Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
Would it really be though James?
OK, you would brake slightly earlier, but braking earlier means you can get the power down sooner, hence your exit of the bend be faster.
Where-as the SB would maintain the speed round the bend, but loose out on acceleration out of the bend onto the straight.
PErformance of the SB and BB will be very very marginal on a track.
Would be very interesting to have a standard 2.0 (2.0 brakes etc) Vs a 1.6 (1.6 brakes etc) to see how much of a difference 50kg or so really makes over the front wheels
(no doubt the terminal speed of the corner "should" be faster on a SB engine).
|
broster
Premium Member
Registered: 6th Dec 02
Location: Drives: E39
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
You don't build a high revving XE for torque either.
In fact, you don't build any 4 pot 2.0 for torque????
But i speak the truth though 
1.2 16v is worse than a 1.4 16v
1.4 16v is worse than a 1.6 16v.
Guess whats next  Its all relative.
we built a 2.5 duratec engine for torque this is a 4pot still.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
1.2 16v is worse than a 1.4 16v
1.4 16v is worse than a 1.6 16v.
Guess whats next Its all relative.
1.8 16v + http://www.swindon-engines.com/crankshaft/index.html Part number CR2092.
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
I'll tell you now that when I went to Castle Coombe and put the GSi through it's paces it wasn't far off an XE Corsa, the GSi had duff brakes and Nova springs at the time, had I had better brakes, better tyres I'd have been even closer.
I think you can easily have as much fun in a 1.6 16v Corsa with 140bhp as you can a XE, on track torque doesn't really make all that much difference.
And Daimo, how can you forget Lee Mannings old Corsa, that was an absolute flyer and that didn't have that many mods. 0-60 6.39 seconds and it was amazing on track.
|
gazza808
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 08
Location: Peterborough
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
1.2 16v is worse than a 1.4 16v
1.4 16v is worse than a 1.6 16v.
Guess whats next Its all relative.
1.8 16v + http://www.swindon-engines.com/crankshaft/index.html Part number CR2092.
yeah but you wont have an engine that'll wanna last very long.
rod/crank ratio is already under 1.5 as standard.
small block 1.8's are looking to be pretty easy to get half decent numbers from.
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by broster
we built a 2.5 duratec engine for torque this is a 4pot still.
 Smart ass, I knew that was coming, was that the one in that fiesta? circ 250+hp? Was a good build that, still running?
For torque though, i'd still want a bigger engine, SC, or TC...
Robin, smart arse part 2 I should have thought of that, hey im an old skooler set in my old skool ways, the 1.8 wasn't a viable engine then But yeah, your right.
tbh, i'd want a Ecotec 2.0 lump these days, i'd go the BTCC engine route, de-stroke a 2.2 16v ali engine into a 2.0. 8k revs, 280bhp on limited inlet sixze 
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ojc
I'll tell you now that when I went to Castle Coombe and put the GSi through it's paces it wasn't far off an XE Corsa, the GSi had duff brakes and Nova springs at the time, had I had better brakes, better tyres I'd have been even closer.
I think you can easily have as much fun in a 1.6 16v Corsa with 140bhp as you can a XE, on track torque doesn't really make all that much difference.
And Daimo, how can you forget Lee Mannings old Corsa, that was an absolute flyer and that didn't have that many mods. 0-60 6.39 seconds and it was amazing on track.
Aye it went like stink
How many engines did he go trough though? 3-4????
It also needed its tits rev'd to get it going, lacked the torque. I'd still say that was in the low 120, high 110 region, but with 145+ peak hp.
Don't get me wrong, i know what these SM engines go like with the right mods, AND if the engine responds well to them.
I just like torque these days, call me getting old and lazy. I jsut wanna put my foot down and it go go go, not wait wait wait wait oh more more more wooooowwwwww change gear... 
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
Pete's (the 2.5 Duratec) has a supercharger, ITBs and was just shy of 400bhp at 6k rpm, it now has another 4 injectors and is going to rev more and have more boost.
The all alloy 2.2 would be a good engine, I reckon that'll take off if someone can be arsed to do a conversion kit.
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
More torque than a 2.0, added with a nice SC for low down umph, with the TB for higher revs and peak power.
Got any graphs? Would like to see that chart, bet its a stonker!!!! 
[Edited on 26-11-2008 by VXR]
|
Ash_EP3
Member
Registered: 15th May 07
Location: Melksham, Wiltshire
User status: Offline
|
Warrens Corsa on TB's
|
antmashed
Member
Registered: 2nd Aug 06
Location: Hertford
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by warren.g
and the noise
tbh the only thing that puts me off...
|
RCS
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 05
Location: Lichfield/Dundee
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by broster
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
quote:
Originally posted by broster
2750 is to pay someone to fit and supply a brand new throttle body kit, linkage, injectors, fuel rail, ecu and loom, then map it.
you can compare it to building a cheap let then putting new gaskets on it yourself then fitting it yourself.
if you did the work yourself on the tb kit is would be alot cheaper
Aye, but thats what, 150-160bhp.....
Let's far more than that standard, then easily tunable to 240-270 with very minimal costs.
So, i'd go with the 2.0, then put TB on that if you want more. Putting stress on a 1.6, which your never gonna get the torque from (even Andys 214bhp monster could only manage 145lb, which is what 2.0 put out standard)).
Plus, for the rate above, you could get an XE in, and a 2nd hand TB setup, and have 170bhp ish, with similar torque..
2.0..... Yes its been done loads, but theres a reason for that.
you dont build a tuned high reving 1.6 to get torque.
You need the torque to make power though. So you tune it to produce maximum torque higher up the rev range.
A 2.0 may make 145ft lb standard, but its at what speed the engine produces this torque that counts.
|
Warren G
Member
Registered: 14th May 06
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
so then hows does a torqueless 1000cc R1 engine make 180bhp+?
|
RCS
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 05
Location: Lichfield/Dundee
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by warren.g
so then hows does a torqueless 1000cc R1 engine make 180bhp+?
Whats the difference between power and torque?
Torque is produced by the engine (turning force at crankshaft). Power is a function of this torque and the angular velocity (rpm).
So...torque is multiplied by rpm to determine the power.
As a generale rule, a well tuned (optimised) N/A engine will produce a maximum torque which you can relate to its capacity i.e a 100cc engine should produce around 10 lbf ft, 2000cc engine should produce 200 lbf ft. You can tune the gas dynamics of the engine for this maximum torque to occur at a certain rpm.
So to get the most power, we want to produce our maximum torque at a high rpm.
Even though the R1 only produces a maximum torque of about 85 lbf ft, because this occurs at 10,000rpm (multiplying by a big number) we get a high power figure.
|
