Fxxx the carb section, it's still a valver, producing decent power running pretty crap according to the AFR's
Rum? at that time of the morning! Depends what you would call decent i suppose. Decent to me is something like Vw_singhs engine. For the cost of the extra bits needed to get near the magic 200hp mark is it worth it?
Interesting set of assumptions... I reckon with mild cams, ported head, and proper mapping, there's real potential for a near-200bhp engine on a stock bottom end, running a plenum... EVEN on the 'Rollers Of Tough Love' at Garage Streamline. I bought the fancy bits in the states on a work trip, so it was easy enough to get my money back on them. That's why I sold all the fancy bits I'd collected to build a 2.1 valver. I think 190-200bhp would be more than quick enough in my old heap, having been in Gurds' flying tomato thing running 170-ish bhp at the time.
Have spoken to the owner of VUC today and he states that on the day his car was running: An 8v box 2.5 degrees of negative camber + tyres on 45 profile rather than 50's All in all more than enough to have a significant effect. He believes as do I that over the 2 mile straight with drag of the MK2 shape and a slight uphill gradient BHP would have a significant role. I was on normal tyres not slicks so my run onto the straight around that bend was probably less than those on slicks in any case. Power and torque are king on a 2 mile straight when measuring top speed where drag coefficients will be very similar. There's no denying the strong output from CFJ without getting bogged down in pub talk figures.
Does anyone have any Bruntingthorpe data from when they held a mk2 VR6 day? Might provide an interesting comparison to the 16v's if not entirely scientific... I may consider standalone once again in the future as & when the hardware is in place. As the car is very original I am still in two minds though. Depends on how it drives I guess. I'm really not hung up on Pub B/S figures as some people seem to be trying to imply? All I want is a nice usable mk2- with engine setup biased towards track use. Happy to compromise a bit low down for extra top end fizz. Simple as it will produce what produces Surely the fact that the likes of TSR still offer such 16v engine conversions- & have happy customers such as Newey/Loach means said conversions must offer a decent amount of improvement? Maybe not cheap- but money has not been mentioned on the thread. Standalone will obviously have benefits & optimise any given engine- I have never ever contested the fact. It is however still possible to build a swift 16v without it. There are cars out there that prove it! I never planned on chucking cams into a standard head- only a gas flowed item to take advantage of the improved flow- especially at high lift. The two mods seem to go hand in hand IMO. Such comments that cams won't work on kjet are really wide of the mark. My comparisons of fettled kjets to my old ITB'd car were an attempt to highlight how different approaches can give similar results. I have spent countless happy laps of Castle Combe in convoy with CFJ & VUC. After a while of being in such close company you get a feel of how one car performs compared to another. Gearing/tyre sizes/diffs etc all the same. When you both (all) accelerate flat out from a chicane & the gap between the cars stays constant- then, allowing for any small variations in car weight, is it not fair to surmise that the engine outputs are pretty similar?? I am sorry if this is considered "pub talk" & entirely unscientific-but i consider it a perfectly legitimate bit of reasoning Having driven CFJ myself- my observations were that it felt more cammy than my own car & throttle response was more woolie low down- but where it really mattered at the top end it was excellent. Horses for courses- & the limits of kjet at work no doubt. Again apologies for the unscientific comparison. CFJ is no doubt set up for track work & excels in this area. Chris- I am sorry if you felt my "hair splitting" comment was unfair to you. Perhaps the wrong phrase. I really feel that your comments/assumptions surrounding the Bruntingthorpe results were wholly inaccurate though. Data analysis for the sake of it & innaccurate conclusions IMO. VMax was achieved well before the end of the runway in all cases- even from a standing start. Technique/madness were not a factor pulling to such a relatively humble top speed. If they were then tub would surely have cracked 150 I'm sure Ian has provided a wholly acceptable reasoning for VUCs VMax shortfall. Finally-the undercurrent on the thread by those "informed" that I am somewhat naive/uninformed/making outrageous comparisons- is also somewhat unfair IMO. Whatever happened to the friendly forum? Thanks to all for the constructive replies before the thread got bogged down Chris
