1.8 Build specs. PLEASE CRITICISE!!!

[NitroDann]

Its not just about chasing HP.

My old 130rwhp 1.6 was bags of fun you could just abuse all day.

Heaps of fun.

And then add turbo and what do you know, response, and even bigger power than just adding turbo.

Dann

[Dweezle]

Exactly what i am after!!

Basically doing it in 2 stages.

Build the engine and run NA for awhile.
With some extra grunt as a bonus.
Then add the snail later on.

Hopefully not requiring as much boost to make the same numbers.

I have some figures for prepping the block which could be off interest to some?



Can someone with knowledge explain sonic testing the block for me?


My main issue is deciding on compression ratio.
I almost feel that i would be happy with 11:1 and some big cams and be done with it.
Hopefully able to just race and not be chasing turbo issues.
But a part of me wants to go 300rwhp and thinks maybe 9.5:1 is smarter\safer.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2

[sailaholic]

Sonic testing looks for weak spots in block due to casting.

Oem blocks are made so any defects are generally not a problem, ie in tolerance. But as you add power and overbore that tolerance to defects gets smaller.

So you sonic test them first so you find out you have a weak block on the bench not on the side of the road with a rod sticking out of it.

If it is weak, you can either reduce your build spec or find another one and test it. If you read waz build thread you will see he bought some big rods but decided not to use them as the block was a bit weak and save them for the next block.

My thoughts. (purely physc based) If you are boarder line snail / no snail and happy to run e85 / flex juice go the 11 : 1. 9 to 1 will probably leave you wanting and make the turbo upgrade happen quickly.

Finally when I was looking at building a bottom end, it was heavily recommend to balance the engine. The shop said they benefited really nicely from a balance and tiny bit of lightening. Cost was about 200

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[mazmad]

Dweele - I am listening with all ears! Looking to go down this path next year, so very much benefitting from the education from all here.

Thanks!


Can you post with updates on your progress?

[noobee]

we have several methods of ultrasonic here at work for different uses.simple one for in process thickness testing difficult to measure places.I imagine an engine machinist would want to check in 1-2 dozen spots in each bore,that takes time(customers money) but has to be done when going for max size.

1348792392293.jpg

1348792436954.jpg

as you can see the head on mine is too big to measure inside a curved bore,also my rule is not that thick!
when you change heads or material you have to recalibrate.
we have other,larger machines to check before and after machining for internal cracks,inclusions,pinholes etc.
Mick

[toppertee]

Its not just about chasing HP.

My old 130rwhp 1.6 was bags of fun you could just abuse all day.

Heaps of fun.


Dann

How much would that 130 rwhp cost? Think about all that work that was done to that motor 10k? or about for 130 rwhp $77ish per horse power ball park.

[Magpie]

The question is how much to go from normal to 130 rwhp? If (for arguments sake) a 1.6ltr makes 90 rwhp and you make it produce 130 rwhp then it is the cost of the additional 40 rwhp that you are looking! If those 40 rwhp cost $12k then it is $300 per/rwhp. Then again if you are worried about the $/rwhp then maybe you should not do it

[Dweezle]

12k??
Am i missing something??

How are people spending $12000 for 40 horsepower??

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2

[Magpie]

It was an example only

OK how about something more realistic to go from 90 hp to 200 hp (150 kw) and if this cost $12k then it would be $110 per hp (excluding the cost of the engine if you had to replace one). This is simple value adding.

[toppertee]

12k??
Am i missing something??

How are people spending $12000 for 40 horsepower??

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2

Gives them the edge on the others. If you want to win/run at the front, you have to spend the money. Simple!
I don't have to talent or the want to run at the front, so I'm quite happy to play at the rear of the field.
Motorsport can or will make to broke. I was luck when I first started that a mate of mine was a top Super bike rider in the uk, put some sence into my mind. Told me what can happen and how broke you can end up.

[plohl]

i think you'll find an na6 does not have 90 rwhp...

i supposedly have 130 hp.

1.8L
exhaust system
POS CIA
larger cams
standalone ecu and average tune

Cost me a grand total of $0 (and a bucket load of work)

[Magpie]

OK (note to self check facts before posting)

According to Wikipedia a NA 1.6ltr 1st gen made 86 kW (115 bhp). So back to the calcs (and I will use the $10k from toppertee's post).

To go from 115 to 130 would cost $666.66 per hp
and to go from 115 to 200 would cost $117.65 per hp

[toppertee]

OK (note to self check facts before posting)

According to Wikipedia a NA 1.6ltr 1st gen made 86 kW (115 bhp). So back to the calcs (and I will use the $10k from toppertee's post).

To go from 115 to 130 would cost $666.66 per hp
and to go from 115 to 200 would cost $117.65 per hp

Good luck getting 200RWHP out of the 1600 N/A.

[Magpie]

I almost give up

HYPOTHETICAL
If going from a 1.6tr that makes 115 hp and want to make 130 hp (using the SAME engine) and you spent $10k this would equal $666.66 per hp

If you want to go from 115 to 200 and had $10k it will cost $117.65 per hp EXCLUDING the cost of an engine as the 1.6 probably could not make 200hp naturaly aspirated.

At least this is getting my post count up

[mrpham]

I'm going similar route, but always wondered how a head built for NA would do in a turbo application. Obviously cam choices play a big part? How well would a 282deg 10.5mm lift camshaft work in a turbo build?

I glanced somewhere about a extensively ported head could be detrimental to spool time, any truth to that?