View Full Version : Pasty Wagon, the latest
Hi
The old pasty wagon has had a bit of tlc over the winter and got her back from the rollers last night.
Last time it was on the rollers was at Northampton RR day and it made 191 hp @ 6.9K and 149 lbft @ 6.5K. A bit disappointing, but it had had a hard year and the exhaust was knackered, Bill reckoned this was pretty much what his Jetta made so it seemed fair.
Since then mods have been a new 2.5" Miltek Ibiza turbo system, an Awesome GTI Golf 2 4-1 tubular manifold (and a few custom mods to make them join up), an engine mounting (rear vibratechnics) , a timing belt and tensioner, change of oil/filter and a vernier pulley for the cams. Also changed back from 80mm airhorns/airbox to 120mm airhorns with rumpet filters.
Latest RR was at my local rollers, Mikeanics in Congleton, where Mike did some cam timing swings for me (now I have a vernier) and a quick tune up. The result, 197 hp @ 7.5K (but its actually totally flat from 7K) and 148 lbft @ 6.2K (but its flat from 6-6.6K).
Drives wonderfully though, nice tickover, smooth progression - almost road car like (but I would prefer a bit more wrench-y'-arms-out-of-the-sockets-like-a-mad-ass-killer-bull-like). Sountrack ain't exactly road car like though :)
So, I appreciate these were on different rollers (but they are suprisingly reproducible) but basically I have gained jack shit. Tubular manifolds are a waste of time (£250 + £50 heat wrap !) and I am ace at timing cams myself.
Dont mind admitting I am a little deflated at this finding.
So what next.....
Slicks
Close ratio rallycross-spec dog box:
1th 2.727
2nd 2.063
3th 1.684
4th 1.429
5th 1.261
Final gear 4.200
Better suspension
Engine rebuild with fancy bits...no less than 220 will do anymore
I will go faster....oh yes, I will go faster.
Dave
What car is this on ?
brett
Originally posted by brett
What car is this on ?
brett
1996 2L 16V Ibiza - originally fitted with a 1.8 16V, now with a passat/corrado 2L 16V engine
interesting that the manifold does FA. shame though.
either the original is really good (doubtful) or the supersprint one is just a load of bent pipes with no real thought put into it
max_torque
23-01-2004, 09:55
Originally posted by RobT
Hi
So, I appreciate these were on different rollers (but they are suprisingly reproducible) but basically I have gained jack shit.
Tubular manifolds are a waste of time (£250 + £50 heat wrap !) and I am ace at timing cams myself.
Dont mind admitting I am a little deflated at this finding.
Dave
I'm not sure that 6bhp is jack shit, it's 3.2% of you total power, which for an NA engine in an already reasonable state of tune is a good increase. Unlike turbo engines you can only increase cylinder filling by small amounts, say 100% to 105% manifold volumetric efficiency, there for torque will only go up by this 5%, and so will power if you remain at the same engine rpm. Hence to make big power gains you will need to increase the rpm at which you make this torque. To do this it may take a entire rethink on your engine spec. Typically 100bhp per litre or slightly more is availible at 7krpm, increaseing this to 120bhp per litre will take probably 8500rpm. Exceptions to this rule ar seriously developed engines such as the old super tourers, making 150bhp per litre at 8500rpm, thanks to serveral million pounds spent developing intake / combustion geometery, component masses and minimising friction.
It's more important to look at area under the torque curve really, as you will only spend short fractions of a sec at peak power rpm before you shift up.
Also, did you reoptimise you engine calibration to take into account the new exhaust and cam timing? if not you are gonna be missing at least half the gains of the increase vol eff and reduced residuals.
As far as the tubular manifold goes, you are making peak power close to were the std car makes peak power, so the std exhaust manifold will probably not be too bad in terms of tuned length and flow, If you were to increase the rpm range then i would suspect a short primary, long secondary system would show some benifits, especially in torque.
The VW 16v engine will never be in the same tuning league as say the Pug MI16 engine due to it's small bore, small valve and torque optimised intake port geometery.
More development is required, which takes 2 things:
1) cash!
2) a reasonable understanding of exactly where you want you engine to engine up, in terms of the driveablility verses ultimate power balance.
