Maybe compile a `spec sheet` and ask people to populate it ? I`ve collected a selection of info from posts on here e.g. RR plots - cam specs - RR makes - fueling systems ... but it would be best coming from the individuals themselves. Suggested additions to the above: Standard / ported head - ignition timing - lightened flywheel - hydraulic / solid lifters - management ? No doubt a table opportunity for someone
In the context of what is being discussed here the table would have to look as the one below. EA827 16v engines with Standard unported heads. ID Eng Code & CC CR TQ*@RPM PWR*@RPM Facility and Dyno Brand** Other supporting mods GerTIe ABF 1984cc STD 157@5000 160@6000 Garage Streamline DD 450DS KJet, 8v exhaust dia * in lbft or bhp unless otherwise stated. ** tests are not matched per facility unless stated, measurements not absolute!
Grand idea... Even further details such as valve lift (if available), cam timing, valve springs type, lifter type (lightweight hyd, std hyd or Mech), retainer material etc. It may help people know what set ups are good for what sort of usable revs.
fuel pressure reg slowly dying, hence overfuelling as it couldn't hold a constant pressure in the rails. haven't driven it yet, hoping to get in it mot'ed this month !!
As commented on previously in the crossflow head thread. The flow figures are not the be all and end all. It looks like that theoretical figure linking potential output to flow can be way off the mark. Other ways of improving volumetric efficiency come in to play and can improve matters greatly when optimised.
Ahh, you forget that Infinity's motor is also stock i.e bottom end. High comp pistons ala PAB style and I'm sure Infinity's motor would be pushing past 190bhp and all on standard cams too? Gurds
Yea but the induction and exhaust set up on infinities car is hardly an every day affair is it. How much extra potential is this giving that engine, that people with lesser knowlege and experience are very unlikely to have on theirs? It's got to be worth an extra chunk of power or why would he bother with it.
And that is an interesting point. The fact that the std plenum or ITB setup, and any exhaust manifold achieve close to the same thing. Could it be that the standard compression and cams, regardless of induction or exhaust will only make this sort of figure? Effectively the limiting factor. If compression is substantially raised with cams to match then the std head could still make more if the inlet manifold and exhaust designs are not hindering matters, and management of fuel and spark is optimised to suit too. I still have not found any definitive data on true 16v compression ratios, that has actually been measured properly, and not guesstimates based on the factory stated figure.
Infinity's plot is not the same as a conventional system. The power number ( when fuel issues were fixed) was expected to be similar to the optimised plenum engine but that’s it. The custom components bolted to his standard head and block completely stretched the torque curve flatter and over a long engine speed range. Torque is lower than the plenum car. Remember manifold pressure pulse tuning...
Absolutely, that is why I brought it up. Even with ITBs instead of plenum there are not huge gains. Changes yes, but not something that gives 220bhp. To get significantly larger figures will surely require larger changes to the engine in the way of raised compression and cams. Longer duration cams alone are unlikely to give an increase at both ends of the rev range due to losing dynamic compression low down for a gain up top. And with these longer duration cams brings the inlet pulse tuning and exhaust reversion issues even more into play. Your superb efforts on Gurd's car with the aggressive mapping that it is able to run compared to other cars, show that there is not a lot more to be found on the std engine. Mild swinging of the std cams may offer more, but significantly bigger improvements will surely require oily hands.
How oily is oily? Cams will make changes and it will be interesting to see how they will work on a standard head. Can the CR be increased enough without opening the engine? If so what options do we have and how do we go about doing this? What CR can we achieve this way or should we just buy some new pistons? I think ATM most are convinced that at 188BHP a standard head is not soley responsable for holding the engine back, in fact looking at what has been achieved it is safe to say a standard head will make more than 188BHP. But how much? It would be great to have PAB's car fitted with ITB's and EFI as his bottom end has been strongley built with a good CR. The EFI could help to improve his already very healthy top end figures - as well as the rest of the engine speed.
