[engine_work] Project Sarty

[welshpug 1,622]

I spotted this and thought it might be of interest, I "think" its a BTCC spec Iron block Mi, note the rather long throttle bodies and trumpets compared to the norm.

 

Edited December 27, 2007 by welshpug

[JamesLumley 4]

Sarty

 

My longmans engine currently produces 137.37 bhp per litre, 140 is relatively easy with a cam swap but as Sandy says it will lose the current torque curve and in turn the driveability. It apparently has the future potential for around 150bhp per litre with a further substantial investment and crazy rebuild shedule!

 

Anyway off topic, got a very interesting project on the go here, best of luck with it!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Lummers (& Sandy & Kyepan & Welshpug),

 

thanks very much for your contributions and compliments on the project.

 

I'll stress again that I'm not on any hunt or mission for particular power (read: BHP) figures. It makes what it makes after a decent and knowledgable RR sesh and map. If it makes 180bhp - bov'd - likewise with 240bhp. There will be no further work after this to pursue any improvements or increases. This is a sensible mission to throw sensible - pretty much off the shelf - components together, with minimal specialist work and investment to make a solid, fun, torquey and reliable engine.

 

The fascinating discussions on what makes an engine good, mega efficient or downright mental, IMO just add to the thread's readability and give the reader an understanding of what, why....and maybe what if???

 

I am flabbergasted that the once written rule as I understood it - perhaps 10years ago now - of 100bhp per litre being a tough nut to crack, has almost been smashed and rubbished by up to 50%! I think that's brilliant; but I've mentioned it in several other threads that BHP to me is a relatively meaningless figure. I understand it as (simplified):

 

BHP is ultimately how much work an engine can do

 

whereas torque is HOW an engine goes about doing it.

 

I see it that BHP is only a product of torque, and is also a snapshot measurement for a fraction of a moment in the rev range. It's like Halfords' 300watt 6 x 9 speakers; the measurement is meaningless because it was arrived at in a laboratory, with a test frequency (i.e. not music and a high, unrealistic frequency), and also a millisecond before the speaker destroyed itself.

 

Again this reflects what a friend of mine says, that horsepower sells cars (like 300W sells s*ite speakers), and torque wins races.

 

My rant is not at any of you, as frankly I'm meeting Sandy tomorrow, and I live near to you James and want to have a blat in your 'powerful' driveable 205s . I just want to clarify - and possibly set a cat amongst the pigeons - where I stand on this use of BHP to assess the capabilties of an engine. I've even tried to suggest a new unit of measure based on (say) 90%+ of torque being available over x% of rev range (0 - rev limit).

 

So forgive me. I want to state now that the measure of success of my build is not and will not be BHP.

Edited December 28, 2007 by DrSarty

[niklas 1]

Why do people get stuck on the power vs torque thing???

It doesn't matter. The power curve can be calculated from the torque curve and vice versa.

What does matter is the area under the power/torque curve in the "active" rev range! That area is what accelerates the car..

The rev range typically ends at the rev limit (on mi16:s, gti6:s etc) and starts where the next gear ends up!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

@Niklas

 

^^^

 

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

The engine produces torque - that's all it produces.

 

BHP is derived from torque; so in effect, doesn't even exist. The larger the area under the torque curve (ok ok - and BHP curve if you like), the more practical, usable 'power' the engine delivers. An engine generating a really high BHP figure might in fact be dogs*it in a real acceleration/speed test compared to a car with a lower ultimate BHP figure, but with much more active rev range within which to use it.

 

Like I said above - isn't that two people saying the same thing?

 

So let's just speculate shall we? If my engine produces say a maximum of 180lbft at 5,200rpm, and is still producing 162lbft or above (> or = 90% of max) for a band of 1500rpm out of a total (ECU limited) rev range of 0-6400rpm, then the 'Sarty True Efficiency - STE' figure for my engine would be:

 

{180 x 5200 / 5252 = 178.22BHP} : {1500/6400 x 100 = 23.44%}

 

representing:

 

178.22BHP - available throughout - 23.44% of the usable rev range

 

this, regardless of application, means a comparably rated engine of 190BHP, which too everyone without the 'availability' portion of the STE figure looks more potent and powerful, may only deliver its upper 10% of power across 12% of its rev range. This 'at a glance' representation of:

 

178 - 23 versus 190 - 10 immediately shows which one is the more capable/efficient engine in power delivery terms.