PS. what sort of head work has been done to your ports / chambers?
Originally posted by max_torque
I'm not sure that 6bhp is jack shit, it's 3.2% of you total power, which for an NA engine in an already reasonable state of tune is a good increase. Unlike turbo engines you can only increase cylinder filling by small amounts, say 100% to 105% manifold volumetric efficiency, there for torque will only go up by this 5%, and so will power if you remain at the same engine rpm. Hence to make big power gains you will need to increase the rpm at which you make this torque. To do this it may take a entire rethink on your engine spec. Typically 100bhp per litre or slightly more is availible at 7krpm, increaseing this to 120bhp per litre will take probably 8500rpm. Exceptions to this rule ar seriously developed engines such as the old super tourers, making 150bhp per litre at 8500rpm, thanks to serveral million pounds spent developing intake / combustion geometery, component masses and minimising friction.
It's more important to look at area under the torque curve really, as you will only spend short fractions of a sec at peak power rpm before you shift up.
Also, did you reoptimise you engine calibration to take into account the new exhaust and cam timing? if not you are gonna be missing at least half the gains of the increase vol eff and reduced residuals.
As far as the tubular manifold goes, you are making peak power close to were the std car makes peak power, so the std exhaust manifold will probably not be too bad in terms of tuned length and flow, If you were to increase the rpm range then i would suspect a short primary, long secondary system would show some benifits, especially in torque.
The VW 16v engine will never be in the same tuning league as say the Pug MI16 engine due to it's small bore, small valve and torque optimised intake port geometery.
More development is required, which takes 2 things:
1) cash!
2) a reasonable understanding of exactly where you want you engine to engine up, in terms of the driveablility verses ultimate power balance.
PS. what sort of head work has been done to your ports / chambers?
Thanks for the advice. It seems I need more revs then...8500 will take steel rods, forged pistons, solid lifter head, 280-290 cams, dowelled front pulley and I understand the clutch pressure plate start to come off end of crank above 8K also. Also the synchro's will probably cry enough - £2500 for a dog box. Its the old speed costs, how fast do you want to go thing again.
One other thing I have done is change oil from 5w50 to 15w40 - likely to have much effect ?
The engine was remapped after exhaust changes and cam swings.
The exhaust is not a supersprint one but one from awesome gti - 32" long x 1 5/8" primaries, 4-1 design.
The head is a brian ricketts one - flowed (I have the cfm figs at home) with I think 3 angle seats and std size but reprofiled valves. 10.5:1 CR - this could definately go up nowadays I have a decent ECU - perhaps 12:1 is ok I am told with 276-spec cams (do you agree ?)
If this engine is fundamentally flawed by design, perhaps it would be better to just start again with say a NA 20V - but then you have to buy ancillaries again like TB's, manifolds, sumps, verniers etc etc etc - could just prove to cost same as a rebuilt 8.5K rpm 16V engine. Decisions decisions.
Cheers
Rob
mark sheerin
23-01-2004, 11:28
I'm no expert like Max Talk but I thought the gains were reasonable as a layman...
The ITC 2.5 litre NA v6 engines were kicking out 500bhp at 8500 rpm by the time the series was canned for being too expensive...
Ever thought of changing to BIG MF Carbs....you may get more power that way....
Originally posted by mark sheerin
I'm no expert like Max Talk but I thought the gains were reasonable as a layman...
The ITC 2.5 litre NA v6 engines were kicking out 500bhp at 8500 rpm by the time the series was canned for being too expensive...
Ever thought of changing to BIG MF Carbs....you may get more power that way....
I already have big MF throttle bodies..
:D
Cheers
Rob
Dormouse
23-01-2004, 22:17
The F2 cars got 270 odd BHP, but that's larey cam city and serious mechanical strengthing time.
TBH Rob I recon you have has some seriously impressive reliabiliy over the last two seasons. That's the bottom line. long may it continue.
Cheers
Dor.
ibizacupra
26-01-2004, 11:59
Have you done a leakdown test on your motor Rob?
Might show up any compression losses etc...
Bill
Originally posted by ibizacupra
Have you done a leakdown test on your motor Rob?
Might show up any compression losses etc...