I am in agreement with the philosophy of getting the mechanical parts right first, and the management second. I have a number of reasons for this: 1. It is easier to put an engine together once and establishing if everything is working properly together. Also, there can be reduced time and costs involved, so if you were to change the head at a later date you would need to take it off with the associated gasket and bolt costs, plus the time involved too. 2. By getting the mechanicals "right" you will have a base engine capable of more performance than a standard engine which has a certain limit to it's performance regardless of the management it runs on or the parts that you bolt to it. 3. Not everyone is entirely comfortable with electrics, and converting to ABF management / standalone may be a time consuming process, and as anyone with a project or two on the go knows, time can be short. 4. The cost of re-mapping if you make any mechanical or bolt-on changes to your engine will be greater than a quick k-jet setup if you cannot do it yourself and you will essentially be paying to do something twice. Now, the benefits of "proper" management cannot be denied, it is superior is pretty much every way other than the level of complexity to set up, and for the full benefit of any mechanical changes to be realised fully, this is a must. The increased drivability and economy could not be ignored, especially if you are going to be doing lots of miles and are going to be requiring torque over a wide spread of RPM. Faster around a track on electronic management? Only if optimised, and then, only if your gearing / ability does not let you stay around the peak of your power / torque curves in a non management car with all other factors being the same. (i.e torque peaking at the same RPM in both types of car, and with the non management car not having a torque plateau of less than, say 1500 RPM.) Regarding cams, I know from first hand experience that K-Jet can handle mild aftermarket cams comfortably. From what you are looking for, i.e a bit more top-end, some fast road cams will be just fine on K-Jet. The increased lift, duration and valve overlap will dramatically improve the cylinder filling which will enhance the torque produced and because they are not of very long duration they will not drastically reduce the dynamic compression which results in the "no bottom end" effect associated with aftermarket camshafts of extreme profile and duration. I would either go for something like Piper 265's or Schrick 268's. Thats my 10 pence worth anyway. Good luck with the project
I still pop back on here now and then to see what you lot are up to. I cant believe you find so much to discuss with these engines. We all know the head is not the best out there so you just make the best of it by getting it flowed, stick a 9a or equvalent bottom end in, a set of mildish cams such as the 268/276 combo Ianb uses and i had myself in my own car and then get it tuned. Sorted. Oh and forget the stupid rolling road figures and novelty group sprint day out and enjoy it. The bottom ends are good. My old 9a was totally standard so you shouldn't really need to go messing with them unless you want to go big revs which is pointless unless you are racing. That also means the solid lifter head and big cam route is pointless too. ITB and engine management is not critical as Ianb's car proves but as good as his car is and the so called figures show my car was better on the road than his thanks to Bill's Jenvey kit and DTA management. The reason Ian's car was seen to be faster than mine is because he is a much better driver than i am. So tuning these things is not rocket science. You tend to hit a brick wall at around 190bhp in road going form (which covers most of your cars). After that if you want more power just sell the golf and buy a much better designed Honda such as a Teg DC2 or DC5. A mk2 golf wont beat a very mildly tuned one of these and i'm speaking from experience. Good luck to you Chris just get it on the road and Cain. You know what you want
Mildly modded DC2 around Combe on Slicks, Mugen suspension, Spoon cams, Mugen remap stripped interior Result: 1.16 a lap on the Group B car club day.....piloted by an old chap from Cheltenham Honda That's what I call a car!!....ran rings around the Skyline's and everything else there!! Not even big budget modded cars can get anywhere near that! Wonder what an Exige on slicks would do? Hello Matt.....long time no speak!
Hi Ian, yes it's been a good few years. I still have the Accord and now a VW too in the shape of a split screen bus. Don't laugh until you've tried it Joe (you remember him?) now has a DC2 and being the jammy git has managed to get hold of a Spoon ECU off someone who was selling it cheap and that car is unbelievable. He's planning on doing a track day with you and Scottie etc soon to see how it compares. Joe's car is totally standard in the handling department. Glad you got the car back, at least you had the chance. All that's left of my old car is the gear knob on my bedside table (that my daughter thinks is a microphone) and a few pics on the wall at home. Very sad considering the work that went into it.
