1.6 Va 1.9 Injectors

[24seven 104]

are the 1.9 injectors bigger? if so would they be a worthwhile upgrade on a 1.6, as opposed to plumbing in a 5th injector?

[j_turnell 134 3 Cars]

1.9 injectors have a better flow rate yes but putting them on an otherwise standard 1.6 engine will be pointless, it all depends on the spec of it...

[Anthony 1,000]

And using 1.9 injectors on 1.6 management will just lead to your engine running rich all the time....

[ada205 2]

I brought a gorgeous Miami a few years back, that i thought was a 1.9. The car was definately a 1.9 originally, and when went to view car, all seemed fine with 1.9 injectors and airflow, but didnt check any further. Manifold was blowing, which helped knock a few quid of price, but otherwise no probs, and it went like stink. Definately the quickest 8v I've driven, and I've driven a few!! Anyway, when manifold was changed, a stud snapped which then involved the head coming off. Decided to replace head gasket, cambelt ect while head was off and give a service. Whilst car was on the ramps, it was noticed that the car had no spacer between the block and sump, and therefore it's a fecking 1.6, which was backed up by the engine number! At the time, I was'nt amused, as thought I'd brought an original 1.9, but grew to love the little Xu5 that live under that Miami hood!

 

Looked like the car had had another engine, and they'd just swapped the entire injection over from the original 1.9 lump. The car also had the 1.9 box for sure. I dont know what had to be done to get it running right, as obviously nothing to do with me, mite had been a right b*st*rd for all i know, but it was fast. Theres quite a few 1.9's around locally that will back that up! It was so responsive, and reved amazingly fast.

 

Only problem i had with the car, which back's up what Anthony say's, is it ran rich. The work was carried out slowly when i got the car, as didnt need it for a while and it was middle of winter, so was standing for a while. The car went straight from this to the mot station, and failed big time on emissions whith an * showing on the screen at one point, which i'm told ment of the scale! The car was taken for an enthusiastic drive to try and clear it out a little, and show'd an impressive 5%co on return! managed around 2&half with holding the revs high. (Very handy having a frienly MOT'r, espeically if, as i do, have a love affair with carb's! Bit worried the new system mite bugger this relationship up though!) The car got better with use, and went through next mot without any help, though emissions were still a little on the high side.

 

Soz for the lenght of this story, just thought mite be of interest in this thread.

Edited May 23, 2006 by ada205

[Anthony 1,000]

You can use the complete 1.9 Injectors/AFM/ECU on a 1.6 engine (and vice-versa with 1.6 Injectors/AFM/ECU on a 1.9 engine) and it works pretty well - it's when you start mixing and matching 1.9 and 1.6 injectors/AFM/ECU that you have fuelling issues.

[steve@cornwall 100]

In my opinion 1.9 injectors in a 1.6 give a noticeably "boost" to high rev acceleration. This may not be atrue power or acceleration gain, but I find it more fun to drive, and that's more important to me than a bhp/torque figure! Couldn't comment on emissions though as I stick 1.6 ones back in for that-just in case!

[Dom9 2]

Don't the regs for the rallycross 205's, or whatever that series is called, allow them to use 1.9 injectors on their blueprinted 1.6 engines? There must be some gain to be made somewhere, maybe with a fuel pressure regulator to bring down the low rpm richness?

[24seven 104]

so if I were to get 1.9 injectors and ECU, i'd see some high RPM improvement over the standard 1.6 stuff? Could be useful then, since the car is going to be raced and apart from warming up/coling down, it'll spend a lot of time in the higher RPMs.

[GLPoomobile 958]

The 1.9 ECU has a lower rev limit though, doesn't it?

[steve@cornwall 100]

The 1.9 ECU has a lower rev limit though, doesn't it?

 

leave the ecu as 1.6-using the 1.9 one is not good on a 1.6! v.sluggish

As i say, don't know if it gives any actual / legitimate acceleration gains,or even losses 0-60mph but from 4k-6k revs (overtaking range on the road) seems to really kick with just injector change-easy,quick,cheap swap so what's to lose by trying-other then economy.....?

My 1.9 ecu limits at 7k.(it's on a 1.9).

[number2301 1 1 Cars]

1.9 ECU should be at 6250 shouldn't it?

[steve@cornwall 100]

1.9 ECU should be at 6250 shouldn't it?

 

Don't think I've ever had the same rev limit on any two cars! reckon it must be dependent on timing or some other setting, so having a higher rev limit probably means my car's not tuned right and losing in other areas? maybe optimum tuning puts the limit at 6250. Mine will be set up at some stage (keep promising) but at the moment is all running with post engine swap settings i.e thrown together and seems fine!!

Anyone know?

[Anthony 1,000]

Generally speaking, the 1.9 rev limit is 6500rpm and the 1.6 6750rpm (I think the early 1.6's were about 6900rpm though).

 

There's no need nor point in putting 1.9 stuff on a 1.6 IMO - the only time I can see that you'd need other injectors is if you've heavily tuned the engine and are running out of injector pulsewidth.

 

Chances are that if the engine is sluggish at top end then it's something wrong with the engine itself - compression check would be a good place to start, as would inspecting the cam for worn lobes (very common on 1.6 cams). In my experience most 1.6 lumps out there are pretty down on power and don't seem to rev, and the difference between a "good" one and an "average" one is night and day.