Bill
No, I need to check this, I suspect this could be the issue. Spoke to vince @ stealth Fri last week and he reckoned this was about right for a 2L 16V with 276 cams - he said he had never seen a 2L 16V with more than 205 bhp, even a race motor. Perhaps my earlier dyno of 217 was a bit optimistic, perhaps the latest one is a bit pessimistic, who knows, same rollers though, but a year and a half apart - will see in comparison to other valvers at CGTI day at Stealth March 14th, not doing anything till then.
He also said he thought TB's were a waste of time....its interesting to compare these big peak Hp K-jets with a TB car....presently there would appear to be little in it peak power but I suspect it will be a different story in the midrange. Looking forward to stealth, will be very illuminating.
Check out the gear ratios from drenth......90mph flat out in top with 15" wheels - wot a laugh, ace for curborough but no use for anywhere else.....imagine driving to the ring...
Rob
There was a post of plots comparing K-jet fuelled cars with digifant in various states of tune. It was very evident that K-jet fuelled cars with similar mods had substantially less torque throughout the rev range. I'll be damned if I can find it now but prof posted it I think.
From what I have seen recently, I would say that Kjet and digifant are not especially limiting for outright power. I was once told that a kjet car could not make more than 180bhp due to flow and fuelling restrictions. This is supposed to be the case also for digifant cars - the std injectors are almost maxed out at 180 bhp on std fuel pressure - but I guess you can increase the fuel pressure and make them do a little bit more. It would seem that these smart tuners have figured out a way around it for making more peak power and 200 is definately on the cards
The fact remains however that my car on 276's and std digifant / plenum was horrible - bad pickup, no low down torque etc. Sure it went well at high revs but it was a pig on the street. TB's and mapped ignition changed all that - drives like a street motor now, is very progressive and smooth whilst still making 200 brake. It would also be like this with even wilder cams which is a possibility for the future whereas I supect this would become increasingly impossible with kjet.
Most impressive for me recently from the CGTI dyno results was Gary Bocking's motor - 9A bottom end, KR head (std) and KR cams, stealth setup and it makes excellent power 170bhp and 150ft/lb - cheap and effective.
Rob
sean martin
26-01-2004, 17:43
I was quite impressed with the figures I got on the rollers yesterday from my 16valve ABF. 186.6 bhp and 221 bhp when the nitrous was used. I was more impressed with the 186 bhp and 158lb of torque, especially considering I am running shrick 260's-these give great mid range power without taking anything from the bottom end or making it like a race car with 276' or 268's. Trouble is its just gone pop. I assumes that the nitrous is the problem-the engine cannot take the instant hit of 50 bhp and 60lb of torque, looks like I need a progressive controller to bring in the nitrous slowly.
Rob have you had the bottom end lightened and balanced and are u running forged pistons? If so is it worth it and what price range? cheers, Sean
ibizacupra
26-01-2004, 22:28
Originally posted by sean martin
I was quite impressed with the figures I got on the rollers yesterday from my 16valve ABF. 186.6 bhp and 221 bhp when the nitrous was used. I was more impressed with the 186 bhp and 158lb of torque, especially considering I am running shrick 260's-these give great mid range power without taking anything from the bottom end or making it like a race car with 276' or 268's. Trouble is its just gone pop. I assumes that the nitrous is the problem-the engine cannot take the instant hit of 50 bhp and 60lb of torque, looks like I need a progressive controller to bring in the nitrous slowly.
Rob have you had the bottom end lightened and balanced and are u running forged pistons? If so is it worth it and what price range? cheers, Sean
Gone pop!
After the RR @ Stealth?
EAK!
It went BANG on the dyno when the throttle was floored from low rpm.... Too much NOS not enough fuel.... backfire time! Dead rings.
Progressive is the ONLY way to run NOS as was very well demonstrated by James's JBS Octavia, also @ Stealth.
Unlucky chap!
Originally posted by sean martin
I was quite impressed with the figures I got on the rollers yesterday from my 16valve ABF. 186.6 bhp and 221 bhp when the nitrous was used. I was more impressed with the 186 bhp and 158lb of torque, especially considering I am running shrick 260's-these give great mid range power without taking anything from the bottom end or making it like a race car with 276' or 268's. Trouble is its just gone pop. I assumes that the nitrous is the problem-the engine cannot take the instant hit of 50 bhp and 60lb of torque, looks like I need a progressive controller to bring in the nitrous slowly.
