Engine Mapped Today

[16v205 9]

A wheel bhp number would be nice then we can all see what's what. I'm sure Walker will reveal that if you call him. It's stored on his pc anyway. I'll guess 150 to 160.

 

 

Hi, I did see a wheel bhp figure on his computer screens as the power runs were being done. I saw several 172/3bhp @ wheels and a 176bhp @ wheels figure pop up. He couldnt explain himself why there was a sudden increase at 7000 rpm, but it was on every run and at identical revs.

 

The other engines I have had mapped there were also built by myself and if anything under acheived. One failed miserably Had a go at making motorbike tb's fit a new mi16 I had rebuilt and acheived 140bhp and 120lbft. The same engine a month later with Jenvey 45mm tb's, 90mm trumpets made 176 bhp and 140lbft. Again both of these were mapped at Emerald and neither had spikes at the end.

 

211 bhp is I would say a little optamistic, a healthy 200bhp is a lot more realistic.

 

Rich

[PumaRacing 1]

176 at the wheels is a very good result. Maybe your removing the rough edges from the head casting did more good than you're letting on

 

Spike or not a very solid 200 bhp then.

[kate205gti 4]

as i said on text..

 

woooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

thats very good result ive got lots of work to do to keep up now (maybe next year!)

 

watch out for dodgy photos in PPC!

[SPGTi 2]

watch out for dodgy photos in PPC!

 

 

And the sheep ????????????????????????????????????

 

 

Steve

[smckeown 1]

It actually looks a bit like those figures from Powerstation.

 

Yeah those @wheel figures certainly are as stupid as Powerstation's. I think PS has far more optimistic @fly though compared to Emerald. At least at Emerald you know roughtly what the @fly figure is. Whereas when you walk about with your piece of paper from PS you have no idea from both

[Jonmurgie 2]

in your opinion sean

[Sam 4]

Hate to say it Jon but I think its more like fact, everyone I've ever spoken to RE: Powerstation seems to say their rollers are very iffy. I mean your results before were enough proof don't you think?

[Jonmurgie 2]

fvck, I'm not going to get into another petty squabble about PowerStation...

[Sam 4]

I realise they are mates of yours but even so. Lets just leave it that their rollers are a grey area

[Mattsav 1]

Emeralds rollers seem to have issues at 7k,

 

This graph is of a saxo 1.6 engine we have built and was mapped at emerald this week, it also had a spike at 7k,

 

Graph,

[Sam 4]

:omg: Whats the spec of that Matt !!

[smckeown 1]

that's got to be forced induction ??

[Sam 4]

Revving to 8000 though?

[Mattsav 1]

1.6 16v N/a

Direct to head TB's

Forged Pistons & Rods

Catcams 1321803 cams

Big Valve Head (31mm Inlets)

[Sandy 189]

That's a hell of a power spread! Everything's come together nicely there Matt

[veloce200 3]

1.6 16v N/a

Direct to head TB's

Forged Pistons & Rods

Catcams 1321803 cams

Big Valve Head (31mm Inlets)

 

 

cat cams do it again! Matt tell me can you destroke a 1.6 TU to 1.4 simply by changing the crank?

cheers

 

Julian

[Sandy 189]

A Rallye 1.3 crank would make it 1417cc, but it would be seriously oversquare and you'd need bespoke rods.

 

The easiest way really would be 76mm pistons (bespoke), 1.6 rods and 1360cc crank.

[Mattsav 1]

yes we can de stroke the 1.6 to 1.4 and oversquare is very good !!!!

[Sandy 189]

De-stroking the 1.6 will require more bespoke components than overboring the 1.4, assuming a "safe" rev limit of say 8250rpm was implemented?

 

To get less than 1400cc with the 1.3 crank would bespoke rods as well as pistons and the oversquare configuration (78.5x73.2 or 78x73.2 for 1399cc) would surely narrow the power band and move it up to higher, riskier rpm, compared to 76x77? The relative improvement in deshrouding surely has to be offset against the costs involved?