[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
does this sound right?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_NtungMbTz5RuEiypdIKGSg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
ok I am a crack head thank you but you would be surprised with the results and I did not say a g60 harness I said a digi harness ecu and custom chip
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason
To: Allyn ; The Hitman ; scirocco-l@scirocco.org
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
At 11:51 PM 9/13/2002, Allyn wrote:
if the engine flows well enough, it may have been running too lean at high rpm
with stock cis-e. if he gained 35 hp, its probably because he gained something
small like 5-10 ft-lbs of torque dur to proper mixture at the rpm (but at ~5000
rpm that small difference makes a decent hit on horseys).
Whoa, whoa, horsey, whoa! :)
5-10 ft-lb of torque gained at 5000rpm would add .... <drumroll please> 5-10 horsepower. (4.8 - 9.5hp)
10lb-ft of torque at 2000rpm would be a 3.8hp gain.
10lb-ft of torque at 7000rpm would be a 13.3hp gain.
(At 5252rpm, torque (in ft-lb) and hp (in SAE units) are equal.
> there's a guy from gruven auto works who's claiming that by switching to a
> corrado g6o ecu and a fuel rail from any '91 digifont car he added 35hp to
> his '88 scirocco. sounds kinda fishy to me, what do you guys think?
It is completely and utterly ridiculous. Look at the power output on the Digifant 1.8 versus the CIS and CIS-E 1.8s:
JH CIS 90hp 105lb-ft
RD CIS-E 102hp 110lb-ft
RV DIGI 100hp 109lb-ft.
If Digifant was efficient enough to give a 35hp boost to a 16V, why does it perform just about the same as CIS-E?
The fact of the matter is that Digifant was somewhat more advanced than CIS-E in that it controls spark as well as fuel in one control box, but make no mistake; there are 2 computers in there, and it is most certainly not as advanced as Motronic, which combines all of that functionality in one computer chip.
Furthermore, a 35hp gain on a 16V would translate to 158hp! VWKING, you can't be serious in thinking that a normally aspirated 1.8 16V with Digifant will put out the same amount of power as a 1.8 8V with Digifant and a supercharger!?
I'm not saying that there aren't any gains to be had by a freer-flowing intake and fuel injection system, but 35hp is the kind of gains you can expect on a 500-Cubic Inch V8 with a severly restricted intake. 35hp on a 123hp 1.8 liter is a monstrous achievement.
Other than being slightly restrictive (especially at very high rpms on opened up, 2.0 motors) CIS-E is incredibly accurate except that it closes its eyes at full-throttle. "Accurate" means powerful -- contrary to most people's beliefs, you don't get more power by dumping more fuel. You'll make the best power with a mixture slightly richer than stoich. CIS-E does a great job of that, even as it ages and shit on the car breaks, until full throttle. Then it goes into a pre-programmed "This much air means this much gas" mode and doesn't look to the O2 sensor to tell it if it's giving enough gas or not. Even still, I think we've all found that the pre-programming does a pretty damn good job.
Brett swapped his 2.0 16V from CIS-E to Motronic and (before the chip) gained something like 5hp. It's an improvement, of course, but the real benefit is the ability to enhance that further in the future. Only 5hp to be gained from a primitive system like CIS-E to a much more advanced system like Motronic speaks droves about the accuracy of CIS-E.
And the whole idea of using a G60 computer on a normally-aspirated car sounds awfully strange to me.
Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, and here's mine: My answer to Allyn is a resounding "Nope, it doesn't sound right", and to VWKING it's "You're on crack."