Rob have you had the bottom end lightened and balanced and are u running forged pistons? If so is it worth it and what price range? cheers, Sean
A couple yrs ago when my car was still on std plenum, it did 180bhp and 150lbft I think on 276's - so the 260's dont seem that shabby at all.
Bottom end is stock parts but balanced and decent bolts. Mahle pistons I think - not forged ones. I think you are looking at approx £600 for forged pistons and £600 for steel rods - I hear mixed things about forged pistons - like they run very noisy until upto temp and you really must not give em stick till the engine is warm. But they are stronger and lighter as are steel rods.
Bad luck with your motor
Cheers
Rob
ibizacupra
28-01-2004, 12:11
Originally posted by RobT
A couple yrs ago when my car was still on std plenum, it did 180bhp and 150lbft I think on 276's - so the 260's dont seem that shabby at all.
Bottom end is stock parts but balanced and decent bolts. Mahle pistons I think - not forged ones. I think you are looking at approx £600 for forged pistons and £600 for steel rods - I hear mixed things about forged pistons - like they run very noisy until upto temp and you really must not give em stick till the engine is warm. But they are stronger and lighter as are steel rods.
Bad luck with your motor
Cheers
Rob
Golfy runs JE Forged pistons now... and runs quiet even on freezing cold starts.... Clearances are closed down on previous Forged piston incarnations I believe... No slap on cold start with these. :)
Originally posted by ibizacupra
Golfy runs JE Forged pistons now... and runs quiet even on freezing cold starts.... Clearances are closed down on previous Forged piston incarnations I believe... No slap on cold start with these. :)
Used to have a husaberg 600 crossa - slipper pistons with no skirt whatsoever - awesome things but you had to warm them up, very noisy
I guess JE have sorted it out
Dont go breaking golfy again with Mr boost.
Rob
sean martin
29-01-2004, 16:36
I think I got lucky, The head gasket broke between cylinders 1+2 and burnt the head a little so that head to be welded and given a slight skim, but thankfully I am back on the road after just 3 days. No more nitrous till I can afford a progressive controller.
sean martin
29-01-2004, 16:42
Are you still going to mallory park in feb?
Originally posted by sean martin
I think I got lucky, The head gasket broke between cylinders 1+2 and burnt the head a little so that head to be welded and given a slight skim, but thankfully I am back on the road after just 3 days. No more nitrous till I can afford a progressive controller.
that's pretty darn lucky!
good that it's OK
Originally posted by sean martin
Are you still going to mallory park in feb?
Yup - lucky with the engine fella
Cheers
Rob
gary bocking
02-03-2004, 03:59
Originally posted by RobT
Most impressive for me recently from the CGTI dyno results was Gary Bocking's motor - 9A bottom end, KR head (std) and KR cams, stealth setup and it makes excellent power 170bhp and 150ft/lb - cheap and effective.
Rob
Interesting thread Rob :D
I've always been sceptical on the bhp/£££ ratio of tubular manifolds on VAG 16v's, guess your recent RR runs prove my theory to be correct;)
Just to clarify,GVK has standard 9A head which I'm led to believe has smaller inlet ports than the KR head but with larger exhaust ports.
As you say,cheap and effective:yes:
ibizacupra
02-03-2004, 07:38
Originally posted by gary bocking
Interesting thread Rob :D
I've always been sceptical on the bhp/£££ ratio of tubular manifolds on VAG 16v's, guess your recent RR runs prove my theory to be correct;)
Just to clarify,GVK has standard 9A head which I'm led to believe has smaller inlet ports than the KR head but with larger exhaust ports.
As you say,cheap and effective:yes:
9A head has a blunter splitter on the inlet ports compared to the KR one...
Note to self: I must get out more :p
max_torque
02-03-2004, 08:20
Originally posted by ibizacupra
9A head has a blunter splitter on the inlet ports compared to the KR one...
Note to self: I must get out more :p
Which is a GOOD thing, because it actually gives you more material to play with when it's time to get the carbide cutters out!
