but less powerful GT2 spec Ferrari F430 qualified a full 8 seconds faster per lap than the heavier and more powerful GT3 F430 in the 2007 Spa 24hrs - talking of F430s, my car accelerates faster from 50-70mph in top than a Ferrari F430................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Picture shows a close up of the side of the engine, the longer original belt would have reached the (missing) AC pump which would have been at the bottom of the picture.
 

Attachments

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Very interesting. Not many people mod mk3 Mondeos in such a way as to reduce the comfort, they normally ADD bells and whistles. Good stuff.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thank you for the comment, much appreciated! Well you know what they say "less is more", sometimes it can be much, much more, and to show how much more here are some performance figures-

0-30mph ST220-2.4/3.9secs me-2.52secs ST-TDCI-3.2secs
0-60mph ST220-6.8/7.4/8.5 me-7.39secs ST-TDCI-8.7secs
0-100mph ST220-20.5secs me-20.74secs ST-TDCI-25secs
30-50mph me-3.67secs ST220-4.9secs ST-TDCI-no data
30-70mph me- 6.9secs ST220-7.1secs ST-TDCI- 8.3secs
50-70mph me- 4.29secs ST-TDCI-no data ST220-no data
50-70 in top me-5.65secs ST-TDCI-6.5secs(5th) ST220-9.1secs(5th)
30-100mph in top me-27.66secs ST-TDCI-no data ST220-no data
 
weight me- 1392kgs ST-TDCI-1494kgs ST220 - 1494/1550kgs
engine/ power me-?????? ST-TDCI- 2.2L straight4 td (6sp)153bhp at 4000rpm/295ft at 1800/103bhp/tonne ST220- 3L V6 na petrol (5sp) 217/223bhp at 6150/6250rpm 204/206ft at 4900rpm

As far as i know i have the fastest accelerating Mondeo mk3 TDDI 2.0, (no-one else on here seems to want to post any times/ figures)
 

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Those are really good numbers. Will you do a quarter mile at some point? It's the only figure I ever got of my last car, and to me it's more meaningful than most. I don't think many people have tuned a TDDI but if they can be that pokey then maybe they should!
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Those are really good numbers. Will you do a quarter mile at some point? It's the only figure I ever got of my last car, and to me it's more meaningful than most. I don't think many people have tuned a TDDI but if they can be that pokey then maybe they should!
I have not actually timed the 1/4 mile but estimate it to be about 16.6 seconds (i used the other figures and the known 1/4 mile times of cars with similar performance)
  • might be more or less/ give or take. The car is seriously lightened, which helps the acceleration a lot, i recon its worth 1/2 a second on the 0-60, Remember, the car is an ordinary-looking Estate, with steel wheels, i used to own an 827Vitesse,(18sec 0-100mph, significantly quicker than an ST220) it had a very wide, flat powerband (v6 Honda engine, v-vt style butterflies in the inlet), my TDDI cannot mach that, or the ST220, at the top end
  • It sounds strange, but the useful power of the tuned TDDI is quite narrow, especially at the top end, im working on improving the top-and power, without spending silly money or compromising the (awesome) bottom/ mid power/torque
  • If id done the same amount of work on a 2.2, it would be a rocketship, though the fixed vane/ wastegate & realative simplicity of the TDDI lends itself to a "DIY" tune
  • it looks that im obsessed by the ST220s figures, but the thing is iv managed to get the 0-100mph within a couple of tenths, i just need a bit more power/ speed, and iv matched the 0-100mph time, i feel that would be quite an achievement!
  • ps- i was expecting everyone to doubt my figures, surprisingly, no-one has (apart from when i compared the 50-70mph in top to a Ferrari F430-6.4secs, my TDDI-5.65secs)
 

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
I have an idea of what's realistic so I won't doubt it. People doubted when I said I could get well over 200bhp from standard breathing mods / bolt-ons on a mk1 V6 2.5. I got much more and eventually a quarter mile best of 15.4 seconds. I too did a lot of weight reduction to achieve that. Mine was the opposite to yours in power delivery, however, and took an age to get to 60 (best part of 9-10 seconds due to poor low-RPM running) but when it was on-cam it torque-steered even in 3rd (slightly) at 80mph, so the top end power was real.

