RE: 220hp? [All this carb crap]

["Neal Tovsen" <sixteen.volt@verizon.net>]

Who says carbs can make MORE theoretical power than FI?? I haven't heard
anyone here say that.

Carbs are used in racing applications typically either because they are
required by rules, or because they are easier to tune and troubleshoot at
the track with a couple of linkages and needle screws instead of a laptop,
wires, wires, and more wires. I might add that they're less expensive, and
some people like Jasin (UrGTI) get a woody 'cause they've got more
"old-skool" appeal than poodle skirts.

Can they make MORE power than a modern FI system? No. Can they make LOTS of
power? You bettcha.

And speaking of 16v's making 200hp+, I followed a guy on a Volksport fall
tour (Jasin: what was his name again?) who supposedly used to work for VW
Motorsport. He claims to be able to get 225hp+ from an NA 16v. I haven't
seen his dyno charts, but his daily-driver 16v Passat Wagon loaded with
wife, kid, dog, picnic supplies, etc EASILY DROVE AWAY FROM ME while I did
my damndest to keep up in my 16v Scirocco. Say what you want: I'm convinced!

Neal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> [mailto:owner-scirocco-l@scirocco.org]On Behalf Of 16V Jason
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:50 PM
> To: UrGTI@aol.com; scirocco list; 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
>


--
Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to majordomo@scirocco.org