How far can i take the car????

[Boags]

I'll get in before a hoard of people tell you that you should buy a turbo even though you don't want to...

As they will tell you, power is more expensive if you choose to go the naturally aspirated path, and end results are not as impressive. Adjustable cams, and general inlet and exhaust mods, such as tuned length extractors and a high flow cat, open up the ports and polish.

Bigger brakes help you because you can drive faster for longer before you have to brake. Upgrade clutch and flywheel aswell.

Expect to spend a lot of money if the question remains \"how far can I take my car,\" because your wallet is the limiting factor for sure. If the question is \"how much can i get for a certain amount without turbo?\" Then you have to start weighing up the options. What kind of driving do you do, what is the car used for, how long do you want it to last.

A little more info will go a long way.

Boags

PS - I don't understand why people don't want to go turbo if money is no issue I love boost

[ASE05]

PS - I don't understand why people don't want to go turbo if money is no issue I love boost

They sound farken awesome

[maxwolfie]

I want to take my car as far as possible without going for a turbo, i currently have a Jackson Racing cold air intake system, and the usual advanced timeing so any ideas for further improvements? thanks
colin

its a 1.6 na

exhaust next of course

once that is done, i think that just about draws the line at "easy" things to do

you can then look at lightened flywheels, aftermarket ecu's, cams, cam gears quad throttle bodies etc. all which require lots of $$ in tuning as well dont forget

[Matty]

The usual replies:

1) what's your purpose? race? street?

2) what's your budget?

3) Why bother with the 1.6? Include a 1.8 swap in the budget and you'll be better off.

4) why not turbo/SC?

[Astroboysoup]

if you wanna go cheap

i suggest

full exhaust system
and
an ECU...

and then stop there...

you already got the CAI. just get the car as free flowing as possible without going hardcore.

should cost you an arm and a leg and should make you smile lots

[glen73]

3) Why bother with the 1.6? Include a 1.8 swap in the budget and you'll be better off.

why do people keep refering to a 1.8 swap when 99% of high
performance kw engines are based off the 1.6's?.

[Brad]

3) Why bother with the 1.6? Include a 1.8 swap in the budget and you'll be better off.

why do people keep refering to a 1.8 swap when 99% of high
performance kw engines are based off the 1.6's?.

Um...no.

Upgrading to the 1.8 netts you about 20% more power and torque right off the cuff. No other NA mods will give you the same benefit for similar money, plus it gives you a better platform for more increases. 1800's are generally fresher, weight only a tad more and are not inclined to lunch themselves like the shortnose crank 1600's.

I know of only a handfull of 1600's racing at the moment, the VAST majority are 1800's, though this also has to do with the uprated brakes, clutch and diffs that come standard on the 1800's.

In regard to your question, 140kw (engine) up form 98kw for a stock 1800 is not unreasonable though it will cost about $7-8k. This should include rebuilt engine, high comp pistons, 2x cams, head work, extractors and exhaust, programable ECU, tuning plus ancillaries like clutch, gaskets, belts, water pump etc. It should be pretty streetable too if you stick around 260deg for the cams.

[glen73]

So is that $7-8k on top of doing a engine swap aswell? thats alot of money for only 140kw.

Steve, run a pole to answer your questions, there are heaps more heavily modded 1.6's on this site than 1.8's. and im not including SP's as they are not heavily modded. sorry 99% is going a bit far.
you seem to think im saying that the 1.6 is a better motor which im not. i am just saying that most of the High KW motors are based off the 1.6.

[Brad]

So is that $7-8k on top of doing a engine swap aswell? thats alot of money for only 140kw.

Sure, but these are for 2F racecars where tuning options are limited. To give you an idea, I know of race engines being built which will cost around $10k once completed (excluding the cost of the engine), in the car with the clutch and ancillary bits, ECU and dyno tuned. These produce somewhere around 140-150 engine kw and are whats needed to be at the pointy end of 2f, along with talent.

My point is turbo charging is the most efficient way to extract real horsepower from an engine.

[adamjp]

One reason that people steer away from turbocharging their car is that most insurance companies respond with a premium out of all proportion to the real changes.

And for those of us who drive daily, Shannons is not an option.

I chose NA for the above reasons, but also due to the fact I just like a cammy donk, but not necessarily a powerful one. My dream cars are 2.2l Porsche 911 (1971 model) and a Megabusa. Both known for their light weight and rev happy engines, but not massive power (ok so the 'busa has big grunt too, but that is not why I want to build one)

I have a worked 1.6 and am proud of it. Too many people make such a big deal about the short nose crank problem and would rather throw $1500 at a 1.8 than $200 at a long nose crank for their 1.6.

