Finally Mapped

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Agreed. I was comparing it against the iron 200+ blocks that have come on the scene.

We're not bickering, just trying to make people understand 'what' makes a car fast. My point is that the 8v (reworked of course) will always have a better mid range than a 16v IMO. So don't be so quick to discount it that's all. Other than that good luck to the high bhp seekers, i'm sure they are entertaining

So what you are saying sean that a reworked 8v with say 160BHP will be quicker than a std mi?

 

Maxi

[Rippthrough 98]

Agreed. I was comparing it against the iron 200+ blocks that have come on the scene.

We're not bickering, just trying to make people understand 'what' makes a car fast. My point is that the 8v (reworked of course) will always have a better mid range than a 16v IMO. So don't be so quick to discount it that's all. Other than that good luck to the high bhp seekers, i'm sure they are entertaining

 

 

Nah, if you rework the 16v for a broad spread of torque it's going to have a better midrange and top end imo, the only time and 8v is more torquey than the 16 is at the bottom end of the rev range.

[smckeown 1]

Nah, if you rework the 16v for a broad spread of torque it's going to have a better midrange and top end imo, the only time and 8v is more torquey than the 16 is at the bottom end of the rev range.

 

Well i'm yet to see one, anyone got a torque graph to prove it ?. Flowing 250cfm out of the box makes for too slow a gas speed at mid range to make as much mid range torque as a head flowing say 180 with faster has speed. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[smckeown 1]

So what you are saying sean that a reworked 8v with say 160BHP will be quicker than a std mi?

 

Maxi

 

 

i'm yet to see any MI (standard or modified) making as a good a mid range as my old engine. My recipie for a fast track car:

 

Extreme light weight

Great handling

Great brakes

Massive mid range combined with good spread of power (2.5-3k revs)

[VisaGTi16v 1]

8v's are still popular in sprints and hillclimbs as you cannot change the head in the road going classes hence no 16v's allowed. Theres a bloke with a VERY quick Longman one in my club which is rumoured to put out 200bhp and I dont doubt it from the speed and the size of his wallet

[Rippthrough 98]

8v's are still popular in sprints and hillclimbs as you cannot change the head in the road going classes hence no 16v's allowed. Theres a bloke with a VERY quick Longman one in my club which is rumoured to put out 200bhp and I dont doubt it from the speed and the size of his wallet

 

 

Probably, but if he was allowed to change the head I bet it would be straight to 16v

[Rippthrough 98]

Well i'm yet to see one, anyone got a torque graph to prove it ?. Flowing 250cfm out of the box makes for too slow a gas speed at mid range to make as much mid range torque as a head flowing say 180 with faster has speed. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

Nope haven't seen many yet, but there are dozens and dozens of 2.0 16v XE's out there pushing 150-155lb ft at 5000-5500rpm.

[smckeown 1]

Nope haven't seen many yet, but there are dozens and dozens of 2.0 16v XE's out there pushing 150-155lb ft at 5000-5500rpm.

 

We cant compare against an XE as we dont know how that flows compared to a mi head, it could have a lower cfm (to which i'd expect)

 

So let's get these torque graphs up then to see can see how fast a car they will really make in the real world; looking further than just top end power for a change.

[Rippthrough 98]

We cant compare against an XE as we dont know how that flows compared to a mi head, it could have a lower cfm (to which i'd expect)

 

So let's get these torque graphs up then to see can see how fast a car they will really make in the real world; looking further than just top end power for a change.

 

It does, slightly, but not far off, but I can see there being plenty of competition spec XU 16v's being up around that level of torque in the mid-range.

 

Not very relevent but these XE

engines are quite impressive if they're accurate:

 

Edited February 1, 2007 by Rippthrough

[smckeown 1]

They are race engines by the looks of it. If so we're not comparing apples and apples now

Edited February 1, 2007 by smckeown

[Rippthrough 98]

They are race engines by the looks of it. If so we're not comparing apples and apples now

 

 

If the engine at the start of this thread was a 2.0litre instead of 2.1 it'd still be pushing somewhere around 160lbft.

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Here's my 16v torque figures from Eemerald Rollers :-

 

2800 120lbft

3000 123lbft

3500 116lbft

4000 126lbft

4500 140lbft

5000 138lbft

5500 150lbft

6000 161lbft

6500 156lbft

7000 153lbft

7200 151lbft

 

Peaks @ 162lbft @ 5878 with 40mm trumpets. With 75mm the peak torque came down to 5400rpm

Edited February 1, 2007 by Robsbc

[smckeown 1]

Here's my 16v torque figures from Eemerald Rollers :-

 

2800 120lbft

3000 123lbft

3500 116lbft

4000 126lbft

4500 140lbft

5000 138lbft

5500 150lbft

6000 161lbft

6500 156lbft

7000 153lbft

7200 151lbft

 

Peaks @ 162lbft @ 5878 with 40mm trumpets. With 75mm the peak torque came down to 5400rpm

 

that's seriously impressive

[VisaGTi16v 1]

Certainly looks good. Why do you think it goes up steeply at 4500 then drops slightly at 5000 before continuing its rise again at 5500?

