I still maintain the physical mods (for intended purpose) should be done first then the management added afterwards. Certainly for a kjet car.. As my car will be used on track this is why I wanted to take the head/cams route Going to aftermarket fuel/spark control requires additional hardware changes on a kjet that all ramp up the cost
Are there too many tight Northerners lurking on this thread? Sell up, have vasectomy & buy a Prius FFS! We're here for fun, but for those of an accounting persuasion I think the crux of this thread can be boiled down to: Cams, 600 Standalone, ~700 - 1k Or both? However, throw the POS calculator away, and this is the best illustration I see: ... but what I want to see if it can be created, is to put 9A + cams + K-Jet on the same graph. Then the OP has all the information to hand from which to make choices I think it needs to be said that Standalone is not complicated, and I imagine it fries the brains of those who've never touched it. Bits can be picked up cheap. Mike_H raided the scrappies for some parts last year, it just needs a shopping list. The forum is here to help after all
Looking back at earlier posts I'll again caution track performance. It is no accurate measure of engine output, because there are so many other factors, included chassis and also talent, and it creates an uneasy, unprovable argument. A 4.25FD will (if anything) increase dyno power, as it's a lower gear in effect. There is something of the dot.com boom/bust about this whole 16v power thing. Back in the 2000s, the KR exhaust cams went in, the numbers came out, everyone nodded, and the turn-key 180 brake K-Jet 9A was born. Nobody questioned it, even if it was 40 brake from nowhere. VW made a quality product, everyone living the dream that their cars and their engines are equally understated from the factory. Having standard cars chucking out 20 up on standard, merely added to the karma. The problem is that because this was so many years ago, it's become gospel. Since that time, a lot scrutiny of 16v vehicles has taken place, unbelievable amounts tbh. I would say more data has been gained than actually seen all those years ago. The collective CGTI knowledge has increased dramatically and is far more than it was. What can/can't be achieved has been documented by various, willing to spend the time informing us all of their work, and helping everyone direct their resources where they're best employed. Question: who has got a K-Jet 2.0 16v pushing 180+ bhp at the moment, and where was it last tested?
WARNING!! The internet is nearly 99% full of 16v yack. Please upgrade cache if further discussion is required. HTH I will be off now.
Tim Stiles? That's a question so broad and laced with implied insult, it cannot be answered by anyone. Quoted outputs are here. However, I am not quoting those conversions. I am addressing folklore interwoven with dyno days over the past decade. Again, who is pushing 180+ on K-Jet?
Specific outputs & taking twisties out of the equation CFJ was EVERY bit as quick as Mattd's old ITBd car at the 16v Brunters shootout in a straight-line Same gearing, same cams etc etc Matts car was DD remapped & gave closer to the magic 200 than 170.....much the same as f2 stu's car recently at Garage Streamline Maybe DD figures also vary?........
Shortly watch this space !! Sorry no insult implied , and how valid would you consider a plot posted off TSR rollers ?
Where drag becomes an issue. It's a leveller This is pub talk at its finest! These engines are not remotely comparable. F2 Stu's is a 'built' high compression motor, spec here. To attempt to compare these engines is ludicrous! Stu's is a highly tuned race-type engine with 300 degree cams big valves etc, not a std compression engine, ported head with mild cams. Chalk and cheese! What were the air intake and cell temps, and overall correction factor when Matt D's car was tested?
This is my impression of how a currently well optimised MK2 Golf with an OE ABF engine with a 4-2-1 header and a well calibrated SEM would have fared in those conditions as tested by H909CFJ with its modified 9A on KJet on the Dyno Dynamics dyno back in 2006. . This MK2 ABF car also has significant data from road test and tuning, including G force measurements which can be demonstatred to match driver feel with dyno acquired torque plots. Both vehicles have 170PS, however the factory cam timing on the ABF allows for much broader torque spread from lower engine speeds. Mapping allowed the best torque the engine could deliver as required by the owner or calibrator. To achieve the power and more torque than the modified engine calibration changes would be required to match hardware. So it would be best to install a SEM calibrate first and use as the gateway to more performance to further optimise torque toward MBT and LBT on the factory hardware set. Further changes i.e. CR, CAMs, Headwork etc are easy to match as each stage would require a new calibration for best performance. Goes to show how things have moved on...
Very good points getting brought up, as I understand more that the kjet cars are a overall compromise so it can be lean and rich at different points, Maybe I am part of northern tight gits that won't go to SEM My 16v produced over 180bhp after only 850 miles on a brand new engine, it was tested at stealth in the morning and went to MRC (Banbury) in the afternoon and produced almost identical results, Always thought of getting schricks but it's more for fast road use that track so rather have a good midrange than all top end,
You can validate dyno traces as highlighted on my thread for typical 16v plots. The acceleration of the car in the gear is to a certain degree based on the torque of the engine if aero drag, rolling resistance and gearbox losses are kept minimum. If this reading does not match up with your dyno plot i.e. the torque trace, you will then have a problem as the maths for power or torque will not match up to where the chassis rolls suggest they might against engine speed. This may mean that a "120PS" car could end up being faster than a "150PS" vehicle of the exact spec but tested at different facillties.
We are not talkiing about GS even though their have a similar machine. We are looking at certain types of dynos based on H909CFJ history of a certain era and the quality of plots that could lead to false perception. Let alone to tools and analysis we have access to now! This car was not tested at GS so lets not digress. One of those plots are closer to the true nature of that vehicle. A vehicle you want to base your own build on. However tools that can measure G force can and tie up with dyno profiles.
Pub talk? Why? Im not even attempting to compare specs!! I was comparing OUTPUTS on like for like dynos with the supposed reputation for repeatable results from location to location. If a BVH high comp, lairy cammed 2L can't crack 200BHP OR 150lbs/ft on 45mm bodies then something needs addressing quite frankly.... I dont have any of MKDs plots any longer- went with the car. It was mapped on the dyno dynamics dyno at Track & Road by Steve Greenald- the top man for DTA in the UK- I suppose your going to tell me his dyno dynamics dyno is a quote-me-happy special now are you?? I'm really getting more than a bit bored with all the politics on this thread now- so il say no more. Chris
Track and Road uses a Maha unit with very good software not a Dyno dynamics. His dyno rig uses software to model engine output correctly. You are missing the point though. It not about peak outputs per se as the shape of the work done by combustion at wot, for a rpm range will determine where these peaks occur. This is key to any dyno plot. This shape can be validated by tools other than a dyno. How come we are now talking about ITB cars? Thought it was about K-Jet, 2l and cams. Changing you mind after all what was said?
May be MAHA now but was DD when my car was mapped. 110% certain. I was trying to make the point to Chris that my car made 190+BHP/~150lbs/ft on the said type of dyno & it's on road/track/wherever you care to compare performance was as near as identical to CFJ... No I'm not considering ITBs or standalone again We are far enough off topic now to forget discussing my original question I feel. Thanks for everyones input tho
Post your plots and lets compare them. Lets see how "identical" they really are. By identical I mean not only in the peaks but where they fall in rpm band. Common you must have them somewhere.... Lets add value to this discussion by viewing some data.
