Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Wolf Performance 2.0 Duratec Map

Hi all,

To compliment Monty's new exhaust system I'm currently planning out with Fusion Fabrications:

https://www.fusionfabs.co.uk/

I'm looking for feedback from anyone running the Wolf Performance 2.0 Duratec Map as described here:

https://www.wolfperformance.co.uk/engine-remapping/

I'm keen to understand how polished the fueling, idle quality and drivability is with this calibration?

Given Monty is used on the road these elements are critical to me.

Thanks, Dave.

Hi Dave,

I have the Wolf re-map on my 2013 +4 together with a K&N cone filter fitted by Cain. The car has a Morgan sports silencer. It now puts out 143 bhp at the rear wheels compared with the previous 147 bhp at the flywheel so it has almost done away with the average 20% loss between flywheel and rear wheels. It comes "on cam" at around 3k revs and revs to 6,500 revs. 0 to 60 mph is about 6.5 secs. MPG is 42 mpg, idle is unchanged drivability is largely unchanged once you get used to the more immediate response. i.e. less throttle required to pull away.

Hope this helps.

Excellent, that sounds spot on

I've always worked to an 18% correction for drive train losses, if we go with this and working your 143hp back from the wheels, that would give you an excellent 169 bhp at the crank! I haven't weighed Monty yet but I have been told a Duratec plus 4 could be as light as 877kg, if that's true your 169hp equates to a very healthy 193 bhp per tonn which should make for a really fun drive, it's also tantalising close to my personnel target of giving Monty 200 bhp per tonn.

From everything I've read on tuning the Duratec a figure of 169hp at the crank is way better than I've been lead to believe possible from just a just an air filter and sports silencer, my understanding is the biggest restriction was the exhaust manifold and cat, if you're saying you're achieving your result on tge stock manifold and cat and your still on the standard cams too, that's really really impressive!

Many thanks for sharing; 143 at the wheels with just a sports silencer, an air filter and a tune really is very impressive indeed

Perhaps for my stage one tuning plans I don't this this afterall




Mind you, the ECU Masters plug-n-play solution is a great option, the EMU Black ECU slips right inside the Ford/Morgan ECU enclosure and comes with the short converter loom to connect it to the stock connector making it a true plug-n-play stand alone engine management solution, cleverly it completely removes the need to build and run a new loom with all the headaches and cost that go with that (been there, got the T-Shirt)

For stage two of my tuning plans this seems like the way to go, I'm reliably informed I can expect another 30hp from a pair of cams but making the engine idle nicely on the stock ECU won't be possible, there are some excellent gains on the table with no real downsides from a pair of good cams but thats when I really need to upgrade to a stand alone engine management system like the above plg-n-play EMU Black from ECU Masters.

Step One: An exhaust from Fusion Fabrications, an air filter and the tune from Cain of Wolf Performance for 180hp at the crank (205 bhp per tonn)

Step Two: Add a pair of cams, the EMU Black and a rolling road session at Northampton Motorsport to bring Monty to his ultimate naturally aspirated potential of 210hp (240 bhp per tonn)

IMHO
Step one: Road going car
Step Two: Track day car

We all want lots of horses but it’s not the “ be all and end all” as they are not always quite where we want them to be! From my experience, (not of Cain’s version) even though the remap delivers more power and torque, it only really appears at 3.5k revs and above. So spirited road driving will see results, but its not exactly going to blow your socks off! Fuel consumption should remain much the same.

Going cammy, seems to conflict with the original elements that were deemed critical. Depending on choice of cam of course, generally idle becomes more lumpy and needs higher revs. Low down torque may be sacrificed somewhat in exchange for top end. Fuel consumption is bound to falter.

If in pursuit of more useable power, I would be looking to drop a 2.5 motor in, as has been done successfully by one of out TMers down in Cornwall.

Feeling somewhat guilty here to mention Porsche yet again, sorry.

It would seem a relatively simple matter to incorporate a programme selection that would suit cruising to maximise fuel economy and another to suit relaxed driving with the push of a button, or tap of a screen select fast road settings, and for the nutters amongst us, Track day driving..?

