Dave A
USER UNDER INVESTIGATION - DO NOT TRADE
Registered: 10th Dec 03
Location: County Durham
User status: Offline
|
so you have a choice of 2 identical engines.
engine 1 is a 1.6 16v engine that makes 113 bhp
engine 2 is also a 1.6 16v engine that makes 129 bhp
95% of people would take option 2. personally I would take option 1:
Both X16xe engines. the engine with less peak power makes 17 bhp more than the other one at 4500 rpm! but then loses out from 5500 onwards due to inlet design. engine 1 also makes about 15ft/lb more torque from 2200 rpm to 6000 rpm.
Peak power figures are irrelevant, its what happens between 1000rpm and peak rpm that counts. Which is why V-tech is poo 
[Edited on 28-03-2008 by Dave A]
|
Fad
Member
Registered: 1st Feb 01
Location: Dartford Kent Drives: 330cd
User status: Offline
|
V tec is poo eh?
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Do you mean you would take the engine with the lower peak power figure?
You're quite right about having it available to you, the less powerful engine is better all the way up to 5900 which is plenty.
What is the difference in spec on those engines?
|
Dave A
USER UNDER INVESTIGATION - DO NOT TRADE
Registered: 10th Dec 03
Location: County Durham
User status: Offline
|
Vtec is a great idea in principal but in reality its a way of producing impressive BHP figures to aid sales figures. Some VVc systems however are great, especially the one found in the MG 160 k series 1.8 engines, just a shame about the rest of the engine really.
|
Dave A
USER UNDER INVESTIGATION - DO NOT TRADE
Registered: 10th Dec 03
Location: County Durham
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Do you mean you would take the engine with the lower peak power figure?
You're quite right about having it available to you, the less powerful engine is better all the way up to 5900 which is plenty.
What is the difference in spec on those engines?
yes, the one with lower peak power is a much better road engine. engine with less peak BHP is a completely standard 1.6 with the long black plastic inlet tubing removed with a filter coming directly off the TB, the other is a completely standard 1.6 with a dbilas inlet.
Bothe engines have identical exhaust systems that I built.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
So the dbilas inlet has just shifted all the power up the top end to the detriment of elsewhere in the rev range basically?
Unless those mods listed to the first engine are doing much? Not sure myself?
What are your views on porting - I had this done but I later read up more about where to go next and the consensus was that pretty much the same as outlined, you lose low down power. The car wasn't roaded before as it was in need of the rebuild but I'm not sure how the graph looks now. Hopefully not like the high power engine!
[Edited on 28-03-2008 by Ian]
|
tom_simes
Show Staff
Organiser: South Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 12th Jan 05
Location: Undy, Newport Drives: Skoda Octavia vRS estate
User status: Offline
|
I think you chose the wrong engine Dave 
Check your first post again.
|
dan-h
Member
Registered: 28th Jan 06
User status: Offline
|
my engine?
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
I'd go for the one with the bigger numbers to tell all my boys in da pub.
|
tom_simes
Show Staff
Organiser: South Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 12th Jan 05
Location: Undy, Newport Drives: Skoda Octavia vRS estate
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
I'd go for the one with the bigger numbers to tell all my boys in da pub.
So would Dave, from his first post anyway:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave A
engine 1 is a 1.6 16v engine that makes 113 bhp
engine 2 is also a 1.6 16v engine that makes 129 bhp
95% of people would take option 1. personally I would take option 2
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
dave, i have no idea what you are on about
you say you'd choose the one with more peak power yet defend the one with less peak power saying it's best 
|
Dave A
USER UNDER INVESTIGATION - DO NOT TRADE
Registered: 10th Dec 03
Location: County Durham
User status: Offline
|
got the numbers backwards. now edited.
yes dan, your engine.
|
Steve X16XE
Member
Registered: 31st Dec 06
Location: Barnsley, South Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
This is the over lap of my engine, before and after my Mantzel. My mate who has that C2 VTS said that it was quicker before hand......
You can see that at 4300 the BHP and lbft were more before.
|
Vaux Lad
Member
Registered: 15th Dec 04
Location: Stoke-on-Trent
User status: Offline
|
Is the torque line with the mantzel fitted the lighter red/purple one on that graph? /\
|
RioVerde
Member
Registered: 23rd Apr 06
Location: Spondon, Derby
User status: Offline
|
so the one with less bhp is faster???
|
Martin_C
Member
Registered: 27th Jun 03
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
User status: Offline
|
you say vtec is shit, but 185bhp from a standard 1.6, yeah, thats shite, peak or not, riiiight.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
to be honest, I'd like to see the torque as well on the graphs...
by the looks of it, it looks like the high peak bhp engine makes a little less torque but continues it further up the rev range...