I think your TDDI may do a bit better than you say on the quarter but obviously it's better for in-gear and for pulling away from the lights, which is awesome for daily driving of course.
 

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
I've actually driven an F430 on a "Driver's Dream Day" and talk of top gear acceleration is misleading if you don't think about it too deeply.... the F430 is a tall-geared, N/A, smallish V8 that revs to 8500rpm. It's not a car you drive in top gear at low RPMs, but I'm sure you know this
That thing was IMMENSE in a straight line and because of its wide power band it just keeps pulling faster and faster. Fecking amazing. The diesel, on the other hand, is over very quickly because its short gearing doesn't match its modified power output.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I've actually driven an F430 on a "Driver's Dream Day" and talk of top gear acceleration is misleading if you don't think about it too deeply.... the F430 is a tall-geared, N/A, smallish V8 that revs to 8500rpm. It's not a car you drive in top gear at low RPMs, but I'm sure you know this
That thing was IMMENSE in a straight line and because of its wide power band it just keeps pulling faster and faster. Fecking amazing. The diesel, on the other hand, is over very quickly because its short gearing doesn't match its modified power output.
  • Tottally- iv got the figures- Ferrari F430 4.3l V8 490hp 343ib ft 196mph/ 0-60-4sec 0-100-9.2sec, 1450kgs (50kgs more than mine). Imagine, in the real world, you'r driving your red Ferrari F430 (from your collection!), down the motorway at 50mph (in traffic), i happen to be right beside you in my Mondeo in an ajacent lane, (we are both in top gear) suddenly both lanes clear in front of us simultaniously, i press my foot down hard on the throttle, the boost controller starts working overtime at 400 times a second to get the least possible turbo lag, the gauge spins round to 22psi and the Mondeo surges forward. In the meantime, you were eating a Snickers bar and did not have time to change down & it was in the hand you use to change down, and you did'nt want to get chocolate on your paddle shift, so you floor it in top.
  • Much to your surprise, amazement and total humiliation, the crappy old Mondeo easily pulls away from you to sit in front of you in the overtaking lane behind all the 3 series BMs, with all the other lanes full of trucks, caravans, Rovers hogging the middle lane etc, you spend the next 20miles sitting behind the Mondeo, smelling the fumes, somehow you have a craving for fish & chips.
  • Ok so mabee its not that realistic (no- you would'nt have a red one!)
  • Ok so the Mondeo is ridiculously under-geared- Top is probably like the Ferrari in 3rd
  • But the Mondeo can almost never be "caught out" 30mph/ 1000rpm in top (pulls well) 30-100mph in top - under 28secs
  • Golf gtis, Civic type Rs, Mini Cooper-s es (modern ones) etc can all be despached fairly easily,
  • the -100kgs makes a big difference on the brakes/ handling, of course, + the traction is enhanced (its mostly off the back)
  • your v6, must have been very light/ 60mph is very, very slow when you are driving hard/fast anyway
  • the Mondeo is fairly economical (especially considering the performance)
  • -
  • I think i saw something about an electric waterpump?, My waterpump/ power steering is leaking, i was considering fitting an electric waterpump, and electronic controller, (iv sussed out how to do this, however any advice would be gratefully welcomed)
  • Also, i was thinking about injecting extra diesel/etc into the intake manifold, at WOT, (+ i have a 2 stage boost controller), have you heard of anyone doing this/ do you think it is feasable? (im running lean at high revs/ top end, i recon)
  • The Ferrari sounds awsome!, even the sound would be worth the asking price (if i could afford it!)
    (+ it would be a crime to drive it at 50 in top)
 

