Finally Mapped

[mos 1]

hi,

 

finally had my s16 projected mapped last week

the engine spec is 2.0 s16 engine over bored to 2.1

rebored to 87mm

87 mm high compression (12.5) forged pistons

catcams 49011551 camshafts and pulleys

headwork including skim/flow and 3 cut high accuracy valve seats

1.9 88mm crank

running KMS bodies and management with KMS injectors

and a mile manifold

 

had the car mapped at mikeanics in congleton

made 232bhp 7400rpm

and 171lbft 6400rpm

 

needless to say i quite impressed with that

partcularly as mikeanics rollers seem to be well respected and are thought of on here to be accurate

 

thanks

 

mark

Edited January 26, 2007 by mos

[kyepan 291]

Well done. Is this a road car?

[boombang 2]

Good results - do you have the power and torque curves to show what it offers throughout the rev range?

 

Does your setup run a wideband lambda at all?

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

Very nice result.

 

Although I was maybe hoping you would get a little more with those camshafts.

Probably just because I really wanna touch the 250bhp barrier with my setup, and maybe that's gonna be hard after all.

 

Would be very nice to see some graphs here.

Any maybe pictures of what car is this engine sitting in?

[huckleberry 0]

Sounds fast!

[Guest markiboy2007]

thas definitely impressive power there mate, how much have you spent getting the engine upto that power?

[pee vee 1]

excellent mate! IF thats in a 205 that really is going to surprise a few people

in a straight line!

and we all know how good they are at the corners!

Edited January 26, 2007 by pee vee

[mos 1]

thanks gys

 

i will add some graphs and photos if i can shortly

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

thanks gys

 

i will add some graphs and photos if i can shortly

 

A good result there Mark...

 

I've been keeping an eye on people's lblft torque figure for the alloy and iron block 16v engines running tb's especially with the trend for oversized cc on the iron block.

 

According to Puma :-

 

With well developed cylinder heads, good inductions systems (i.e. sidedraft carbs or even better, multi butterfly throttle body systems) and efficient camshafts it is possible to push highly modified road engines to around 80 ft lbs per litre for 2 valve designs and low 90s ft lbs per litre for 4 valve engines. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines.

 

Here's my findings :-

 

Kate- 1905cc/alloy/145lbft - 76 ft lbs per litre

Revla - 1998cc/iron/158lbft - 79 ft lbs per litre

Stew205 - 2140cc/iron/174lbft - 81.3 ft lbs per litre

Dreamweaver - 1905cc/alloy/155lbft - 81.4 ft lbs per litre

16v205 - 1998cc/iron/161lbft - 81.4 ft lbs per litre

Mos - 2092cc/iron/171lbft - 81.7 ft lbs per litre

Maxi - 2088cc/iron,/174lbft - 83.3 ft lbs per litre

Robsbc - 1923cc/alloy/162lbft - 84.2 ft lbs per litre

Edited January 26, 2007 by Robsbc

[welshpug 1,622]

good work that man, i'll throw my LBFT numbers in for comparison,

standard healthy ish 1905cc 8v, downpipe back aftermarket SS exhaust and K&N.

 

116lbft.

[smckeown 1]

yes its interesting to compare torque figures, but diff RRs measure them vastly differently. I'm sure you know this anyway. Did someone mention mikeanics being accurate ? he admited to me himself he doesnt think they are accurate

[Alastairh 47]

Nice results.

 

Gets some pics up of the whole car and this engine

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

yes its interesting to compare torque figures, but diff RRs measure them vastly differently. I'm sure you know this anyway. Did someone mention mikeanics being accurate ? he admited to me himself he doesnt think they are accurate

 

Indeed I do Sean...

 

Kate, Revla, 16v205 and myself were all done on Emerald's rolling road.

 

Stew205 done on a dyno.

 

Maxi @ Power Engineering.

 

Mos @ Mikeanics.

 

Rest I don't know.

 

Thought Puma trusted Mikeaincs rollers?

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Nice results.

 

Gets some pics up of the whole car and this engine

 

Don't want to sound like a boring old git but we all know what an S16 on bodies looks like in an engine bay...

 

So do we think CRF450 will ever get 280BHP he was expecting? Puma was guessing at the 250ish mark because he though his cams weren't that wild...Have to see how BlackMi16 engine goes seeing it's a 2.3L iron lump.

[PumaRacing 1]

A good result there Mark...

 

I've been keeping an eye on people's lblft torque figure for the alloy and iron block 16v engines running tb's especially with the trend for oversized cc on the iron block.

 

According to Puma :-

 

With well developed cylinder heads, good inductions systems (i.e. sidedraft carbs or even better, multi butterfly throttle body systems) and efficient camshafts it is possible to push highly modified road engines to around 80 ft lbs per litre for 2 valve designs and low 90s ft lbs per litre for 4 valve engines. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines.

 

I don't know if you were a Sun journalist in a former life or just deliberately trying to misquote me but you've snipped out the rest of that paragraph from my article which makes it clear the bit you actually quoted was about ultimate targets for road car engines modified into full race ones with big budget dyno development work on induction and exhaust design. None of that is applicable to the engines on here. Anyway I've now rewritten that bit of the article to make it even clearer and harder to misquote.

 

The achievable torque per litre targets I quote for various stages of averagely modified road car based engines are in the general tuning guide.

 

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/gentune.htm

 

Which says, for 4v engines.