On the road I reckon the 129 bhp car will still be quicker.
It can be left in the lower gears for longer (while it still is effective, i.e. power rising)...
The 113 bhp one, would be changing gear about 5200 rpm...
the 129 bhp will change gear around 7300 rpm...
So on the road, in a little race, while the 129 bhp car is in 2nd gear (easier to turn gear) it could probably accelerate to past 60 mph.. still in 2nd gear
The other car would probably have to shift to 3rd (harder to turn gear) a lot earlier ...
Basically what I'm saying is on the road in a little race, the 129 bhp car would probably seem to accelerate quicker...
but on say 1/4 mile - I doubt they'd be much in it.
|
Wrighty
Member
Registered: 28th Feb 04
Location: Howden
User status: Offline
|
Yea but this is on a vauxhall 1.6, with a shit inlet
and you struggle to get decent torque from tuning little engines anyway.
|
JinThaMC
Member
Registered: 5th Aug 07
Location: P1 is 4db louder
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave A
Vtec is a great idea in principal but in reality its a way of producing impressive BHP figures to aid sales figures. Some VVc systems however are great, especially the one found in the MG 160 k series 1.8 engines, just a shame about the rest of the engine really.
I do not see how your first post relates to VTEC engines, but I find it laughable how you came to the conclusion 'vtec is poo' from testing a corsa engine.
Aid sales figures? Just like how you are making a 200bhp 1.6 corsa? Does this engine make 200bhp at 4500rpm? Or is it higher up the rev with your increased rev limit and cams?
At the end of the day, VTEC engines works very well for what it is, so theres no need for you to re-invent the wheel 
|
Adam-D
Member
Registered: 11th May 02
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
this post makes no sense to me.
which engine is better?
dbilas one, or the one with out the dbilas
|
Rob B
Member
Registered: 8th Jan 04
Location: Area Motorsport Drives: Race EP3
User status: Offline
|
WTF... vtec is poo?
When racing a car or having a spirited drive as far as im aware you always want to be high up in the rev range..
|
Vaux Lad
Member
Registered: 15th Dec 04
Location: Stoke-on-Trent
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob B
WTF... vtec is poo?
When racing a car or having a spirited drive as far as im aware you always want to be high up in the rev range..
I think Daves referring to vtec being "poo" because they rev all day, but make f**k all torque.
Just like motorbike engines 
Martin_C-Yes they make 160bhp, but by running a race cam profile. Im sure if vauxhall fitted similar cams/inlet to their 1600 it would also make very good power, at a loss of economy, low down pull, and mpg.
Hence why the v-tec system runs two cam profiles...
It is a genious system tbh.
Dave-Do you have a torque graph for those first 2 engines? Because i know with my before and after graphs with the inlet box fitted, my engine made the same PEAK torque, but the graph was pretty much horizontal. Whereas on the std inlet the torque was low, then peaked, and then back low again in a curve.....
[Edited on 29-03-2008 by Vaux Lad]
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
VTEC is poo? ok, dave the master tuner in business less than a year knows all, bow down.
|
Martin_C
Member
Registered: 27th Jun 03
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vaux Lad
quote:
Originally posted by Rob B
WTF... vtec is poo?
When racing a car or having a spirited drive as far as im aware you always want to be high up in the rev range..
I think Daves referring to vtec being "poo" because they rev all day, but make f**k all torque.
Just like motorbike engines
Martin_C-Yes they make 160bhp, but by running a race cam profile. Im sure if vauxhall fitted similar cams/inlet to their 1600 it would also make very good power, at a loss of economy, low down pull, and mpg.
Hence why the v-tec system runs two cam profiles...
It is a genious system tbh.
Dave-Do you have a torque graph for those first 2 engines? Because i know with my before and after graphs with the inlet box fitted, my engine made the same PEAK torque, but the graph was pretty much horizontal. Whereas on the std inlet the torque was low, then peaked, and then back low again in a curve.....
[Edited on 29-03-2008 by Vaux Lad]
185...not 160, b16b
|
sport16v
Member
Registered: 25th Jun 07
Location: Ipswich, suffolk
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
I'd go for the one with the bigger numbers to tell all my boys in da pub.
ha ha DA
|