My 10 year old Porsche 991 has just such options available and more that not only alter engine tune but gearbox decisions on which rev ranges to change gear, it can even throw in a throttle blip on the down change, also alter exhaust audibility, and even pipes induction sounds into the cabin to please those who like me wish the full musical accompaniment of driving an ICE "sports" car...

BTW my 991.1 C4S can exceed 30MPG ...apparently.....! Though when used for my personal enjoyment of the country roads hereabouts, I would not like to guess at it`s fuel consumption when in sport mode...!!!!

Expecting low rev grunt from an engine less than 2 liters up to Y2K seemed just too much to expect, but in a light machine such as a Morgan I suspect smaller capacity was far less noticeable compared to other 1600cc cars around ..? Which is where the +4 plated it`s part, though Morganeers ever being resourceful could tune a 1600cc to outperform it`s standard larger engined big brother with a bit of tuning by sacrificing a degree of torque in the lower rev ranges and of course at the same time wave by-by to a degree of fuel efficiency, as well as all the other knock on issues that trying to squeeze ever more horses under a bonnet of restricted dimensions.... But then that was all very much a part of the Morgan way of life back then...?

Today the need to tune a Morgan`s engine for more performance seems to have all but disappeared given the value attributed to horse power in the marketplace to the extent that my old Porsche has circa 400 horses to hand at the crack of my whip, and I suspect top end new Morgans may have even more, though perhaps less easily controlled by variations in digital programming than other modern sports cars ..? tYup it seems the priorities of Morgan buyers have moved on the extent that creature comforts and bling have perhaps taken priority over the vintage aspects that so attracted me to become a Morgan owner all those years ago.

Each to their own, I just hope Morgan can keep up given the rate of change in expectations...

Maybe but Montegue is talking about stage one being 180bhp with stock cams and stage two being 210bhp with different cams. I feel you could have different programs setup and swap them but best to just have the optimum program for the cam shaft fitted based on the revs of the engine, you are not going to change cams unless you have a VVC engine and then it is a change of cam angle, not lift. Peter/Gambalunga knows a lot more about how it works as he has played with the program map to get his car to run optimally.

Looking at old OMEX PDF's I saved on my computer the options they had for the 2.0L engine was

180BHP - Throttle Bodies.
210BHP - Throttle Bodies and Cams.
260BHP - Ported head, Forged pistons and rods, Tapered Throttle Bodies, Cams, valve springs to redline at 8700rpm as fitted to the Morgan Bay doll.

195BHP VVC/MZR - Throttle Bodies.
215BHP VVC/MZR - Throttle Bodies and Cams.

They had 2.5L engines with 170bhp, 210bhp, 270bhp, 295bhp and 310bhp.

I think VVC stands for Variable Valve Control, MZR is jut Mazda's marketing name for the same engine. I think Monty would not have the VVC version of the duratec but if he can get 180bhp to 210bhp without throttle bodies that is a good achievement, it is quite easy to check by looking at the top of the engine. My car has VVC and you can see the control unit in front of the spark plugs.



Having said that as someone has already suggested you could upgrade to a 2.5L engine. I have been told that Frontline are now using 2.5L engines for all their cars with the reason being that OMEX is not suppling 2.0L engines any more, but I thought OMEX was not supplying any engines any more so not sure where Frontline now source engines from.

My 4/4 Sport was tuned by Cain. It its now at 132bhp (from factory 110bhp) only upgrading the exhaust manifold, silencer, K&N air filter and Wolf remap. It feels quicker than it actually is and drives really well with no idling or other problems.
Next step is Piper Ultimate Road cams (requiring head work) and a new Link ECU (they are fitted to the race cars Cain prepares).
Cain knows his stuff IME.

I doff my hat to Montague, working in the ways of the past that once were so common amongst the baby boomer generation and their predecessors, learning with each modification made along the way perhaps requiring another modification to restore a degree of balance...err..well..as much balance as might ever be found in a Morgan..