Jason
--Boundary_(ID_NtungMbTz5RuEiypdIKGSg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ok I am a crack head thank you but you would be
surprised with the results and I did not say a g60 harness I said a digi harness
ecu and custom chip</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jason@scirocco.org href="mailto:jason@scirocco.org";>Jason</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=amalventano1@comcast.net
href="mailto:amalventano1@comcast.net";>Allyn</A> ; <A
title=vwscir88@hotmail.com href="mailto:vwscir88@hotmail.com";>The Hitman</A> ;
<A title=scirocco-l@scirocco.org
href="mailto:scirocco-l@scirocco.org";>scirocco-l@scirocco.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 16, 2002 12:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: does this sound right?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>At 11:51 PM 9/13/2002, Allyn wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">if the engine flows well enough,
it may have been running too lean at high rpm<BR>with stock cis-e. if he
gained 35 hp, its probably because he gained something<BR>small like 5-10
ft-lbs of torque dur to proper mixture at the rpm (but at ~5000<BR>rpm that
small difference makes a decent hit on horseys).</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Whoa,
whoa, horsey, whoa! :)<BR>5-10 ft-lb of torque gained at 5000rpm would add
.... <drumroll please> 5-10 horsepower. (4.8 - 9.5hp)
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>10lb-ft of
torque at 2000rpm would be a 3.8hp
gain.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>10lb-ft
of torque at 7000rpm would be a 13.3hp
gain.<BR><BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>(At
5252rpm, torque (in ft-lb) and hp (in SAE units) are equal.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">> there's a guy
from gruven auto works who's claiming that by switching to a<BR>> corrado
g6o ecu and a fuel rail from any '91 digifont car he added 35hp to<BR>>
his '88 scirocco. sounds kinda fishy to me, what do you guys
think?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It is completely and utterly ridiculous. Look at
the power output on the Digifant 1.8 versus the CIS and CIS-E
1.8s:<BR><BR>JH<X-TAB> </X-TAB>CIS<X-TAB> </X-TAB>90hp<X-TAB> </X-TAB>105lb-ft<BR>RD<X-TAB> </X-TAB>CIS-E<X-TAB> </X-TAB>102hp<X-TAB> </X-TAB>110lb-ft<BR>RV<X-TAB> </X-TAB>DIGI<X-TAB> </X-TAB>100hp<X-TAB> </X-TAB>109lb-ft.<BR><BR>If
Digifant was efficient enough to give a 35hp boost to a 16V, why does it
perform just about the same as CIS-E?<BR>The fact of the matter is that
Digifant was somewhat more advanced than CIS-E in that it controls spark as
well as fuel in one control box, but make no mistake; there are 2 computers in
there, and it is most certainly not as advanced as Motronic, which combines
all of that functionality in one computer chip.<BR><BR>Furthermore, a 35hp
gain on a 16V would translate to 158hp! VWKING, you can't be serious in
thinking that a normally aspirated 1.8 16V with Digifant will put out the same
amount of power as a 1.8 8V with Digifant <B>and a
supercharger!?<BR><BR></B>I'm not saying that there aren't any gains to be had
by a freer-flowing intake and fuel injection system, but 35hp is the kind of
gains you can expect on a 500-Cubic Inch V8 with a severly restricted
intake. 35hp on a 123hp 1.8 liter is a monstrous
achievement.<BR><BR>Other than being slightly restrictive (especially at very
high rpms on opened up, 2.0 motors) CIS-E is incredibly accurate except that
it closes its eyes at full-throttle. "Accurate" means powerful --
contrary to most people's beliefs, you don't get more power by dumping more
fuel. You'll make the best power with a mixture slightly richer than
stoich. CIS-E does a great job of that, even as it ages and shit on the
car breaks, until full throttle. Then it goes into a pre-programmed
"This much air means this much gas" mode and doesn't look to the O2 sensor to
tell it if it's giving enough gas or not. Even still, I think we've all
found that the pre-programming does a pretty damn good job.
<BR><BR>Brett swapped his 2.0 16V from CIS-E to Motronic and (before the chip)
gained something like 5hp. It's an improvement, of course, but the real
benefit is the ability to enhance that further in the future. Only 5hp
to be gained from a primitive system like CIS-E to a much more advanced system
like Motronic speaks droves about the accuracy of CIS-E.<BR><BR>And the whole
idea of using a G60 computer on a normally-aspirated car sounds awfully
strange to me.<BR><BR>Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, and
here's mine: My answer to Allyn is a resounding "Nope, it doesn't sound
right", and to VWKING it's "You're on
crack."<BR><BR>Jason<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_NtungMbTz5RuEiypdIKGSg)--