Tuned 1800, or Tuned 2lt 16v

[Mikey16vClio]

Now besides the 2lt producing more torque, why is it that the 1800 said to put out the same BHP as the 2lt once the following engine mods have been carried out:

Gas flowed head & manifolds to match, fast road cams, vernier pullies, superchip, IK, Xorst & de-cat?

Now this work puts out over 170 on the 2lt bottom end but what are these mods likly to do to the 1800 Valver engine?

I know we are talking 1000s of £s but i read on a post (by a 2lt 16v owner BTW) that it was quote; more fun to do it to the 1.8 engine. Thanx

 

[Adams_16v]

Probably between 150 - 160. Mine ran mailto:147@fly">147@fly the other week with the mods you mentioned, but a few other valvers with a few mods including 2 at the RSC day the other week were getting around mailto:127@fly">127@fly or less! Think the rollers were a little low though as these should have been pushing more than standard as it is......!

 

[rt172]

Should just mention at this point that at the same RR day, my totally (properly totally) standard Williams got mailto:156@fly">156@fly. Go 2 litre, GO!

Edit - did I mention the 131 lbft of torque?

Heheheh

 

[Ben H]

Both engines share a very similar head and general design. But the 2.0 is a better starting point as it makes more torque at lower revs.

My 1764cc F7R Valver engine is tuned and definitely makes less than the same mods on an F7P. At a recent RR day, MatBrowns old 2.0 with theoretically the same mods as mine made another 20bhp at the wheels than mine (me 128bhp atw, Mat 147?bhp atw). But thats not a definitive comparison.

Its all to do with the level of tuning that goes on and how far you go with cams/porting etc. I guess that even if both engines were worked to produce the same power, the 2.0 would still be a tad faster on the road because of it developing torque at lower revs. Its not because 200ccs make a radical difference, but its because the 2.0 engine has a number of different torque enhancing adaptation over the 1.8 including a shorter crank from the 1.9 diesel.

In theory, you could tune the 1.8 to develop more torque at lower revs and more power than the 2.0 - but whats the point when thats already available in the form of the F7P!!?

When I race my mates Williams, his will always win if we go for it at lower revs. But if we pull side by side in my tuned Valvers power band, I always pull ahead.

Ive driven a 2.0 and the reason a tuned 16v is "more fun" is because it just pulls madly between about 5000rpm and the red line, which is when the 2.0 starts to run out of puff. I dont really see it myself, but its the classic 16v trait of always having more power to come - I guess its a challenge on the road really as you have to be on the ball!

 

[Mikey16vClio]

QUOTE:













Message posted by javascript openWin pop_up_profile.asp?profile=6044&ForumID=4 , profile , toolbar=0,location=0,status=0,menubar=0,scrollbars=0,resizable=1,width=440,height=370 ">16v - 2.0 on 16 April 2003 at 12:23am - IP Logged














16v - 2.0

Forum User




16v 2ltr
31 March 2003
14 Posts








use your loaf! they are about!

but get the power from the 1800 if you got the cash, its more fun!

170BHP is easy enough from the F7P



Now this dude surprised me considering hes got a 2lt! Any 1 care to elaborate?

 

[Mikey16vClio]

Ahhh. Ben, if the engines had this work done by the same mechanic to exactly the same spec is my query really. Otherwise ur upsetting the balance, i just wanna know if 2lt is the way to go? Thanx, Mikey.

 

[Ben H]

I know him and have driven his car - and he knows my car as well. Its just mutual respect for the two popular, but alternative approaches.

 

[Mikey16vClio]

BHP & 1/4 mile times between the 2?

ANY 1/4 MILE TIMES FOR THE ABOVE MODS ON BOTH THE F7R & F7P? Cheers.

 

[Adams_16v]

Id say 150-160 for the F7P and 160-170 from the F7R. But the 2.0 has more torque which is nice!

 

[Adams_16v]

and probably high 14s low 15s for the F7P and medium 14s to high 14s for the F7R

 

[Mikey16vClio]

A VTS can do it in low 15s standard!

 

[Ben H]

Adams mate! The F7P is the 1.8!

 

[Adams_16v]

Thats what iv put lol

Its late.....

 

[BenR]

other way round guys and a few niggles to clear up.

The F7R is the 2ltr and the F7P is the 1.8.

The R has the LONGER throw crank which is where the extra capacity comes from, and somediff pistons and rods, but they equate to a near identical compression height.

When you talk about them producing the same power, they can. Only one diff, the rpm at which each engine makes the same power. The 1.8 will need to push alot more rpm than the willy to get the same power as a 2ltr.

Simple, air.........and engine is an air pump, forget fuel and spark, we can deliver as much of both that we need. The problem with NA is airflow. THe more we can flow, the more power we can make.

Now, there are 2 ways to do this. On the same engine, you can either increase capacity which will increae the total amount of air processed per period of time. OR you can increase the rpm which will do the same thing.

Only problem with increasing the rpm is that you need to run a different cam profile than you would on a 2ltr to make the same power. It will need the rpm to process more air, but the cam will need to be prettyw ild to work up at that rpm level. The higher the rpm, the less time the piston has to fill. SO to sort this, there is a miriad of different methods from gasflowing, to long duration, high lift long overlap cams.

To go into detail will take too long, but suffice to to a F7P wont make the same power as a F7R on teh same mods, but it is theoretically possible to get them to produce the same power. You will just need to work the 1.8 alot more and run about 2-2.5Krpm more than the 2ltr.

 

[Mikey16vClio]

2lt is preferrable then?

What would happen if u upd the revs and adjusted the cams on the F7R then (apart from an engine that wont last as long)?

 

[BenR]

Well, the 2ltr crank isnt the best, but with work it can hold 7.5K fien enough.

And adj the cams? adj the std ones wont do much, but if you cange them all together then you can expect a semi decent gain.

 

[Mikey16vClio]

So has no1 got a lightened & balanced crank with the above mentioned mods and seen big BHP gains with the F7R?

I know that matbrowns 14.8 1/4 mile run is the quickest for a 16v recorded on this sites members section. Soon to be blown away by Nick i surpose but his had a 2lt F7R with the engine mods listed in original post.

 

[BenR]

The problem is not getting more power, its junking the OE Throttle body, it gets restrictive at about 170bhp.

Most people would love to, but unless you can do it yourself, its expensive stuff!

And power is not the product of a mix and amtch set of parts. Depending on the quality of the head, where it flows best, how well it does at low pressure drops, low valve lifts, the cam you choose, its setting up etc etc.

And the manifolds cam become limiting factors, i have studied them and the extent to which you can port them is minimal, you cannot physically get any traditional porting tools into it. The only way would be the dangerous and not very popular acid porting or extrude honing which i have never personally seen anybody do.