[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

50mm intake, was Re: ebay link

Subject: 50mm intake, was Re: ebay link
From: dswalterwi at gmail.com (Don Walter)
Date: Fri Jul 7 23:30:55 2006
In-reply-to: <181b48890607071122g6755d64evead92fde8bc67957@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004101c6a1ed$c6e1dd90$b709b9d0@4WAVE> <181b48890607071122g6755d64evead92fde8bc67957@mail.gmail.com>

Lance,
Your setup sounds similar to mine.  What Autotech cams do you have?  Which
forged pistons and what size are they?


On 7/7/06, Lance LaPrarie <sciroccojunky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> I just got through the break in period last Sunday. My guy that built the
> motor told me to keep the car under 3500RPM for the duration of the 1500
> mile break in. So I didn't have the ability to really gauge the difference
> from my stock 1.8 with cams and CIS. However I did notice that going up
> steep hills and acceleration were much better to the 3500 shop imposed
> limit. Sunday I started wrapping it out to see where the power comes on.
> With my E36 M3 the power comes on like a sledgehammer around 4000RPM. The
> same can be said of any VR6 car but more like a mallet relatively
> speaking.
> On my 16v 2.2ltr it comes on very linear. There isn't a big rush of pull
> at
> any real RPM like my other car. I was kind of worried that my motor wasn't
> set up properly. One thing though is with the forged pistons it seems to
> take about 15-20 minutes of driving time for them to heat up. Driving it
> cold seems kind of lopey with the AutoTech cams. Not too much power
> difference. It is better than my older motor but isn't as dramatic under
> lower RPM. When it is totally warmed up like half way through my drive in
> to
> work which is about 30 miles. Power is really evident when I'm around
> 5k-6k.
> This is with basically the same setup as the guy on Ebay selling his
> 2.2ltr.
> I moved to Motronic for idle stability. Was going to go the megasquirt
> route
> but didn't have the extra dough for all the doo dads required for the
> swap.
> The shop that did my motor charged me $150 total for the Motronic swap.
> That
> is a phat deal for sure. Monday I'm getting the TechTonics chip made for
> my
> setup. That should add quite a bit for the $100 it cost. Much better than
> $500+ for an intake.
>
> I dig the motor and seems to run extra smooth. The idle is kind of rough
> but
> my guy mentioned that it is the cams that make the idle that lopey. Before
> WaterWagens I'm getting my ceramic coated SuperSprint header installed to
> replace my aging header. Funny how these things crack so often. They used
> half a reel of wire to repair the latest round of cracks. It really sucks
> bad that SuperSprint has discontinued all Scirocco related products and
> replacement parts. Their gear is top notch in my book.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/7/06, Dan Bubb <jdbubb@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't have any hard data either, but some peripheral data seems to
> > indicate the 50mm ought to work well on a 2.0 or 2.2L.
> > Of course, the 50mm originally came on the European 1.8L. That, the
> > addition of a cat and the Euro intake cam, which is still nothing to
> write
> > home about, raised power from 123@5800 to 139@6100. The maximum torque
> > speed went from 4250 to 4800 although the max torque value didn't change
> > much (conflicting numbers from my research). And, of course, the breadth
> of
> > the torque curve is probably very much in favor of the US engine.
> > Anyway, the bigger intake manifold seems to be integral to the higher
> > power of the Euro 1.8L.
> > I'd can't think of any reason why that wouldn't translate to a bigger
> > engine that will have an even higher airflow capability.
> >
> > My experience with 16V engines isn't extensive, but I do know that the
> > difference in midrange power going from a 1.8L to a 2.0L, with no other
> > changes, is really dramatic. I'd expect the 2.2L would be another big
> step
> > up. So, much in fact that I doubt you'd miss the comparative lack of
> > midrange of the 50mm.
> > Typically, increasing an engine's displacement without other changes
> will
> > increase torque and low end power, but will also reduce the peak power
> > speed. So you end up with a comparative torque monster that needs to be
> > shifted at a lower maximum RPM. Making changes to bolster the top end
> would
> > seem appropriate to me.
> >
> > Check out the pictures here:
> > http://www.scirocco16v.com/gallery/16v_abfengines_index1.htm
> > The 2.0L European ABF looks to have a hell of a big intake manifold.
> > Well, at least it looks that way to me!
> > Anyway, nothing definitive, just a bunch of sort of related facts and my
> > opinion.
> > Dan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lance LaPrarie" <sciroccojunky@gmail.com>
> > To: "Dan Bubb" <dan.bubb@gmail.com>
> > Cc: "alex porter" <alexporter_14@hotmail.com>; <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: ebay link
> >
> >
> > > Hey Dan,
> > >
> > > I don't have any hard data to back that statement up. I did a bunch of
> > > research when deciding to get the best out of my buck on my current
> > motor.
> > > I
> > > was going to buy a 50mm intake and read somewhere that it really
> doesn't
> > > do anything for you on larger motors. I also asked the shop that built
> > my
> > > motor and they said it wouldn't do anything benefitial for me and not
> to
> > > spend the money. From what I gathered it's like the 1.8ltr head on a
> > > 2.0ltrblock. It helps if you don't port it out. Once you port it out
> > > you lose the
> > > advantage over the 2ltr head ported. Porting a 1.8 and a 2.0 head
> there
> > is
> > > really no difference between them. So if you know something that I
> > don't,
> > > I
> > > stand corrected. Also, top end power really doesn't matter to me since
> > I'm
> > > not going to be racing my car. I'd rather have the power in a usable
> > spot
> > > which is the midrange. My personal preference though.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/6/06, Dan Bubb <dan.bubb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Lance,
> > >>> Have any data to back up this statement?
> > >>> I think the common knowledge is that the 50mm intake boosts top end
> > >>> but hurts the midrange some, at least on the 1.8L.
> > >>> I'd think with the additional airflow of the 2.0 or 2.2L engines
> it'd
> > >>> be a benefit everywhere.
> > >>> Dan
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/5/06, Lance LaPrarie <sciroccojunky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > I opted out on the
> > >>> > 50mm intake since it actually robs you of power on 2.0 16v's or
> > larger.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Check it out.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Scirocco-l mailing list
> > >> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > >> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>



-- 
Don Walter - Waukesha, WI
1986 8V Black Scirocco (Daily Driver)
1984 8V Audi 4000s (RIP 2/14/2006)
1986 2.0L 16V TEC 2 Black Scirocco (see progress at
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/708939)
1986 2L 16V Toronado Red Scirocco (Ben's Car)
1988 1.8 16V Toronado Red Scirocco (sold on 3/29/04)
1984 1.8 8V Pewter Scirocco (sold years ago)
1971 Karman Ghia (sold)
1969 Karman Ghia (sold)
1969 Beetle (sold)

Follow-Ups:
- 50mm intake, was Re: ebay link
  - From: sciroccojunky at gmail.com (Lance LaPrarie)

References:
- 50mm intake, was Re: ebay link
  - From: jdbubb at verizon.net (Dan Bubb)
- 50mm intake, was Re: ebay link
  - From: sciroccojunky at gmail.com (Lance LaPrarie)

Prev by Date: MK1 beauty FS
Next by Date: MK1 beauty FS
Previous by thread: 50mm intake, was Re: ebay link
Next by thread: 50mm intake, was Re: ebay link
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread