1360 Tu With Tb's On The Rollers

[PumaRacing 1]

There's a certain amount of anticipation in the Puma camp at present with my best mate Garry's 1360 cast iron block TU rally engine undergoing its next stage of development with throttle bodies being fitted. It started off life as a 95 bhp engine out of a 106 and now has a fairly mild 280 degree cam, janspeed exhaust manifold, home built exhaust system with whatever was lying around at the time welded in, a single butterfly induction system off a 1293cc Rallye engine (has a larger butterfly than the 1360 one) and one of my standard valve ported heads. Power on the Dastek rollers in Aberdeen is pushing 100 bhp per litre with 134 bhp (112 wheels) at 8000 rpm.

 

In the search for more a set of 38mm motorbike TBs is being added. Manifold is from that place oop north in flat cap land that specialises in those. Boggs Brothers is it or something similar? Garry has taken great pains to ensure that the manifold matches the head properly, that the air filter and ram pipes are up to the task and that no other restrictions are in the system anywhere so it ought to be as good an installation as you're going to get. Injectors are going to be uprated to Zetec ones in case the standard ones run out of flow.

 

I've seen plenty of results from 4 butterfly TB's fitted to larger engines over the years but not on anything this small or a TU in particular. 15 to 20 bhp is about the target on your average 1.8 or 2 litre with maybe a bit more if the engine is already tuned and the standard single butterfly starting to get restrictive. I've seen 24 bhp from an engine dyno test on a race tuned 2.0 Zetec and Vauxhall XE 16v engines tend to be very amenable to TBs with 25 bhp gains being commonly quoted. In other words it really all depends on how restrictive the standard plenum system is.

 

So how much extra are we going to see? Garry says he'll be happy if it only breaks 140 bhp but I bet he won't. I'd like to see close to another 15 bhp but am no way sure we're going to. People on other forums are claiming 20 bhp from TBs on standard TU engines but you never see a before run on the same rollers and I'll bet that much of the "gain" is just the rollers reading high.

 

The 1293 Rallye inlet manifold has nice ports and a honking great 55mm butterfly which is huge for such a tiny engine but on the other hand this engine is now chucking out a lot more power than standard so maybe it's starting to become a bit restrictive. Also of course a butterfly on each inlet port usually gains quite a bit from pulse tuning that single plenum systems don't.

 

So place your bets. In a back to back test on the same rollers what's the outcome going to be?

[d-9 0]

Sounds very impressive for a 8v TU, please post what the results for fitting bodies are to this as Im very interested. Also intersted to hear your general feelings on the bike bodies after youve fitted them as, mostly due to being very tight, im thinking about fitting a set.

 

For an idea of what a 1.4 tu on bodies sounds like, check out this thread:

http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=56508

[Sandy 189]

Look forward to this, I love the 1.4 8v. S1 Rallye inlet is pretty good for peak power and on the one's i've seen doesn't really give any peak away to TB's, mid range more likely.

 

Why Iron block though? It's 23kg heavier!!

[TB_205GTI 1]

Power on the Dastek rollers in Aberdeen is pushing 100 bhp per litre with 134 bhp (112 wheels) at 8000 rpm.

 

What's the torque? And how much of it is available at say 4.000 rpm?

 

Personally I do not think it will benefit greatly from the TB's as the cam is fairly mild (in your own words). I beleive that you'll se a maximum of 10Bhp extra from it, but the torque spread will be greatly improved from the TB's. So my guess is 145Bhp and almost the same in torque. The reason for not being any higher than this is that it (from your desciption) still uses the 1.4 head, with the 1.3/1.6 head I believe the output would rise a bit , but it all depends on your porting skills

 

The 1.3 manifold and TB normally has no problems flowing enough for 150Bhp and almost 170Nm from a 1.6 - so I do not think it's restrictive yet.

 

Look forward to this, I love the 1.4 8v. S1 Rallye inlet is pretty good for peak power and on the one's i've seen doesn't really give any peak away to TB's, mid range more likely.

 

Why Iron block though? It's 23kg heavier!!

 

Because the 95 XSi engine wasn't made in aluminium

Edited April 15, 2006 by TB_205GTI

[bren_1.3 1]

i reckon about 135bhp at the flywheel, and similair torque.

 

8000 rpm is a little extreme isnt it? is he on double valve springs? theres a thread somewhere that valve bounce occurs at just after 7000 rpm on tu engines.

[stu_woac 1]

my setup hits 118bhp / 118lbft at the wheels at 6,400rpm, running on 95ron, which is 1.4 xs with twin 40s, 286cam (from germany) headwork done, I'm soon to be putting a newer head on after castle coombe for more I hope due to even more work done to it ,

 

mine will rev to 9,200rpm brens but we dont take it that high everyday due to the bottom end being standard (but fresh) also no point as the torque drops off alittle

[PumaRacing 1]

Before I post any results I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to have a guess.

 

However to the last three posters and their torque figures. You really need to read the 2nd Power and Torque article on my website and the General Tuning Guide. Your torque suggestions are absurd for a 1360 engine. The standard engine produces 86 ft lbs (63 ft lbs per litre) and getting more than 15% extra (100 ft lbs) out of an engine with a mild cam would be right on the limit.

