Re: 220hp? [All this carb crap]

["Marc Peterson" <mpeters6@rochester.rr.com>]

See, now this is what makes *me* drool...(sigh)...some day...:)

(warning - Big Pic)home.rochester.rr.com/mpeterson/m.jpg

Marc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Peterson" <mpeters6@rochester.rr.com>
To: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: 220hp? [All this carb crap]


> True, all true, but keep in mind that the Badger 5 setup most of the 16V
> folks are drooling over *IS* a fuel injection system, controlled by an
> extremely sophisticated ECU setup.  It's just that each injector is
> contained in its own throttle body.  This is exactly the way that the BMW
M
> cars make a lot of their power.  Individual TB's.  Its a straight 6-8 inch
> shot to the valves from the "sucking" end of the TB's.  Think about how
far
> the intake air travels on your average CIS/CIS-E setup.
>
> Marc
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "16V Jason" <jason@scirocco.org>
> To: <UrGTI@aol.com>; "scirocco list" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>; "Scott F.
> Williams" <sfwilliams@home.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: 220hp? [All this carb crap]
>
>
> > Okay, I've just about had it with this "Carbs" bullshit, and I'm going
to
> > throw out a few questions and maybe someone will tell me why this
> > prehistoric notion of fuel delivery is making its way into people's
minds
> > as a viable way of making more horsepower.
> >
> > While it could well be that Andy King's carbed Mk2 Golf gets 233, but
when
> > you say something in the next sentence like "And [only] 212 on the
K-basic
> > equipped Golfs", that gives people the impression that carbs somehow
give
> > you more horsepower.
> >
> > Okay, let's talk about this, folks.  Yanking the intake manifold and all
> > fuel-injection system stuff off of your 16V and replacing it with
carbs --
> > 1 of them, 4 of them, or 27 of them, will almost definitely NOT give
your
> > car any more power.  Why?
> >
> > A look back at the ol' physics book will tell you that the most complete
> > combustion (and therefore the best power) will occur at _slightly_
richer
> > than stoich (14.7:1) mixture.  Therefore, your engine will put out the
> best
> > power if you have a fuel delivery system that meters the fuel as
precisely
> > as possible from idle to redline and at any given throttle position,
> > keeping the mixture almost exactly at stoich.
> >
> > Guess what?  There's a good reason why carbs were eliminated on
production
> > cars.  The reason is because (in addition to the horrible starting and
> > cold-running crap they're famous for) they are horrible at metering fuel
> > precisely.  If they weren't, a carbed car would (a) pass emissions
> testing,
> > and (b) make more power than its fuel-injected equivalent.
> >
> > Well, we know that both (a) and (b) are false.  If (a) weren't, most of
> the
> > cars on the road would have carbureted engines just like their
Euro-market
> > counterparts did up until Emissions Regulations stepped into effect
> > there.  And if you look at the power output of any carbureted engine
> versus
> > its fuel-injected counterpart, the FI engine will make more power
> > REGARDLESS of how prehistoric and simple the fuel injection system.
It'll
> > also be much emissions-friendlier and get better gas mileage.
> >
> > To see these in action, take a look at any 1980s car line in
> > Europe.  Looking in the back of the owner's manual on my Euro-spec 190E,
I
> > see that the fuel-injected 2.0 8V in my car puts out 122hp, whereas its
> > carbureted counterpart (same exact engine, no fuel injection) makes
90hp.
> >
> > The reason that people put carburetors back in cars originally designed
> for
> > fuel-injection is for the purposes of FLOW.  If you have an engine that
> > flows so well that it maxes out the capabilities of your fuel injection
> > system -- or  your intake system becomes restrictive -- then you'll
> benefit
> > from anything that will allow the engine to suck in more air.
> >
> > However -- make no mistake.  If you were able to put a fuel injection
> > system on the car that flowed as well as the 4 individual carbs do (by
no
> > means an impossibility), you'd be making much more power.
> >
> > So, the original question was -- is 220hp possible from a
> > normally-aspirated Volkswagen 16V?  Well, in short, yes, anything is
> > possible.  Would it be worth it?  Absolutely not.  Would the car be
> > drivable on the street?  Forget about it.  To get 110hp per liter from a
> > normally aspirated VW 2.0 16V is about as likely as getting 100lb-ft of
> > torque per liter out of a Honda engine.  Honda and BMW can produce
engines
> > with that kind of specific power, but there are many differences.  First
> > and foremost, they have an almost 20-year advantage in technology
compared
> > to the VW 16V, which was, remember, one of the first multivalve engines
on
> > the market.  Secondly, and perhaps more important, they use a
> sophisticated
> > engine management that, in one computer, has complete control over
> ignition
> > timing, fuel injection timing (and quantity), and valve timing.  CIS-E
> (and
> > Motronic) aren't even in the same league.  And third, also very
important,
> > they're very short-stroke motors.  The 16V isn't.
> >
> > Think about the 1.8T for a minute.  You have a 1.8 liter with 5 valves
per
> > cylinder, a sophistocated engine management system, new technology, etc,
> > and a TURBOCHARGER and from the factory it generates 150, 170, or
> > 180hp.  (i.e. < or = 100hp/liter).  It takes bigger turbos,
intercoolers,
> > and modifications to the pistons, rods, crank, and valves to get it to
> > 220hp reliably, which is 120hp/liter.
> >
> > That's because, like most VW engine designs, it's not a severely
> > undersquare design.  So to get it to rev fast enough to produce that
kind
> > of specific power (8500+ rpm) isn't going to be pretty -- or, more
> > accurately, possible.
> >
> > My $3.24
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:20 PM 11/13/2001, UrGTI@aol.com wrote:
> > >Andy King is selling his SCCA legal MK2 golf with 233 hp which was
built
> by
> > >Bertils.
> > >And that is with carbs not modern FI.
> > >Tim Stiles of TSR in the UK has told me he gets 212 on the K basic
> equipped
> > >golfs since the rules in the class he builds for requires stock
external
> > >components.
> > >
> > >As far as just tossing on some Tbodies and getting 220 we all should
know
> its
> > >not that easy. Making that kind of power will require plenty of dyno
time
> > >with an experienced tuner at the keyboard of that laptop programming
the
> ECU.
> > >Of course the rest of the engine must be optimized also, balanced and
> > >blueprinted, P&P head, healthy cams, good exhaust.
> > >
> > >Jasin
> > >happy wrenchin'
> > >
> > >--
> > >Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
> > >To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to
> > >majordomo@scirocco.org
> >
> >
> > --
> > Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
> > To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to
> majordomo@scirocco.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
> To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to
majordomo@scirocco.org
>
>


--
Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to majordomo@scirocco.org