 

1) Average standard engine - 70 ft lbs per litre

2) Fast road tune - single carb or plenum fuel injection - 70 to 76 ft lbs per litre

3) Fast road/rally tune - DCOE or throttle bodies - 76 to 82 ft lbs per litre

4) Full race tune - DCOE or throttle bodies - 82 to 88 ft lbs per litre

 

The line applicable to most of the engines on here would be line 3 and appears to pretty much exactly match the ones you have listed. Perhaps a couple of the engines with longer duration cams (250 degrees or more) are sneaking into the 4th category.

 

If you think my articles are wrong in any respect then just say so and have done with it but I don't think you need to resort to misquoting things that aren't applicable to what you are comparing them to.

Edited January 27, 2007 by PumaRacing

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Yes I did snipped out the rest...But there was no intention to misquote you.

[Mattsav 1]

I think Mikeanics are one of the more relaible RR around (along with track and road).

From the results we've had they seem to correlate very well.

 

Either way it going to go like s*it off a shovel!!

 

I'd like to do a large capacity GTI-6 next as the heads flow better and the cam profiles are much more agressive.

[taffycrook 2]

BMEP is what Mr Baker should be talking about. It is the most effective way of measuring how good an engine is, it discounts capacity and rpm.

Torque is a very accurate way of measuring how good an engine is, as it is a function of engine size and VE. If max VE is pushed further up the rev range the engine will produce more power but not any more torque.

If a dyno shows more torque than the figures quoted per litre then either you are a race engine development engineer or your car has a form of forced induction.

[Rippthrough 98]

BMEP is what Mr Baker should be talking about. It is the most effective way of measuring how good an engine is, it discounts capacity and rpm.

Torque is a very accurate way of measuring how good an engine is, as it is a function of engine size and VE. If max VE is pushed further up the rev range the engine will produce more power but not any more torque.

If a dyno shows more torque than the figures quoted per litre then either you are a race engine development engineer or your car has a form of forced induction.

 

 

Or the dyno is out, in which case you can apply a little fudge factor to try and get the readings more accurate.

[PumaRacing 1]

BMEP is what Mr Baker should be talking about. It is the most effective way of measuring how good an engine is, it discounts capacity and rpm.

 

BMEP and torque per litre are basically the same thing. In fact BMEP is just TPL x 2.471

 

Whichever you use you still need to differentiate between 2v and 4v engines because 4v ones have about a 10% advantage in TPL due to better swirl, burn speed and flow per cc.

 

Most people have no idea what BMEP is though so it's much easier to stick to TPL which can be calculated easily from any dyno figures.

[PumaRacing 1]

hi,

 

finally had my s16 projected mapped last week

the engine spec is 2.0 s16 engine over bored to 2.1

rebored to 87mm

87 mm high compression (12.5) forged pistons

catcams 49011551 camshafts and pulleys

headwork including skim/flow and 3 cut high accuracy valve seats

1.9 88mm crank

running KMS bodies and management with KMS injectors

and a mile manifold

 

had the car mapped at mikeanics in congleton

made 232bhp 7400rpm

and 171lbft 6400rpm

 

needless to say i quite impressed with that

partcularly as mikeanics rollers seem to be well respected and are thought of on here to be accurate

 

thanks

 

mark

 

Probably the most sensible and cost effective 4v specification I've seen on here and the results do justice to that. The stronger iron block with a little extra capacity thrown in to keep rpm limits down is a much better choice than the alloy block IMO. Higher capacity, cheaper to build, better bore sealing and easier to add even more capacity to it. Maybe the cams are a bit wild for road use but fully mappable systems at least make such cams driveable if not exactly tractable.

 

With a little more budget a BV head and shorter duration cams would give a wider powerband, better tractability and even more top end but then money always has to be the limiting factor at some stage. With a BV head and the same cams you could probably be knocking on the door of 260 bhp but the rpm limit would rise to 8500 and that would preclude hydraulic cams and probably mean even more expense on the bottom end. If I'm building an engine for myself then ultimate headwork always comes first because that's basically free to me. Cams would then be set as mild as possible with a given power target in mind. Of course you can't make the same choices when you're paying for the work.

 

As an overall choice I'd say either you, or whoever advised you, has done a top notch job and I'm not easily impressed so you can take that to the bank. There are some very poor 16v engines on here, many with cams, TBs and even headwork which just aren't showing what they ought to. By rights the iron block 2.0 plus engines in similar spec should be giving what yours is and the smaller capacity alloy ones about 210 bhp or more. Maybe the goalposts have now been raised a little higher and people will start getting these engines right.

 

Damn good job. You should be well pleased.

[jackherer 543]

The stronger iron block with a little extra capacity thrown in to keep rpm limits down is a much better choice than the alloy block IMO.

 

People stick with the alloy block because they (wrongly) worry that the extra weight of the iron block will affect handling.

[Henry 1.9GTi 36]

nice power figure bet that scares a few scoobs. What pistons are they that give the 12.5 compression? Did raising the compression this much affect valve clearance with the higher lift cam? Anything done to combat this or was it all within limits? Thanks.

Henry.

 

also anyone know what the minimum clearance between piston and valve reaches in a standard Mi16 or the like.

[dazEmad 0]

very impressive results you must be well pleased.

[Kitsune 0]

RobSBC, what have you done to achieve 1928cc (bigger pistons, what size?).