The 1.8 IS heavier and the power difference is not as much as people make out. It also does not seem to rev as quickly (accelerate in RPM) as the 1.6 (more reciprocating weight?). IMHO the 1.8 makes more power than the 1.6 (92kw v 86kw stock) at the same state of tune (200cc does that for you), but...

For $1500 I can build a 1.6 that will EAT the stock 1.8 that I could have fitted - and it will last as long, or longer.

[Brad]

Good points there Adam, and I agree that if you threw $1500 at a 1600 engine you'd have more power than an stock 1800, though your figures were wrong. The 1800 has 98kw, being 14% more than a 1600.

At a dyno day a while back, my stock 1800 pulled exactly the same power as a 1600 with Loch Stewart intake, full exhaust system with extractors and plug leads. Now depending on how you spend your money on this stuff (ie full stainless HPC coated exhaust system), it could well total $1500.

Personally I've spent $600 on Racing beat CAI, X-force extractors, new hi-flow cat, 2 1/4 custom stainless system and 9mm plug leads. I haven't done a dyno since though assuming the same 14% increase i'd be up at around 112kw (assuming 98kw as a baseline which is probably a bit rich).

All second hand but good value for money so far. To get anymore power I'm going to have to start spending some big money on cams, head work and ECU.

[Sean]

why do people keep refering to a 1.8 swap when 99% of high
performance kw engines are based off the 1.6's?.

Where on earth did you find that information??????

If that really is the case then why have Flyin' Miata fitted a 2 litre turbo stroker to their race car Track Dog? (And why do they sell the same kit?)

And why are they currently building up a 2 litre N/A engine for Keith's new race car? (And why have they already sold an identical engine before it has even been built?)

Surley those engines contradict your "99%" figure......

The above are purpose built race cars, they use increasd capacity becuase they have (almost) unlimited budget and the class rules allow for increased capacity. If I had unlimited $$$ I'd go for an FM built 2 litre over a non mazda engine swap

That said, I still agree with glen the majority of high power turbo MX5s in australia are 1600s. Wasn't it a 1600 that won the unlimited capacity Forced induction category at the NSW and WA club dyno days?

I can't say I know why, but it does seem a lot more guys tinker seriously with the 1600 with a few in Australia pushing over 220rwkw and a reasonable number not far behind.

[adamjp]

Brad,

I think we we both right. The 1800 went through at least 3 NA incarnations, culminating at 118kw.

[Brad]

My research showed that for the NA, there were only 2 engines, 85Kw B6P 1989-1993, and the BP 1993-1998, and 98Kw.

Source: http://www.mazda.com.au/pastModelsDetai ... rticle-649 and
http://www.answers.com/topic/mazda-mx-5

It also seems when the OBD-II ECU came out in '96 it bumped power to 100kw.

[sirbob]

There has to be a distiction made between the 1600 and 1800 motors:

The 1.6 is certainly revvy, and appears much smoother at higher revs than my NB, plus it does have a higher redline, and hard cuts near enough to 8000 RPM. The 1.8 doesnt rev as hard (hard cut about 7200), and doesnt like the extreme top end as much as the 1.6.

However, the main difference than is not considered in any of the above comparisons is that the 1.8 motors has significantly more torque than the 1.6 throughout the rev range, and hence does have a higher power figure albeit at lower RPM. It is this torque that will always make the 1.8 motor a better place to start from. It may not be as \"fun\" to drive, nor rev as hard, but nine times out of ten the 1.8 will slowly but surely walk away from a 1.6 all other things remaining equal.

One possible reason why the 1.6 is often more tuned than the 1.8 is that the 1.6 is generally much cheaper to obtain, and hence allows more money to be spent where it supposedly counts! (Also turbo kits and parts are more easily and cheaply obtainable)

Finally you really need to consider the physics of what each motor is really acheiving. The 1.8L motor will have a higher air flow/RPM due to its increased capacity, and hence will probably be running a higher flow intake, exhaust and head than the 1.6, keeping in mind that air + fuel = horsepower. As such, i agree with Brad in the 1.8 swap is something you should consider.. (Bang for buck that is)

(Anyway, with your 1.6 out of the car you will have unlimited freedom to tear the motor apart and turn it into a 9000RPM, oversized piston, 15:1 comp. ratio monster!)