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Haha, it sounds like something you've thought about too much... a fantasy perhaps


I don't really know much AT ALL about diesel tuning, but if you've not seen it, check out Mark_Derby's 2.0 TDCI. He achieved a 14.xx quarter mile by the more familiar upgrades (big FMIC, mapping, modified injectors, exhaust etc.) WITH added to that with a large shot of N2O (for more O2...) AND on top water/methanol (for cooling the charge AND to burn as fuel to match the N2O). He got something like 230WHP on a serious hub dyno. So we're talking easily 260BHP. That is a car you should look at if you've not seen it. I think before the power adders he got maybe 15.9s quarter.

At the moment you seem to be saying your car is seriously quick in-gear, which is great, but not fast on a long straight. I'm sure you can make it better if you stick with it. It took NOS and meth for Mark's diesel to finally beat my N/A V6 on the drag strip. With standard mods it couldn't quite beat me due to power/weight ratio when I got on-cam.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hello again,Mark_Derbys 2.0 tdci shows what can be achieved, the TDDI has not got quite the same potential due to the restrictions of the pump/ injectors
I can't get bigger/ modified injectors for my TDDI (yet anyway) NOS is very expensive, (i moan about the cost of diesel!), if i could figure a way of delivering extra diesel to the inlet....
It might be better/ cheaper to transplant a 2.2 (or buy a one!) than spend megabucks on the TDDI 2.0 (unless i must, must have the fastest in the City/ countty etc!),
Don't tell anyone but you can buy a BMW 330D, 220bhp stock and 280bhp just by sticking a bluefin on it (you would have to drive a Bmw, though
)
Did you realise your old v6 had a quicker 1/4 mile time than an ST220 (15.58secs) / (yours 15.4secs), its amazing the difference weight makes, i recon a mk1 could be made 200kgs lighter than a mk3,
 

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Is the Transit van engine range closely related and is any of that swappable? I realise they'll be tuned more for torque and less for bhp but aren't there larger-capacity variations? N2O is pricey and that is a turn-off, I know what you mean.

A friend had a 530D with de-cat, good map, nice backbox and it was pretty damned quick already with such basic easy mods. He ploughed it into a field but now has a 335i. I'm scared to go in it to be honest


I realise my best time was as quick as a bone-stock ST220 or a Honda Civic Type R and other fairly quick family hatches. All about the power to weight ratio. I was probably at about 1250kg without driver and 225bhp. My mk3 feels veeeeery lazy by comparison, though it's a nice ride.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
nice read
... my 1/4 mile times are with stock car weight plus Ice install and 2nd person
think if i can get rid of some weight i could get it in the high to mid 13's
 

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Maybe but that's a massive leap from proven times so far. Not saying your car and achievements aren't awesome, though, they are
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
nice read
... my 1/4 mile times are with stock car weight plus Ice install and 2nd person
think if i can get rid of some weight i could get it in the high to mid 13's
Cool-, do you mean ice as in In Car Entertainment or ice for cooling?
Do you have a big problem with traction off the line?
Would it be possible to inject something cheaper than nos/ etc into the manifold?- like extra diesel?
i sweated blood to get the weight down on mine, its still (in my opinion) a big heavy car for 0-60/0-100/1/4 mile, i think with some serious weight saving you could get some awesome times!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
yeah in car entertainment .. lol

the only things i can see that would save on weight is

whats in the boot
rear seats
front seats
door cards
roof lining
bonnet sound deadning