 

Does ANYBODY agree with this?

 

Anyway: to quote Wikipedia:

Horsepower (hp) is the name of several non-metric units of power. In scientific discourse, the term "horsepower" is seen as inferior and is rarely used because of its various definitions and the already existent SI unit for power, the watt (W). However, use of the term "horsepower" persists as a legacy in many languages and industries, particularly in the automotive industry because of their continued advertising of maximum power output of internal-combustion engines in "horsepower" units of measurement.

Edited December 28, 2007 by DrSarty

[JamesLumley 4]

I prefer this explanation from the British rally forum...

 

"Under steer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car and over steer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car. Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you"

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

^^ That's brilliant James.

 

Can I come over and have a go in your cars please?

 

 

P.S. No one on this forum has ever commented on my unit of measure. Odd. What would be interesting is if anybody could supply decent RR graphs (torque v rpm) of standard 1.9Mi, S16 & GTi6 engines on the same (decent) rollers. Then for s*its & giggles, I could work out the STE for each of them for future comparisons of modified cars on the same/similar rollers. Then we'd see what true, real world gains have been achieved.

Edited December 28, 2007 by DrSarty

[kate205gti 4]

standard GTi-6 on TBS compared to standard Mi16 on TBs:

 

everyone needs TBs

[welshpug 1,622]

I've got a graph of a standard 2.0 Mi and a standard 8 valver.

 

Smckeown has graphs on his website detailing factory outputs.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Marvellous. Thanks Kate; thanks WP.

 

[welshpug 1,622]

I hope these are big enough...

 

 

 

 

 

both standard engines:

 

136k mile 205 1.9 GTi on K&N and a downpipe back longlife SS mild sport system, (on Jetronic at the time, now back to the airbox but Motronic, to be tested ASAP)

 

99k mile 405 2.0 Mi16 on standard induction, K&N element and Catback Longlife SS O.E replica exhaust system

Edited December 29, 2007 by welshpug

[welshpug 1,622]

 

I don't know what's going on here, there's an image supposed to be above this type!!!!

 

 

 

 

its either late or something is going really wrong here

 

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f169/wel...16/l275xwk2.jpg

Edited December 29, 2007 by welshpug

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

That's brilliant WP. Your graph, Kate's, and others I can find by 'search' ( ) such as PeteT's and BlackMi16's will be used to calculate STE (Sarty's True Efficiency ) figures ASAP. I may have to do some NM > lbft conversions, and set in some arbitary rules for what upper rev limit to use, but it should be....erm...interesting.

 

Rich

 

P.S. What on earth have I let myself in for? A std 1.9 Mi (no TBs) RR graph would be useful too. Come on PeteT; need your help.

[welshpug 1,622]

got one of them in a 205 if its any good.

 

quite a few handy ones on this link - http://www.ashlyn.plus.com/rrday/

 

G180 ETX is the standard 1.9 Mi in a 205.

 

J2GCK is Discostu's turbo

 

T595HFC is a 306 rallye, standard bar Magnex or scorpion catback IIRC.

 

If you want to see what revs can do have a look at the saxo race graph

 

recent PSOOC rr day at Powerstation.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Well, after an awesome day with Sandy309 cutting about seeing people in deepest, darkest Devon & Cornwall, eating pasties and asking far too many questions, this project has developed a little.

 

Today I met Mark Shillaber and Colin Satchell (eeyore) in addition to Sandy...oh and a steak pasty from somewhere Cornish and hilly . Very impressed with both for head & engine work, suspension and fabrication respectively. The pasty was just tasty . I also now know some other great fonts of knowledge in this haven of automotive brainstorming. A great day - Sandy is a top fella!

 

I'm now clear on using the 205GTi Nissens rad with a Kenlo or Pacit 11" cooling fan; most likely run from the MS ECU fan output with a dash bypass switch for when needs must.

 

Similarly with locating the 106GTi fuel filter and what fuel lines to remove/add (8mm int dia 100psi) and how to do it. The '6' injectors will probably stay as is, along with std fuel pump and fuel pressure reg, as Sandy's Type-Rio developing 230-240 VTEC BHP uses these at the same pressure and he's impressed with the spray pattern. The bonus of this is: zero work at zero cost.