 

Stu, you need to find a more accurate rolling road. You don't have anywhere near 118 ft lbs at the wheels or even at the flywheel although you've probably been quoted flywheel figures that include a transmission loss and not wheel ones. However even so the figures are far too high and simply not possible. It's also possible your printout shows Newton metres not ft lbs.

 

Edit. TB205 - perhaps you meant Nm not ft lbs in your prediction in which case 106 ft lbs.

Edited April 15, 2006 by PumaRacing

[stu_woac 1]

well if a brand new Dyno Dynamics rolling road is wrong fair enough I'm not one for figures but was giving you a guide when my carbs were setup this was the figure at the wheel cant find the flywheel graph, its going back down in may with the new head, anything higher than 120lbft I think is impossible too, I was surprised with my figure to and the rolling road it was setup on alot of people say he under reads I thing it reads right and everyone elses rr around here overreads to earn them selfs brownie points LOL

 

can I pm about some advise on the too heads I have here seem you did this head for this car your on about.

 

my xs has been put up against a few mi16 powered 205pugs and a gti-6 powered 205 pug out on track and I was giving the oher guys a good fight in the straight so my car aint to slow for what it is LOL

Edited April 15, 2006 by stu_woac

[macaroni 17 1 Cars]

Well, going by my car, which has a 280 degree cam, Weber 38DGAS carb and 4-2-1 manifold and only recorded 65bhp at the wheels the other week, I will be surprised if you get more than 100!

 

Seriously, I will go for a round 140bhp at fly and 110lb ft torque.

 

Is there a prize for guessing the closest?

[Batfink 201]

137bhp and 94ft lbs

[Sandy 189]

Because the 95 XSi engine wasn't made in aluminium

And? The alloy block 1.4 was fitted to 106's, unless the rules specifically insist on the orignal block to that exact model, in which case i'd have chosen a model that did have it. 23kg out of the front of the 106 makes a substantial difference to the already front heavy balance.

[PumaRacing 1]

A good few guesses so I'll put you out of your misery. Sandy pretty much nailed the general outcome so congratulations to him. The TB's have smoothed out the torque curve very nicely and filled in the two big holes at 5000 and 6000 rpm which appear to be pulse tune effects of the plenum manifold. The same exact shape of curve showed up on another car with the Rallye manifold recently but more of that later maybe.

 

.............BHP......BHP...TORQUE..TORQUE

RPM.....PLENUM...TB'S..PLENUM....TB'S

 

2000.....24.0.....22.9......63.0.......60.1

2500.....30.0.....30.2......63.0.......63.4

3000.....39.8.....36.9..... 69.7.......64.6

3500.....54.0.....53.9......81.0.......80.9

4000.....66.0.....66.0......86.7.......86.7

4500.....76.8.....78.8......89.6.......92.0

5000.....84.5.....91.3......88.8.......95.9

5500.....99.8....101.9.....95.3.......97.3

6000....104.4...113.2.....91.4.......99.1

6500....115.3...120.8.....93.2.......97.6

7000....125.1...130.5.....93.9.......97.9

7500....131.3...134.8.....91.9.......94.4

8000....133.9...137.6.....87.9.......90.3

 

Only 4 bhp more at peak but big gains of 7 at 5k and 9 at 6k. On average about 5 to 6 more over the useful rev band. A big surprise to me that the plenum system is so good compared to those on many other cars but then it was purpose designed for rallying I suppose.

 

The torque curve is superb now. Peak of 99 ft lbs which at 73 ft lbs per litre is right on the money for a mild cammed 2v engine. If you graph it out there are no peaks and troughs anymore and there's over 90 ft lbs available all the way from 4500 to 8000 rpm.

 

With a longer duration cam I would expect more pulse tuning effects to become noticeable and torque to increase by another few ft lbs per litre but this car needs to pull down to under 4000 rpm and the compromise we have at the moment is just about right. The magic 100 bhp per litre figure has been broken with a 280 degree fast road cam rather than a full race one and on a set of rollers I consider to be the most accurate in the country so overall I'm fairly pleased.

 

It would be nice to have the time to develop a big valve head but that'll have to wait for many months.

 

The car will be at Knockhill tomorrow if anyone is going. Look out for a Citreon AX kicking some serious arse and have a chat with Garry Muir.

 

As I said, you want to read the relevant articles on torque per litre on my site and have a very careful look at your own rolling road printouts in comparison with the above.

[stu_woac 1]

puma can you tell me why my engine peaks at 6500 and then levels of there is no drop off, as its a smilular setup as you have there and that seems to carry on pulling to 8000,

 

is it cool to disscuss the two heads I have sat here with you over pm to get your thoughts

 

p.s.

 

sandy knows to much about these engines lol

Edited April 15, 2006 by stu_woac

[PumaRacing 1]

puma can you tell me why my engine peaks at 6500 and then levels of there is no drop off, as its a smilular setup as you have there and that seems to carry on pulling to 8000,

 

Because in a dozen different and subtle ways it is probably not the same at all, most importantly being the cylinder head. If it first peaks at 6500 then it will probably have similar power to Garry's at 6500 i.e. 115 to 120 bhp so your 118 really will be a flywheel figure and your torque will be no more than his one on an accurate roller.