Note to self: I too must get out more :p
gary bocking
02-03-2004, 08:36
Originally posted by max_torque
Which is a GOOD thing, because it actually gives you more material to play with when it's time to get the carbide cutters out!
Note to self: I too must get out more :p
Pretty sure I read on Vortex the 9A head has a water jacket run through the splitter, so don't go TOO mad with the carbide bits ;)
max_torque
02-03-2004, 10:29
Originally posted by gary bocking
Pretty sure I read on Vortex the 9A head has a water jacket run through the splitter, so don't go TOO mad with the carbide bits ;)
Not a problem if you have an intake bifurication waterway, just drill it out to 5 or 6 mm, turn down a bit of ally bar to the same diameter but 20 or so mm longer, liberally cover the end in JB weld or similar and hammer into the head, cut down the size when the adhesives set, then just broddle the bifurication away to the shape you want!
(you do not need to have cooling on the intake side, however don't try this with the exhaust bifurication!!!)
Fortunately because the flow direction is reversed in the exhaust port you will not need to, in fact you shouldn't, knife edge this one, just try to get is a bit concave to merge the flows as they expand as smoothly as possible.
Interesting thread... Especially the statement about the 2.0 16v not being able to make much more than 200BHP. I remember in The Golf mag ages ago there was a a white Mk1 (owned by a German bloke: Sven Zimmet) and it had a 16v totally taken to the limit by Bauer Motorsport in Nurnberg - Lightened/balanced/titanium everything, 314/309deg cams, DCOE style 45mm t/b's, 13:1 CR, revved to over 10,000rpm running on a Haltech E6K....but made about 215BHP and 215lb/ft :blink:
I'd like to think that after pouring so much money into my 16v that it will make over 200hp on 268/276 and t/b's but I'm beginning to wonder... I don't really care about outright figures but it makes you think. They're certainly nice engines but I still prefer Peugeot 16v's - nearly bought a GTi6, but the Ibiza was more fun to drive!
When I'm all done with the Ibiza, I might go the mildly tuned 20vT route. I'm coming to Europe from Oz nextyear and will be on the look-out in the UK for a RHD Mk1/Mk2 20v funbox :worship: :thumbup:
Perhaps the ultimate combo is the NA 20v like Graham V.'s crazy Mk1 - who knows, but as long as my car is reliable, with a good spread of torque, I'm happy enough
ibizacupra
11-03-2004, 07:32
Interesting thread... Especially the statement about the 2.0 16v not being able to make much more than 200BHP. I remember in The Golf mag ages ago there was a a white Mk1 (owned by a German bloke: Sven Zimmet) and it had a 16v totally taken to the limit by Bauer Motorsport in Nurnberg - Lightened/balanced/titanium everything, 314/309deg cams, DCOE style 45mm t/b's, 13:1 CR, revved to over 10,000rpm running on a Haltech E6K....but made about 215BHP and 215lb/ft :blink:
I'd like to think that after pouring so much money into my 16v that it will make over 200hp on 268/276 and t/b's but I'm beginning to wonder... I don't really care about outright figures but it makes you think. They're certainly nice engines but I still prefer Peugeot 16v's - nearly bought a GTi6, but the Ibiza was more fun to drive!
When I'm all done with the Ibiza, I might go the mildly tuned 20vT route. I'm coming to Europe from Oz nextyear and will be on the look-out in the UK for a RHD Mk1/Mk2 20v funbox :worship: :thumbup:
Perhaps the ultimate combo is the NA 20v like Graham V.'s crazy Mk1 - who knows, but as long as my car is reliable, with a good spread of torque, I'm happy enough
Not sure what happened with that german Mk1... big spec for not big power. (relatively) - who knows.. :(
There are enough guys running around on 2ltr 16v motors with my DTH bodies on them, running gas flowed heads, assorted cams and breaking 200bhp up to 217bhp. Pretty much bolt together motors, nothing exotic.. Getting more however means higher rpms, so then exotics $$ will be required for reliability..
Me old Jetta was just over 200bhp from mild cams, 260/270 split duration Cranes. Very flexible engine tho, not your typical screamer.
bill