Great to see you on here.....perhaps you and Joe can get to the RS day on the 2nd of July. Love to see the split screen.....the missus loves them....great for the summer. How much does the spoon ECU change the performance on the engine? Slicks and a brilliant chassis makes a huge difference. Certainly heavily modded Evo's Scoobs and the like couldn't live with it. I was out in a well modded Supercharged VR6...Mike Stanley's old car built at Stealth. I heard about your old car....awful!!! Best thing I ever did for track on a liveable budget was getting CFJ back...at least it was all done and more when Andy had it...better now with the 4.25 FD. One question for you or Chris....what was the dimensions were the MO's on MKD including the offset?? Ian
I think the answer to what cams you could use have been suggested to good effect now. Which ones do you think you will be going with? Just a side note: I don't think anyone has said that any of the kjet cars were slow. Far from it really but suggestions were only made in favour of management because it has generally got good results from very basic engines through to the higher tuned stuff and now is cheaper than it used to be. Also, no point in quoting lap times of other machinery because it just becomes top trumps and irrelevant. Reeves doing 1.13s, Carvell kit car doing 1.10s and even karts doing less than a minute! End of the day we are VAG enthusiasts so will discuss OE machinery till the cows come home and die of old age! lol. Gurds
Gurds- I now honestly doubt il go with Schricks purely from a cost point of view...didn't realise they were now so pricey! not unless a set come up s/h anyhow. Going to look at Kent/piper/cat cams & see what's available. No huge rush in any case Matt- hope your keeping well! Still miss the old days with B6 myself- all a terrible shame how it ended- the only blessing was there was no loss of life. Still a sh*t situation all round though considering the time/effort/expense & love thrown at the car
I'd consider a MK2 20V Turbo as a side alternative as a track car....something I thought about if CFJ was not available. I'd speak with Mr Scott re the cams Chris as discussed! I'd like to know what Jamesa's thoughts on his solid lifter big cam 16V MK1 in comparison to CFJ's unit.
I would think twice about piper as the 264 only come as regrinds and I don't like the idea of regrinds. Although they are cheap, I have them in my car and have had no problems with them so to speak of - they came free with an engine I bought so I poped them in. What I don't like about regrinds is that they have more lift than a stock cam but are smaller in profile as they will have been ground from a stock old cam, these means steeper ramp angles etc. This I would think, also means the tappets have to be more pumped up to stay in contact with the lobs? If so I do not like that idea. Also wear could be an issue if they are not done right. I would be interested to hear other people's opinions on regrinds.
The RS day is out for us. We're at Goodwood then for the whole weekend but keep us informed on any other days you're doing. Sounds obvious but all i can say is the spoon ecu makes it better all round. I haven't driven it and it's not been on the rollers but been a passenger and it's a fantastic engine considering it's still only an 1800. And Joe still cant find the rev limiter Anyway going back to the VW subject all i can remember is the mo's were 15's but not sure of the offset. I remember it was to clear the Brembo's. Maybe Chris knows more. It certainly handled so much better on them than the 16" BBS's. Chris just stick some 268/276's in there. You know it works so you wont be wasting any money. You were happy with them before were you not? Remember the ride with Bren? He thought the car was pretty good (best not remind Nick though) I still cant work out the GVK problem with these cams even after all these years. No offence to Gary but i feel he was wrong to give up on them so easily.
That was a very memorable journey. I vividly recall nick was very nervous & a manic Joe in the front turning round to me saying 'this is fkin awesome' hahaha! I remember Bren commenting it was the best mk2 he'd driven to date. High praise! Yes them cams were great with the bodies & the management of course Not sure why the cams didn't work for Gary- others had good results- bill, Ian, yourself etc. Maybe needed more setup time as you say..