still think it will be heavy car but its got to be better

that should save about .5 to 1sec

as for traction lol what traction i can get my wheels to spin in 1/2/3 .. and 4th if i really wanted to but my clutch dont like it
i'm running 2.2 DMF & Clutch and with my large noz/meth jets i can make it slip
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Just for you, here are the wieghts i measured of components at the rear of the car-
wieght saving (rear of car) + wheels/ tyres
1 Wheels/tyres- space saver= 11kgs. Full size 16" steel wheel/ some 16" alloys= 17.4 kgs. 18" tit X alloys 20kgs. 17" focus 5stud 22kgs.
2 Rear metal bumper insert/foam 8/10kgs
3 Exhaust back box =7kgs (replacement tube=1kg= -6kg)
4 Rear wiper & motor 1.5kgs
5 Jack/brace unknown
6 Hatch - Rear parcel shelf - unknown
7 Estate - Retractable back shelf = 4kgs, Rubber boot floor = 6kgs, Spare wheel cover = 3.2kgs, Trim under back of car = 1kg (sub total= 14.2kgs)
8 Rear headrests (pair of ) = 1.2kgs
9 Centre seatbelt = 0.6kg
 
17.4+14.2+ 10 (full size spare wheel + bumper insert + shelf/ rubber floor/ cover) = 41.6kgs
Total amount removed from rear of car = 50.9kgs
So the total amount removed from the rear is about 50kgs, a large amount, also, because most of this is behind the rear wheels, the front end grip + traction is greatly improved (as you probably know, the rear wheels act as a fulcrum/ pivot point and any weight behind this point lifts the weight off the front (driven) wheels), At a casual glance, only the extendable rear parcel shelf and the rear head restraints appear to be removed (items which "normal" people might remove for carrying loads etc and not replace), The back seats, all the trim, even the boot carpet are still there (in line with being a "sleeper" ), the traditional route to weight saving used to be to rip out the trim etc, in the 70s/80s trim (like door skins) was very heavy, its made lighter now, (i weight it, but lost the figures), i left the stock stereo in too, including the rear door speakers, they only weighed 1kg each, and without them it rouined the balance of the sound

I calculated a 100kg wieght saving is worth about 1/2 a second on the 0-60mph, but if its off the rear, the extra traction could be worth a lot more
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I thought i may as well put the rest in-
Front/middle of car
1 AC pump = 7kgs "radiator"/ pipes = 4kgs (sub total 11kgs)
2 Battery stock = 19kgs middle = 16.4kgs small = 12.4kgs 52Ah 540cca (minus 6.5kgs)
3 Twin radiator fans = 4.7kgs
4 Cat = 5kgs decat = 1.5kgs (minus 3.5kgs)
5 Front undertray = 2.4kgs
6 Centre console/ armrest = 2kgs
7 Plastic engine cover 1.6kgs
8 Underbonnet insulation = 1.2kgs
9 Drivers seat hight adjustment motor = 0.9kgs
10 Battery plastic box = 0.8kgs
11 Damper on engine mount = 0.7kgs
12 Trim under steering wheel = 0.5kgs
13 plastic strut trims 0.2kgs
14 EGR total delete = unknown
15 Intercooler stock = 2kgs "Lightweight" intercooler = 4.5kgs (plus 2.5kgs)
trim at bottom of rear windows = 0.4kgs
Estate pair of roof bars = 4kgs
Total = 40.4kgs
wheels minus 10.4kgs / minus 18.4kgs
50.9 + 40.4 = 91.3 + 10.4 = 101.7 / 109.7
Total (measured) weight saving 99.2kgs
future weight saving (ideas)- Perspex/ polycarbonate rear & side windows, replacement of drivers seat frame with passenger one, exhaust centre silencer delete, removal of AC matrix (still inside heater), carbon fiber bonnet or "skin" stock bonnet and fix it on with "racing" pins, front bar lightening/ removal or replacement, "gut" it from the centre posts back like a van(including rear seats, all trim, window lift motors etc)/ blackout all rear windows, lightweight racing seats/ frames, lightweight racing wheels, drilled discs.
Estimated total potential wieght saving = 120/160kgs
You might find this info useful


pic shows grommets where roof rails were, incredibly, that was one of the best 4kgs i took off, my intention was to aid the aerodynamics, the difference it made to the handling was amazing, i often drive a Titanium X mk3 2.2 (decat/ egr blocked eibach lowered 40mm), the TDDI Estate feels much more "chuckable" (it thinks its a mini!), low down grunt is better, its quicker, and the minus 100kgs makes a massive difference on the brakes
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
Why not start off with a hatch as they are 60kgs (iirc) lighter than the estate to start with.

