Re: 16V Head discussion.

[brett@kodak.com (Brett VanSprewenburg)]

> > 
> > Incidentally, I have the Techtonics Tuning Amazing Dyno Stories booklet
> > right in front of me.  A couple of graphs compare their flow ported
> > 16v heads with the 1.8 and 2.0 16v heads on the same graphs for both
> > intake and exhaust.  I quote:  "...the 1.8 liter in its standard form
> > out flows the 2.0 liter version."  for Intake ports.  For exaust ports
> > I quote:  "Notice the 2.0 liter exhaust port was better than the 1.8
> > by a fair amount."  The graphs are in CFM and valve lift.  At the high
> > end of the exhaust graph (.500 lift) the 1.8 head is at about 125 CFM,
> > while the 2.0 head is up above 142 CFM.  The 1.8 doesn't match the 2.0
> > head until .200 lift at about 117 CFM.  The TT head of course flowed
> > 30% better then anything else on the graph. Food for thought and grains
> > of salt not included.
> 
>      Well, if the TT head is ported to have the larger intake ports like the 
> 1.8 and the larger exhaust ports on the 2.0, would that not make up for the 
> difference that it made over either stock head?  Incidentally, why not just 
> port the 2.0 head to match the TT sizes and see what sort of an improvement 
> can be had.  Anyone have a Dyno of that data or similar?
> 
>      The probability is that it gives more upper-end HP than low end torque, 
> am I correct or is my memory failing me?
> 
>      Sean
>      wildfire@albany.net
>      SYSOP: BOB'S WORLD BBS

Not exactly.  The TT 16v head flows better then either one.  (According to
their own graphs) Remember, it's two different graphs, one showing just 
intake CFM vs lift, the other showing just exhaust CFM vs lift.  The TT
head had better flow on both graphs, above the 1.8 on intake, and above
the 2.0 on exhaust.  Now for a $1,500 head, I'd damn well expect this.

==Brett
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-L-request@privateI.com,
with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.