 

The type and location of the bonnet pins is now clear (headlight cover - inboard), and the HT leads will most likely be Corsa/GM 16v jobbies, but I'll only need 4off shorties. A std 2.0 Mi thermostat will be used, and a homemade catchtank will be fitted to cope with oil vapour recirculation back to sump rather than inlet. The bonus of the latter is that it will also double up as oil filler.

 

The battery box will be a 'matey fabricated' metal tray (say 1-2") lip height, spec'd to fit around a Demontweaks type plastic battery box located in the boot on the RHS. The airbox, scavenged from a scrappy to nestle in where the battery used to be (perhaps from a Type R Civic or such) will be chosen to give most direct hose connection to the '6' inlet, and will also receive a single cold air feed hose from behind the NS headlight.

 

The spotlamps (valence jobbies) will still come out to be sold on (£10 to anyone: <1yr old) in favour of vents with grille covers to channel cold air upwards, although not all the way up into the airbox. Again = less work and cost.

 

The engine should be collectable, all built & timed up from Matt at QEP mid Jan. The Megasquirt build is next on the agenda.

 

Like I said - a great day, learning a lot and meeting great people.

Edited December 29, 2007 by DrSarty

[welshpug 1,622]

Sounding good there

 

I know one airbox that may be suitable with the right brackets fabricated, the original one!

 

I dont know if you're familiar with the setup in the engine bay of the 2.0 Mi16, but basically the pipe comes from the front panel to the end of the cylinder, and a pipe exits below on the side and goes to the T/B, the airbox is identical in construction to the 205 one.

 

Almost all Pug airboxes are the same design albeit with different brackets welded on, the 306 (DT S16 gti6 and many others) uses a similar airbox with the lid on the opposite end.

 

Other bonus is that the K&N E9000 element fits nicely and only costs about £30 from GSF

 

But that's just what I'd do, as it'd look factory

 

 

P.S its Kenlowe and Pacet

[Sandy 189]

It was a great day out Rich, we'll have to do it again next time you're down

 

I'm glad we managed to help you with a few details, simplifying it mostly I hope!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Well I've been shopping. The Pug 106GTi fuel filter (which is tiny BTW - I'll post a pic) was FOC from my Pug main dealer! I've spent a bit there over time, and the guy must of had pre works party jolliness; bonus. I now need to find a coil type holding bracket, which'll be perfect to fit this more compact filter.

 

The fuel line from Allparts (1metre) even came with pipe clips, so I only needed 4 more (16mm variety) to cope with connections to fuel rail and insitu main fuel lines.

 

As for HT leads . I'm going for the Corsa 16v ones, but need to clarify for which engine capacity as there were several up to 1.8. Very few people sell them singularly..grrr, so I may have to scrounge UK scrappies or even talk to Corsa 16v owners, perhaps via they're forum...double grrrr , as I refuse to pay the.....wait for it....

 

 

£55 for the shortest 302mm lead direct from a Vauxhall main dealer

 

My project has also wisely now been mod'd to include a Quaife LSD, as I guess all that new torque will pulversise the standard, and slightly old, ex BX16v diff. Bummer - another £500ish . But the benefits will be exponential .

[Sandy 189]

1.6 Corsa

[Super Josh 4]

Rich, you won't regret the Quaife. I know it's a lot of wonga, but it is one of the best mods you can make, especially with you mega power predictions The first time I drove my car after the diff was fitted it was as if someone was giving you a helping hand round the corners, the increase in turn in was great

 

 

 

Josh

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Ref fuel injection: injectors & ECU wiring.

 

I posted a wanted ad for an old '6' loom, but it seems, for the clear reasons copied from that ad and duplicated below, that I shall make a loom up myself. The ECU firing method is detailed below as well. My choice is therefore 2 injector drivers in the MS ECU firing 1+4 & 2+3, with a home-made loom.

 

- The GTi6 is sequential, I assume you'll be running batch fire or semi-sequential?

 

- The [injector] plugs are AMP 2 pin "junior power timer" (JPT) basically. Which is widely used on Bosch, Weber, etc injectors. You can buy them loose for about £2.50 with pins and seals, from places like polevolt and these guys Vehicle Wiring Products.