[taffycrook 2]

Unless you are making real beans there is no need for injectors capable of 185 bhp on a 1.6 8v.

It will make it worse not better unless used in conjunction with a 1.9 ecu and AFM.

If you need a touch more fuel use a adj reg as unless you are over 150 bhp you will not run out of fuel. The max torque of the 1.6 8v is around 130-140 lbs/ft on the injection manifold.

[pug_ham 241 3 Cars]

Generally speaking, the 1.9 rev limit is 6500rpm and the 1.6 6750rpm (I think the early 1.6's were about 6900rpm though).

AFAIK the early 105bhp 1.6 XU's had a limiter set at 6500 (same as the 1.9) & the later ones were supposed to be at 6900rpm but they never seem to indicate that rpm when you hit the limiter. Mine always seem to hit the limiter at about 6600rpm on the rev counter.

 

What are peoples thoughts on fitting a 1.9 cam to a 1.6 engine? I think I've seen a post by Puma Racing saying that the difference is so minimal that there would be hardly any difference.

 

Graham.

[taffycrook 2]

Graham

 

You would be better off fitting the 1.9 dizzy.

[jackherer 543]

Don't think I've ever had the same rev limit on any two cars!

 

the factory rev counters are very innacurate, I've had the same Mi16 engine/loom/ecu in different cars and the redline has moved from an indicated 6700 to over 7200!

[Dom9 2]

I'v eheard a few times that the 1.9 cam and 1.9 dizzy on the 1.6 is an upgrade, but as with all these things, it appears no one has ever done a back to back test!

 

Go on G, you know you want to!

[Anthony 1,000]

What are peoples thoughts on fitting a 1.9 cam to a 1.6 engine? I think I've seen a post by Puma Racing saying that the difference is so minimal that there would be hardly any difference.

Apparently speaking to James who's done it, it makes the engine less peaky/revvy and lost it alot of it's character - I'm sure he'll add his thoughts when he reads this thread...

[steve@cornwall 100]

Chances are that if the engine is sluggish at top end then it's something wrong with the engine itself - compression check would be a good place to start, as would inspecting the cam for worn lobes (very common on 1.6 cams). In my experience most 1.6 lumps out there are pretty down on power and don't seem to rev, and the difference between a "good" one and an "average" one is night and day.

 

For the record- the first 1.6 engine that the 1.9 injectors went into (126k miles) is now in the bin! headgasket failure between cyls 2+3 and big ends worn out so.. very valid point !

 

Put them into the second car (cti 89K) as a matter of course 'cos of the difference it made to the first one. originally ran it with 1.9 ecu +afm- horrible. added 1.9 throttle body- lots better, but 1.6 t.b was pretty awful anyway with blocked top breather. When I transplanted the 1.9 engine into my 1.6 it came without afm & ecu-so I robbed them off the cti. This left the cti as 1.6 with 1.9 injectors/t.b which seems to go well, but I must admit I've not tried it with all 1.6 items except for a short drive for mot seemed quite sluggish. I'll have to try it with the right set up over the weekend and report back.

[GLPoomobile 958]

I'v eheard a few times that the 1.9 cam and 1.9 dizzy on the 1.6 is an upgrade, but as with all these things, it appears no one has ever done a back to back test!

 

Go on G, you know you want to!

 

When I eventually get around to rebuilding my spare 1.9 head I could do this, but I'm not convinced the dizzy is in perfect working order.

 

Plus I wouldn't be the best person to report back as I've only ever driven 3 GTi's and I'm pretty crap at being able to 'feel' performance differences in cars

 

So that was a pretty pointless post by me, yet again

[Dom9 2]

It would be nice if one of the 'tuners' on here actually did the tests back to back on the RR they have access to... Maybe Matt will have a go when QEP have their engine dyno installed?

[GLPoomobile 958]

Has anyone actually measured the differences in the two cams? Dunno what condition my 1.6 cam is in but if they wear quicker than the 1.9 cam and there's not much difference in them then I may just stick with the 1.9 cam when I swap the heads.

[pug_ham 241 3 Cars]

I'v eheard a few times that the 1.9 cam and 1.9 dizzy on the 1.6 is an upgrade, but as with all these things, it appears no one has ever done a back to back test!

 

Go on G, you know you want to!

I'm not converting my car back to Jetronic after spending £400 on mapping!!

Apparently speaking to James who's done it, it makes the engine less peaky/revvy and lost it alot of it's character - I'm sure he'll add his thoughts when he reads this thread...

I drove one with it fitted on Tuesday but seeing as its a while since I drove an otherwise standard 1.6 I couldn't be certain what difference it made. The engine went pretty well but I didn't think it seemed to rev as well beyond 4.5k. The engine isn't getting fitted to any of my cars anyway & I doubt the person who's car it is going in will really notice. Itll go a lot better thatn the one fitted now with a blown head gasket.

 

Graham.

 

#9000.

Edited May 26, 2006 by pugtorque

[Guest RickGTIBaker]

If you have a "tired" 1.6, fully reconditioning it will release a whole new beast!

 

My Steel Grey motor is showing 121k but has a relativley new motor in it (15-20k) and it goes like hell!

 

There is a strip of road I use as a bench test, and it currently does the run QUICKER than a good running mk1 mr2 and about the same as a used 1.9GTi.

If anybody else in Grimsby wants to try it , let me know.