Re: 220hp? [All this carb crap]

[16V Jason <jason@scirocco.org>]

At 04:55 AM 11/14/2001, UrGTI@aol.com wrote:
>SLOW DOWN THERE CHILDREN, MY POST WAS NOT ABOUT WHAT MAKES MORE POWER, CARBS
>OR INJECTION.  I was just putting in my .02 in reply to a NA VW 16v able to
>make over 180 hp.

DON'T GET YOUR PANTIES IN A BUNCH!

<annoying man mode on>
You don't have to scream.
<annoying man mode off>

No,  Jasin, don't get me wrong -- I didn't say that you said anything about 
that.  In fact, my post had nothing to do with your post except that it 
brought up a subject that I've been busting at the seams to yell at people 
about. :)

In general - not just on the list - I've seen more and more people lately 
who want to put carbs on their cars thinking that they're going to somehow 
and mysteriously get more power.  They're free to do whatever they want, 
but before they waste their money on carbs, they should probably educate 
themselves to the benefits (if any) and drawbacks of carbs... that's all.


>  I will not go into "daily
>driving" since anyone putting $3000 into a fuel system generally will not
>dirve the car its in daily lets not kid ourselves. I am also not concerned
>with emissions since my car is a collector I only contribute to pollution on
>the weekends, and if I wanted fuel economy I would drive a diesel rabbit or
>Honda Hybrid.


Slow down there bucky -- who said anything about you?!



>Now is 220 streetable if it was attained? You cannot answer that unless its
>been tried and tested. I hate to use Nascar and V8s as an example but they
>are doing what was considered impossible not too long ago. Who would  have
>thought you could run a pushrod carburated V8 at 8500 RPM for 500 miles. Not
>that VW engines will ever reach that level of R&D but more meant as a
>reminder to keep an open mind and belive what you see and not think or hear.
>I once remember reading that its "physically" impossible for a hummingbird to
>fly according to "laws". (or something like that)


Well, for starters, ask Riley. With almost 180hp at the motor, his car 
wasn't all that streetable.  My guess is that 220 wouldn't either.


>I would not use the 1.8t as a character witness in any good way. That motor
>is obviously detuned and ill equipped since 80s turbo motors could match it
>in specific power output all day long in stock form. Here is one amusing veiw
>on the VW/Audi 5V head   http://members.aol.com/pumaracing/pp02.htm    scroll
>to the bottom.

I have a problem with some of the info on that page though:

Quote:
By contrast the VW 5 valve per cylinder engine has plenty of inlet valve 
area from its 3 inlet valves per cylinder but space constraints mean the 
lifters are only 24mm diameter. This limits the design of the cam profile 
so badly that the power potential of the engine is reduced below that of 
the much simpler 4 valve per cylinder design. In effect, this engine ended 
up as nothing more than a very complex and expensive marketing exercise.

If this were indeed the case that 5-valve designs (or in particular, VAG's 
5-valve designs) had no benefit, why then would the output of Audi's V6 
gone up significantly when it went from a 24V to a 30V with no other changes?


>My whole thing with carbs is exactly what Neal guessed. The sound and visual
>impact to me is sooo seductive I dont care if it cant "hang" with FI in your
>terms. Some things appeal to people on a level thats undescribable and many
>times impractical or what others scoff at.

Fine!  I have no problem with that!  (If that weren't the case, I wouldn't 
own a Scirocco in the first place).
The problem I had is that I've been "told" by a ridiculous number of people 
in the last 3 months that putting carbs on my 16V would give me more power.


>No flame intended just different strokes for different folks. Although I
>better get my Halon ready.

Lol... yeah, I guess you betta. :)

Jason


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