 

The other car I referred to above is someone who competes in the same sprints and hillclimbs as Garry. He has been following Garry's mods very closely and trying to do the same. As a result his engine, which is an alloy block one, has the same Rallye inlet manifold, same Janspeed exhaust manifold, full PTS system, same 280 degree cam but someone else's ported head. On the same Dastek rollers last week it made 122 bhp at 7500 rpm so he isn't really a happy bunny. Now that we also have the TB's fitted he isn't going to get very close.

 

is it cool to disscuss the two heads I have sat here with you over pm to get your thoughts

 

p.s.

 

sandy knows to much about these engines lol

 

Sorry no, I don't do pm's. I answer what I have time to on here.

[TB_205GTI 1]

Edit. TB205 - perhaps you meant Nm not ft lbs in your prediction in which case 106 ft lbs.

 

Yes that's right, didn't write that. I'm a Dane, so no lbft for me please, only NewtonMeters

 

I can now see that my gues was a tad too high, but add a ported 1.6/1.3 head and it'll be spot on

 

The TU24 manifold is awesome, absolutely awesome!

[Sandy 189]

Tidy result! Bet it sounds good aswell

 

What's the inlet length? Could you feasibly try altering the length with the set up?

Edited April 15, 2006 by sandy309

[smckeown 1]

the wonders of modern technology:

 

[Sandy 189]

Beautiful!

[stu_woac 1]

thought you would say the head, thats cool and cleared up what I have been thinging about the head on my car done by a firm i cant mention on here got a new one to go on and when doing this I can get my cam number and get the exact spec for it as all I know is its 286 or 0 with a 11.2mm lift

 

good result and show where I should be heading after a bottom end rebuild tho LOL

[rally ax 0]

Yes Sandy the old 8v sounds awesome ! I've not driven the car on the road yet

as its not insured or taxed .I'm looking forward to having a shot of the car tomorrow

on the trackas I don't normaly drive the car because I'm the navigator for my wife ,,(you know women and directions !?)

On the rally stages the engine will pull from as low as 3000rpm right around to 8000rpm !

I'll let you all know how it goes tomorrow and how it feels .

 

Garry

P.s Sandy, the inlet lenth from the valve seat to the end of the ram pipe is approx 13"

[PumaRacing 1]

Yes that's right, didn't write that. I'm a Dane, so no lbft for me please, only NewtonMeters

 

I can now see that my gues was a tad too high, but add a ported 1.6/1.3 head and it'll be spot on

 

The TU24 manifold is awesome, absolutely awesome!

 

I've done one head off the 1360, this one, and one off the 1293 last year for someone else and although they were done some time apart I don't actually recall any real difference. Valve sizes are certainly the same. Why do you think one is better than the other?

[Sandy 189]

13" (330mm) is quite long then (alot of 106's running about 300mm with iffy results), I ran mine with 355mm, not for any reason other than I could. I guess you're on the practical limit in the AX unless you go up into the scuttle.

 

The 106 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 heads are practically the same, valve sizes don't vary. The 205 1.3 head has the same valve sizes with thicker stems and different shape inlet ports to the 106. The base model heads have smaller valves, smaller ports and different inlet flange shapes.

[rally ax 0]

- Sandy ,I'm into to the scuttle area and the airfilter is about 5mm from the wiper motor frame

(might cut it away !? I'm thinking about trying longer trumpets,I went for the short motorbike ones

to make sure that running them close to the filter would'n't cause any probs.The other rampipes

are about 30mm longer and would end up being about 25mm from the Ramair filter.

I'm going to go back to Wallace Performances Dastek rollers to do a back to back with and without

airfilter and the 2 sizes of rampipe just to see the results overlayed for both power and torque.

Had a fantastic day at Knockhill today,caused a bit of a stir passing some stripped out Astra 2.0 16v's

and a good few 8v 205's ,couldn't touch the mi16 boys though!

Both me and the wife had fun with a guy who'd fitted a 2.0 16v turbo engine into his corsa,when he was in front he pulled away on the straights but we then cought him back up again in the corners.When we went out in front of him on the next session ,we just pulled away from him and left him When we were loading up he came across and was a bit embarassed a; to be beaten by an AX b; for it to be a 1360cc c;driven by a woman !

Aye Sandy , your right,you canna beat the sound of a Tu8v at 8000k!?

[stu_woac 1]

great felling telling guys its only a 1.4 inst it lol

[Sandy 189]

Might be worth trying both without the filter in place, to see what the "real" difference is, then try with the filter. I don't know if you have one available, but if you use a wide band lambda to observe the AFR through the rpm range at full throttle, where it becomes leaner will be basically where it's going to make more power; so you can plot that to evaluate if any changes are going to be worth while, because without adjusting the fuelling, any potential additional power won't really show on the power readout.

 

Forgive me if i'm telling you what you already know!

Edited April 17, 2006 by sandy309