 

Do you have the bhp curve as well for that? Plus I think you should give me your engine as a present

[smckeown 1]

Do you have the bhp curve as well for that? Plus I think you should give me your engine as a present

 

quoting PR "Horsepower = Torque x rpm / 5252"

[Sandy 189]

Colin Satchell's 1930cc Mi gave 229bhp at 7000rpm, that's 171lbft at peak power, not sure what it was below that (also on Emerald's rollers and written about by DW in CCC).

Edited February 1, 2007 by sandy309

[VisaGTi16v 1]

ta smckeown, will use that in reverse to plot my torque curve from when I went to sanspeed as that only printed out wheel bhp

[C_W 3 1 Cars]

I reckon any 16v built with a similar spec would paste it tbh, it's not like the 8v has a torque advantage even in stock form.

 

I'd say so too, 2.0 16v has more torque everywhere than the 8v as standard so modified in the same way it you'd expect it'd still be on top. Buit it's all relative when you factor in gearing which can alter the delivery to suit your needs.

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Colin Satchell's 1930cc Mi gave 229bhp at 7000rpm, that's 171lbft at peak power, not sure what it was below that (also on Emerald's rollers and written about by DW in CCC).

 

Graph is on thsi forum...

 

Both Dave W & Karl said that engine peaked @ 7800rpm when I last asked them. Even the article talks about 7800rpm

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Graph is on thsi forum...

 

Both Dave W & Karl said that engine peaked @ 7800rpm when I last asked them. Even the article talks about 7800rpm

 

 

Torque figures for 3 cars on Emerald rollers in 2006 :-

 

Revla (S16) 16v205(gti-6) 16v205(mi16)

2500 82 104 ?

 

3000 92 115 105

 

3500 110 128 104

 

4000 132 137 105

 

4500 140 140 119

 

5000 147 145 125

 

 

Rough specs :-

 

Revla 2.0 S16, tbs, 40mm trumpets, CAT Cams, GTI-6 exhaust manifold, 158.7lbft @5896

 

16v205 - 2.0 GTI-6, tbs, CAT Cams, 161.6lbft@6417

 

16v205 1.9Mi16, 90mm trumpets, 141.3 lbft@5436

[Rippthrough 98]

Nice, so all three have the same/considerably more torque than the 'ultimate 8v' in the midrange.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Rippthrough

[veloce200 3]

Nice, so all three have the same/considerably more torque than the 'ultimate 8v' in the midrange.

i don't think Sean or I were suggesting the 8v was better. clearly it's not. the reality is though that a high headline HP figure means nothing for speed. I've been in Revla's car which is a roadgoing highpower MI, admittedly it's two up but it didn't feel fast (sorry Revla!). Seans car I have driven on the other hand and is ballistic. I think the point we are making is that it take a LOT of power to make up for extra weight both in a straightline and on the twisties.

e.g road going MI, Iron block, all trim, no cage, 220hp

stripped lightweight track prepared 1.6 8v - 160hp

the former would cost a lot more to make, be eligible for very few events and would probably not get close to the latter on circuit.

 

it think the issue at stake here is that peugeot never made the MI16 205. Over in golf land for a minute if anyone had an 8v and wanted to tune it i'd say get a 16v. It's not quite so clearcut in 205 land....

[smckeown 1]

Nice, so all three have the same/considerably more torque than the 'ultimate 8v' in the midrange.

 

yes good to see torque curves on good rollers.

 

But now you're just being silly (act your age man). Who said PR's effort was the ultimate 8v ? I'll admit that these are generating better torque curves than I previously noticed.

 

I think we should have a rollers archive, this makes for interesting comparison. Sure it can't be accurate comparing cars from different rollers on different days etc., but it's still very insightful.

 

It will be very interesting to compare my new 8v, closer to 'the ultimate 8v' than the previous effort

[Rippthrough 98]

Who said PR's effort was the ultimate 8v

 

I meant your car, as a whole!

Edited February 1, 2007 by Rippthrough

[smckeown 1]

I meant your car!

 

Ah you mean my new engine ? Sorry thought you meant the old PR engine.

 

Well it's still far from the ultimate really, it's not balls out and out race spec, head and cam are more rally oriented. But i'm hoping for and have negitiated, for a good spread and good amount of torque.

 

I must say i'm very impressed with the torque curve from the s16 earlier, that must absolutely fly big time (in any condition, road/track etc)..respect!

Edited February 1, 2007 by smckeown