 

- If you're running batch all the injectors are in parallel (merging to one wire to the ECU), semi sequential means 1+4 and 2+3 are paired (merging to two wires to ECU), sequential means each injector is wired and controlled individually (four wires to ECU).

 

- You'll need an ECU with either 1, 2 or 4 injector drivers to do the above, in that order. You'll also need to know which stroke each cylinder in on to do sequential. So you'll something like a cam phase sensor, like the S16 uses.

 

- I can only advise you at least build it to run wasted spark and 'wasted squirt'. I tried both simultaneous and alternating injection and found the alternating injection give a much nicer idle and seemed to pick up better in the lower rev range. The standard ms build is capable of alternating anyway and there has been extensive testing that showed there isnt any notable gain to be got from going full sequential over alternating.

 

- you need to consider your application. Which cams are you going to use? If they have a lot of overlap, then with a batch or semi-sequential set up you can end up throwing more fuel out of the exhaust port, obviously causing an increase in fuel comsumption and the HC level. The downside of sequential is that you need fairly large injectors because you only have a relatively small amount of time to squirt all of the fuel into the combustion chamber(so your choice of injectors might have the biggest influence to your final choice?). With Batch and Semi some of the fuel will sit behind the closed inlet valve on the manifold wall, so you get more injection events to get the fuel in, hence smaller injectors needed. You also get the added advantage that the fuel sat on the manifold wall will pick up some heat to help it vapourise and so you get a less wet mixture going into the cylinder.

It doesn't seem to make any difference to outright power or drivablilty which method you use. I would use Richie-Van-Gti's suggestion and go for Semi [sequential].

 

- [the above] shows why the GTi6 uses larger injectors than the S16

Edited December 31, 2007 by DrSarty

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Should have the engine in 10-12days .

 

As for prep, here's a few more pics:

 

THE ENGINE BAY - Clean, but not cleaned yet. Will paint brake lines and stuff in a 'touch-up' op. Also note driving lamps removed ready for cold air inlet tracts with grilles.

 

HERE'S THE MANIFLOW 4-2-1 ZORST - Near the top note the welded joint rather than the 'Y' piece with clamps

 

106GTi FUEL FILTER - Considerably smaller than standard, still banjo'd in

 

THE (GTi)'6' INLET SYSTEM - (For those who haven't seen one) complete with fuel rail, green injectors, TB & all sensors

 

AND AGAIN - Coz it's nice - Note the plastic 'resonance chambers' IIRC. Next step = Lotus ITBs

Edited January 2, 2008 by DrSarty

[Batfink 201]

Looking good Rich. Justin and I are ready to help fit the new engine

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

Looking good Rich. Justin and I are ready to help fit the new engine

 

Thanks Kev & Justin. Won't be long now.

 

I spoke to Matt @ QEP about a collection date for my engine. The head has been worked on and assembled (Mi head BTW).

 

As EVERYONE knows, the Mi head pretty much can't be improved upon. Maybe the removal of any manufacturing anomolies and a very slight port clean up, but not much in the way of machining other than a reface/skim. Triple cut valve seats work well and have been done along with (in my case here) a slight opening up of the combustion chamber edge to mate up neatly with the now 87mm bores in the S16 block.

 

2 of the S16 rods were nacked and have been replaced, and all have been balanced and matched. The crank's been balanced in conjunction with a lightened and balanced flywheel now too, and the Wiseco ( not JE in the end) forged pistons will be going in very shortly. The gudgeon pin heights were adjusted to my/Matt's spec, but the rod small end fit left some freeplay along the pin of about 1.5mm. So Matt made up some spacers.

 

The head also had the 2 studs removed to allow the fitting of the '6' inlet tract as pictured above.

 

Who was it; The Pointer Sisters? #I'm so excited. And I just can't hide it. I know, I know etc etc#

 

Justin: are you free Saturday 19th Jan, the day before the first south meet to take a trip to QEP?

Edited January 2, 2008 by DrSarty

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

I'm actually quite impressed Rich, your project seem to have better progress than most! Not bad at least when thinking about you've been abroad.

 

Keep the photos coming, doesn't have any photos of engien build progress?

 

PS, I just bought some 87mm wisecos with 21cc dish, giving a nice 9:1 compression for a 2.2 T16 project