DURA 2.0 TDCi Ford Dura 2.0 TDCi

Дизельний двигун Ford DURA 2.0 TDCi з турбонаддувом, відомий своєю економічністю та надійністю при правильному обслуговуванні.

Brand: Ford Type: Diesel Configuration: Inline-4 Production Years: 2006 - 2016 Production: Dagenham, England
138 Brand engines
2 Modifications

Technical Specifications

Engine Displacement 2.0 L (1,997 cc)
Configuration Inline-4
Number of Cylinders 4
Valves per Cylinder 4
Power 90 - 140 л.с.
Torque 200 - 320 Н*м
Cylinder Bore 85.00 mm
Piston Stroke 88.00 mm
Compression Ratio 16.0:1
Firing Order 1-3-4-2
Fuel System Common Rail Direct Injection
Aspiration Turbocharged
Turbocharger Garrett GT1544V
Intercooler Yes
Maximum RPM 4,000 rpm
Max Torque RPM 2,000 rpm
Valve Train DOHC
Timing Drive Belt
Timing belt replacement interval 150,000 km
Block Material Cast Iron
Head Material Aluminum
Engine Weight 170 kg
Dimensions (L×W×H) 600 × 500 × 700 mm
Lubrication System Pressure lubrication
Cooling System Liquid cooling

Additional Information

Engine Family Ford Duratorq
Manufacturing Plant Dagenham, England
Predecessor null
Successor null

Maintenance

Engine Oil Capacity 5.5 L (with filter: 6 L)
Recommended Viscosity 5W-30
Oil Standard ACEA C3
Recommended Brands Ford Motorcraft, Castrol, Mobil 1
Oil Change Interval 20 000 km or 12 mo
Oil Filter 15100
Air Filter 1734606
Replace every 60 000 km
Fuel filter 1734610
Cabin Filter 1734611
Spark Plugs
Coolant Capacity 7 L
Coolant Type G12 (Ford Coolant)
Coolant Change Interval 240 000 km
Thermostat Opening Temperature 88°C
Operating Temperature 90°C
Max Operating Temperature 120°C
Critical Temperature 130°C
Annual Maintenance Cost 600-900 USD

Reliability

Reliability rating: 8/10

Expected lifespan: 300 000 km

Common problems

Problem Severity Mileage Repair cost
Turbocharger failure Medium 150000-200000 km $800-1200
EGR valve issues Low 100000-150000 km $300-500

Known defects

  • Some early models had injector issues
  • Oil leaks from the turbocharger

Warranty extensions

  • Ford extended warranty for turbocharger issues up to 5 years/100000 miles

Tuning potential

Tuning potential: Medium | Max. safe power: 220 hp

Stage Power Torque Method Cost
Stage 1 160 hp 360 Nm ECU remap only
Reliability impact: Minimal
$400
Stage 2 180 hp 400 Nm ECU, Downpipe, Intake
Required: Upgraded intercooler, ECU remap
Reliability impact: Low
$1200
Stage 3 200 hp 450 Nm -
Required: Bigger turbo, ECU remap
Reliability impact: Medium
$2500

Popular modifications

Tuning limitations

  • Turbo limitations above 200hp
  • Cooling system needs upgrades for high power

Cars with the DURA 2.0 TDCi engine

This engine was fitted to 1 model

Photo Brand Model Generation Production years
No photo
Ford Galaxy Galaxy 1995 - 2005

All modifications (2)

Vehicle Generation Modification Power Gearbox Drive
Ford Galaxy Galaxy 2.0 TDI 140 л.с. 6-МКП 2WD 140 hp 6-МКП 2WD
Ford Galaxy Galaxy 2.0 TDI 140 л.с. 6-DSG 2WD 140 hp 6-DSG 2WD

Interesting Facts

  • The Dura 2.0 TDCi is known for its fuel efficiency and reliability.
  • It was widely used in various Ford models across Europe.

Applications

Total produced: null

Vehicle Generation Years Power Markets
Ford Mondeo Mk4 2007-2014 140hp Europe, Asia
Ford Focus Mk3 2011-2018 115hp/140hp Europe, USA

Compatible transmissions: 6-speed Manual, 6-speed Automatic

Drive types: FWD, AWD

Fuel Economy

Fuel Type Diesel
Consumption (City) 8 L/100km
Consumption (Highway) 5.5 L/100km
Consumption (Combined) 6.5 L/100km
Real Consumption 7 L/100km
Fuel Tank Capacity 55 L
Range 846 km
Cost per 100 km 8-10 USD

Emissions Standards

Emission Standard Euro 5
CO₂ Emissions 139 g/km
Particulate Filter (DPF) Present
Regeneration every 150,000 km
AdBlue Not Required

Awards and Recognition

  • International Engine of the Year (2007) — Best New Engine

Comparison with competitors

Engine Brand Displacement Power Torque
1.6 TDCi Ford 1,560 cc 95 hp 215 Nm
2.0 CRDi Hyundai 1,995 cc 136 hp 320 Nm

Pros

  • Good balance of power and fuel economy
  • Durable and reliable engine

Cons

  • Turbo issues in some models
  • Higher maintenance costs compared to rivals