Re: 220hp? [All this carb crap]

["MrAudi" <mraudi25@epix.net>]

SOUNDS OF MORE HANDS CLAPPING!!!   :0)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fry, Larry" <LEF@chem-tronics.com>
To: "16V Jason" <jason@scirocco.org>; <UrGTI@aol.com>;
<scirocco-l@scirocco.org>; "Scott F. Williams" <sfwilliams@home.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: 220hp? [All this carb crap]


> sounds of hands clapping....
>
> Larry sd16V
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 16V Jason [mailto:jason@scirocco.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:50 PM
> To: UrGTI@aol.com; scirocco-l@scirocco.org; Scott F. Williams
> 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
>
>
> [Disclaimer]This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended solely for
the
> addressee. It may contain information which is covered by legal,
> professional, or other privilege. If you are not the intended addressee
you
> must not use, disclose, or copy this transmission. This E-mail is not
> intended to impose nor shall it be construed as imposing any legally
binding
> obligation upon GKN Aerospace Chem-tronics Inc. and/or any of its
> subsidiaries or associated companies. Neither GKN Aerospace Chem-tronics
> Inc. nor any of its subsidiaries or associated companies gives any
> representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the
> contents of this E-mail. GKN Aerospace Chem-tronics Inc. shall not be held
> liable to any person resulting from the use of any information contained
in
> this E-mail and shall not be liable to any person who acts or omits to do
> anything in reliance upon it.
>
>
> --
> 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