willy engine or tuned valver

[Paul C]

right i am getting some work done on my valver ( full) engine rebuild with headwork, cams and pullys and a remap and s/s manifold. i already have filter, exhaust, decat and pbv and superchip.

when this is all done iam hoping for about 175bhp. (hopeing!!)

i started thinking what about a will conversion and was just wondering peples opnions on this. would you say to stick with the valver lump and do the work or go for a willy conversion?

Thanks

Paul

 

[Zmaster2k]

willy conversion and all above work!!

 

[Adams_16v]

Thing about having yours rebuilt is that it will almost be like having a new engine in the car. If you stick a willy lump in its gonna have some miles on it.

Personally id go for what your doing, but try and find a megane bottom end for around £2-300. That would be a nice quick, and torquey engine!

 

[Paul C]

but that will only rev to 6.5k? when mine was mapped i was gonna have it reving to 8k.

Paul

 

[Valver'o'Death]

Sorry to butt in but what exactly does a megane bottom end do to the valver engine?

 

[cliosportcraig]

Megane bottom end is the same as a williams bottom end so technichally it makes it a 2.0l !!

 

[Paul C]

but it wont be as revvy will it?

Paul

 

[rockport]

a revvy engine is nice - but would you not rather have an engine doesnt have to be forced to scream to get anywhere? You can still have the ECU rev limiter moved from 6.5 -> 7k So you wouldnt loose out on any revs in that repsect.

My advise would be - (if you can find one that is)

test drive a valver with head work / cams / remapped ecu etc. Then drive a chipped 2.0ltr valver and see which of the 2 you prefer.

 

[Kelly]

Quote: Originally posted by Paul.C 16v on 10 March 2004


right i am getting some work done on my valver ( full) engine rebuild with headwork, cams and pullys and a remap and s/s manifold. i already have filter, exhaust, decat and pbv and superchip.

when this is all done iam hoping for about 175bhp. (hopeing!!)

Would that amount of work give 40bhp? How much will it cost? (Sorry, being nosey )

 

[u33db]

I think it depends how far you want to go. The 1.8 is a better base for severe modifying (e.g. throttle bodies/turbo etc) due to the crank being stronger and because it can reliably be pushed harder. If youre not going that route then the 2ltr conversion is better and will work out cheaper for more bhp compared to head/cams/ecu on the 1.8. Dont get me wrong, youll get good gains from both routes but the 2ltr is just more torquey and economical for getting more power. However, 1.8s are cheaper to repair if they go wrong due to parts availabilty.....

I have driven both and although i know the 2ltr is superior in some ways (torque etc) the revvy 1.8 is just too addictive to loose!

 

[Paul C]

i did say hopeiin!! well the headwork and cams should give around 18bhp and all set up properly with a full remap should get the rest along with my exhaust, decat filter and PBV. As it is at the moment ihad it rolling roaded at 155bhp i would say thst its proberly pushing out something like 150 really so i am hopeing for about another 25bhp with the headwork and cams and a good remap.

Paul

 

[maaaaaartin]

Can anyone recommend anyone who would be able to do work like this?

 

[u33db]

What the 2ltr conversion or the headwork?

Headwork: Speak to BenR about gasflowing the head, all the other parts you can buy and get a competant garage to fit.

2ltr Conversion: Again, a competant garage can fit it all but youll need to source the bottom end, have you ECU chipped to 2ltrs etc

 

[_Tom]

So is it worth moddin a 1.8 16v, Yeah or No? I cant hack all the 2l conversion malarky and just lookin to get a chip, cams, headwork, Pbv, Filter and exhaust. Is it worth it as im not worried bout the low down torque (You gotta love it when the valver hits 3.5-4k!). What sort of power would a valver have with this too?

 

[cliosportcraig]

yes its worth it if your going to keep the car !! 170 BHP should be in order !! 172 chaser !!

 

[Matty]

Mine was RRd at BB with BMC CDA, Magnex inc decat and their chip at 148bhp. Since then have added a supersprint manifold so should be slightly over 150 now. With head and cams which I will get done have thought 170bhp is in reach so you shoud be looking at that area for your mods Id have thought. 180 would be nice, 100bhp per litre

 

[Paul C]

i am getting ben r to do the headwork and Andy @ GDI and me are gonna build the engine. going to speak to andy on sunday to get the ball rolling. i am also getting a full engine balance and the flywheel lightened. which will help. i think i am gonna tune the valver lump as andy said it is a good step and will be really quick with all the work done and as craig said its gonns be nearly a new engine.

Paul

 

[Adams_16v]

Paul u can have a drive in mine if u want mate next time i see you. Need a gearbox first though hehe.

iv had all the mods u have mentioned, and as u know its pretty quick compared to most other valvers, and enough 2 litres its come against in its time ;0)

With all the work, it has about the same torque as a standard 2.0, i can drive under 4k all day long without a worry. Even up a hill in 5th under 50mph is fine. Iv driven a williams to compare btw.

Although i would like a 2.0 bottom end to finish it off, i love revving the nuts off it so dunno. problem with 2.0 is even if rev limitor is increased peak power is still lower down the revs

One major thing is that it still hasnt been properly setup or mapped, so there still a bit to come from it yet.

Its been RRd @ mailto:169.1@fly">169.1@fly as u know Paul, but me thinks them rollers were a bit high, and they didnt give a @wheels figure either. id say 160odd in reality, as it usually seems to push 20+bhp over other valvers with zorst, decat, filter etc.

 

[rockport]

Quote: Originally posted by Paul.C 16v on 10 March 2004


i am also getting a full engine balance and the flywheel lightened. which will help. i think i am gonna tune the valver lump as andy said it is a good step and will be really quick with all the work done and as craig said its gonns be nearly a new engine.

Paul





I wouldnt have the fly lightend if i were you, the valver suffers from crap torque as it is - balancing / leightening the fly will only help reduce torque. Tho it will help you engine rev quicker due to the weight loss.

 

[Adams_16v]

stanard flywheel is fine mate. light enuff as it is.

 

[Paul C]

ok cool its just what Andy said to me as well you see. i let you know what i decide on sunday as i will be goig over it all with him and deciding on what to do. i will have to take yours for a drive craig!! when will you be coming pod next?

thanks for all your moments

Paul

 

[Adams_16v]

soon as iv fitted, new box, clutch and column, hopefully asap!

 

[Matty]

Ill be using Andy too in the not too distant future. And will be getting flywheel done.

 

[Paul C]

he said about the flywheel so it must be worth doing or he wouldnt of said it. Andy is a sound bloke and really knows his stuff!!

Paul

 

[Andy GDI]

i feel the flywheel makes the engine more responsive....... faster pick up if your heel/toeing......

 

[Matty]

And lightened flywheel is one of the main improvesments of the new CTR.

 

[Paul C]

 

[Adams_16v]

aye it is an improvement, but what i mean was that the clio 16v flywheel is already pretty light, probably partly why it likes to rev so much. there is not a lot to take off it.

 

[BenR]

it can do with some lightning, the revs drop quite slowly on a valver.

The CTR flywheel is indeed light, when we built a super production touring car we actually had to ADD weight to teh fly to meet the minimum allowed hahaha!