ITBs and exhuast tuning in infinity's case, apart from proper mapping, means useful torque to <7600rpm and coupled with a right gearbox and driver = win. This seems to be the profile that infinity was after and it could only get better from here with the corrected modification to the std set of components. I would not expect produce the same profile with the STD optimised engine. This is where software simulation helps with all what you are suggesting. Possibly that maybe it for now. Further work is still ongoing but options for further max performance from the std base unit are becoming more limited for WOT and even more so at >6000rpm. Not that the owner is unhappy though!
Point 1: Swarfega will get rid of the oil, do not let dirty hands put you off. Point 2: What CR can be achieved is related to what the actual true CR is on a std engine at the moment. This may require marginally dirty hands to check though. [:^(] Unfortunately for the 16v masif, you are limited in head skimming or block decking due to inlet valve to piston contact issues, exacerbated when after market cams are installed. [:^(] Point 3: That is what I am saying, the head is possibly not holding back the potential for more or higher output. It is possibly the compression and cams that is the limiting factor. But just putting cams in without addressing the compression is not a good way to go about it. As many folk have put in longer duration cams without successful results. Possibly k jet and efi lambda implications causing problems with this mod. Point 4: I agree, if PAB's could be run with a straight carb inlet manifold (the swan neck currently fitted has been shown to restrict flow), it would be a fine example of what the std head could do with higher compression and longer duration cams. However this spec could be more affected by the pulse tuning issues mentioned previously. One thing wrong may negate any gains. The problem is identifying and rectifying any issues. It took John Read a couple of days hard work to finesse the final specs on his recent 8v build. And that is 2 days based on years of previous experience, and presumably excellent workshop facilities, and an engine on a dyno where it is easier to work on than compared to being installed in a car.
I'm no stranger to oily hands, mine or otherwise! I am sure that any large gains to be had from here is going to involve advanced tinkering. Again, careful modeling should point us in the right direction of what will be required. Gurds
The induction and exhaust system on my car aren't actually designed for a standard ABF engine, they were actually part of a high performance engine I have planned in my mind.. I only started taking it a bit more seriously after the mapping session where I realised the power and torque had headed in the right direction for my car and it had made significant gains. I'm grateful to garage streamline for highlighting the mapping issues I had with the car as they were impossible to feel whilst driving. The induction and exhaust are dimensionally OTT for the engine, and on the road will probably struggle to keep up with a well sorted 1300 I'm hoping its on track performance has improved since it was last out. I think 190+ is possible with the right bits! i.e properly sized exhaust and improved inlet tract.
Hi guys! I'm new here and want to ask you about an idea that i have. What do you think about 2 Dual Throttle Body on the std plenum? Don't want to go on ITB's because the driveability on the street. I have a Gol GTi 16v(Not GOLF) here in Brazil. He has an ABF engine vertically mouted. ECU is Magnetti Marelli IAW 1ABI. Put it on rollers and gave me 151,1cv and 19,4kgfm with 2,5'cat back with 2 mufflers. And 157cv and 19,9kgfm without air filter, direct on the TB. *Numbers are measured in the engine. I want to put 2 dual TB and run 13~14:1 CR with ethanol. Do you think the TB's will have the effect that I want? The video of my car on Dyno: [YOUTUBE]B3z8MU8AXuM[/YOUTUBE] And plots: 151cv 157cv Thank u guys and sorry for the poor english.
Hi and welcome. Converting to "our money" we have 1 Cheval Vapeur (C.V.) = 1 bhp 1 Nm = 0.746 lbft So your engine in plot 1 was 151bhp@6200rpm and ~142lbft@4600rpm Plot 2 157bhp@6200rpm and ~145lbft@4600rpm. Also quite high up from the sea level @ 932mbar atmos or very low pressure day - dyno will add correction for clutch estimate. I cannot say how that dyno compares with the values we have demonstrated here, but the plot shapes look very similar to the std digifant 3.X controlled vehicles previously tested at GS.
I'm sorry Toyotec... I asked about two dual TB because I want to eliminate the "hole" between 3~4k rpm, give more flow for mid-high revs and mantain velocity in the low revs for better driveability. Also want to give the same air flow for all cylinders. For the piston with 13:1 CR, need to do a headwork? I'm reading this post and saw that isn't difficult to have 180hp without a headwork.