Years of reading on Morgan forums of knock on effects of adding power then spending time to resolve overheating, and with more power better brakes seemed to be required and on and on and on.... Yup old time Morganeers sure learned a great deal about automotive engineering by modifying this that and the other trying to "improve" on that which Morgan created in the first place.

When younger I spent time removing metal from crank cases in order to fit cams with higher lobes to provide more valve lift, all in the attempt to gain ever more speed. I soon learned that in doing so I had sacrificed a great deal of flexibility fuel economy and driveability. To even hold pace at the traffic light GP I would have needed to spend much more cash to buy a close ratio gearbox in the hope of matching the much higher rev range in which my engine was developing the most power....All of which brings to mind the old American adage.... "Their ain`t no substitute for cubes" ..

The Porsche example I provided was not to undermine the journey of exploration of anyone seeking to educate themselves as to the effect of modifications on machines, more just an observation on the way things have evolved from a time when we followed the writings ofthe likes of David Vizard and spent time porting and polishing, perhaps even using a pipette to measure the volume of the cylinder head combustion chamber in a bid to retain balance etc. etc. etc. All such tuning Vizardry contained in books, no beaming up the www for answers to anything and everything (-: Yeah it is all so very different today, when swapping one chip for another can alter much, or in the Porsche example I provided, just select "sport" mode and so very much can be altered in ways never imagined some years back.

VVT as I understood was variable valve timing, I guess VVC is just another manufacturers way of identifying the same thing.

The rate of redundancy in digital electronics is ever increasing in speed, to maintain machinery with superceded soft or hardware can be a nightmare.

Every day is a school day

Actually, there is no substitute for displacement when we talk about naturally aspirated engines. The Duratec from Monty is one of the last "classic" engines and depending on the horsepower output by a change of camshafts etc. it will lose torque at lower speeds. But on the other hand, the Morgan is a light car and the driving pleasure is certainly great if you want to be sporty.
The engine of the Plus 4 Supersport that Chris also gets in his MGB is the (without tuning) 160 hp 2.0 engine from the Mazda NC. It had a variable intake camshaft, a nice engine, I had it in my Plus 4 Supersport.
Now comes my point, the small Sigma 1.6 of the 4/4 has adjustable intake and also adjustable exhaust cams. It was the pinnacle of Ford naturally aspirated engines before the Ecoboost came along. This engine, with a sport manifold, metal cat and ECU tuning, acts like it got more displacement and not just "top end" more power. That is of course only possible until about 145 hp. If you want more power it also applies to the Sigma to install other camshafts and have less torque for the road. But the power of 145 hp with a torque of 180 NM is perfectly suitable for my car.

If I wanted to tune a little more then I wish a shorter gear ratio. I am convinced that my 4/4 with the 4.1 ratio would be just right. Why do I mean this:
My other toy is the Elise I have from new since 2007. It has a 4.3 final drive ratio that was tuned for originally 136 hp. Now since 2008 I have 230 hp and 260 Nm already at low rpm thanks to a Rotrex belt driven turbo. The original gear ratio is too short for that. Since a few weeks I have a replacement gearbox from a MR2 (with LSD). It has 3.9 final drive ratio. At 4000 rpm I drive 140 km/h in 5th gear. Before it was 125 km/h.
Everything feels perfect and right now....

Back to the 4/4, it reaches at 4000 rpm 160 km/h in 5th gear with 3.7 final drive ratio. Absolutely much too long. I can already use the third gear on the B country road not fully because it revs up at 6500 rpm to 160 km / h which is complete nonsense. If I had a 4.1 diff I would not get too short which I now definitely know, but like the Elise it would reach 140 km/h in 5th gear at 4000 rpm.

So much for "my" tuning wish. I called Vitesse, instead of a 4.1 final drive it „would“ be possible to swap for a Mazda Nc 6 speed gearbox with the result that gear 1 to 5 had the same final ratio than the 4.1 Diff with the unchanged 5 gear box. But…it is too much a hassle and the 6 speed box is slightly wider which means a new aluminium cover with new leather for the gearbox plus another prop shaft…
Therefore my last attempt will be to find a company which could make a one off Sprocket and bevel gear because Simon stated here that BTR does not have the offer for a 4.1 diff.