ST220 0-100 is nearer 16 seconds so you are a long way off. Power to weight ratio is still massively in the st220s favour.

IMO I don't get it. Why start stripping useful features / sound deadening to make a car faster. Just get one with a bigger engine in the first place.

I agree about the estate feeling better than the hatch. I had so much more confidence in the estate. It's nowhere near a mini though I love driving my girlfriends as the handling is fantastic always puts a smile on my face.

You get points for doing a full writeup though
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegfb

·
Mk3 newbie
Joined
·
4,105 Posts
Or a saloon, which I think is something like 20kg lighter again.

Why do this instead of an ST220? It's so obvious I can answer for him. Price! Fuel economy, purchase price, insurance and tax are lower, and the ST220 isn't amazingly tunable really. Plus who doesn't like the in-gear acceleration of a turbo engine?

I find the weights interesting, perhaps you should check out this thread, if you've not already seen it: http://www.talkford.com/topic/151214-what-does-your-car-weigh/

Simon
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
[quote name='Jonsen' timestamp='1332057208' post='1859443']

Why not start off with a hatch as they are 60kgs (iirc) lighter than the estate to start with.

ST220 0-100 is nearer 16 seconds so you are a long way off. Power to weight ratio is still massively in the st220s favour.

IMO I don't get it. Why start stripping useful features / sound deadening to make a car faster. Just get one with a bigger engine in the first place.

I agree about the estate feeling better than the hatch. I had so much more confidence in the estate. It's nowhere near a mini though I love driving my girlfriends as the handling is fantastic always puts a smile on my face.

You get points for doing a full writeup though
" class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://www.talkford.com/public/style_emoticons/default/thumb.gif" />

[/quote]

  • Well when i bought the car it was an alternative to a van really, i had not planned all the mods at 1st, the mk3 estate can carry a double bed in the back
  • The only thing i miss about a v6 / v8 is the sound and the rising top end power/ revs
  • The TDDI 2.0LX estate weighs about the same as a Titanium x 2.2 / ST-TDCI hatch and less than an ST220 hatch, (mine is 100kgs less)
  • i've never driven a modern Mini, when BMW developed the Rally Mini, they based it on the Traveller (longer wheelbase) it looks like a Mini hatch, there must have been a reason for that. i would imagine the Mini would be better on tight stuff like "Mini" roundabouts (ha ha), kart tracks, the Mondeo is probably better on fast sweepers etc.
  • My TDDI is as quick as the Mini Cooper S into three figures (and above), the midrange is better
  • The TDDI engine runs well on vegatable oil, saves the planet (renewable, sustainable, effectively solar powered- indirectly) saves me money, (approx 14p a litre less than diesel) and its realatively simple design (wastegate/ pnematic actuator etc) makes it easy & cheap to tune/ fiddle with.
  • Simonty has answered your questions, but you kinda answered them yourself, on the bottom/ signature of your page.....
  • the ST-220 0-100mph was taken from torquestats. com, ive seen other websites/ sources with the same (20.5) time/s
  • Apart from the car being quicker it is also more economical, it has better traction, higher payload capacity, The handling/ braking is in a different league
  • The ST-220s torque is way high up in the rev range,(206ft at 4900rpm) my modified TDDI is quick off the line and low down,(300+ft at 2100rpm) the ST-220 is quicker at higher speeds, it would be expensive/ impractical to match the ST-220s top end,(speed/ power) but with a bit mpre work i recon i can make the TDDI quicker to 100 or the 1/4 mile.
  • It just >thinks< its a Mini
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top