for those of you that like low end torque... (long reply)

[amalventano1@comcast.net (Allyn)]

umm, i did read the article :)

> Hang on Allyn -- you mean to say that you're going to stick with 1.8s
> instead of going to 2.0s?!  If that's the case, you might wanna re-read
> that article.  The 2.0 has a tremendous amount more low-end torque, but it
> also has significantly higher high-rpm torque; and therefore also more
> horsepower.  And therefore it's much faster.

but that is assuming that i plan on reving the 2.0 to the same rpm as i would with the 1.8... would
you consider taking a somewhat stock 2.0 block to 8000 rpm (with boost)?

quote from the article:
"It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of
*gearing*."

    I plan on making torque high (~6000 rpm peak) with p+p and boost. Optimum shift points for this
setup with an FF tranny (how i got to that decision is a totally seperate issue), is beyond 8000
rpm. This basically means that quarter mile time is directly related to how high i'm willing to let
the engine rev.
    Using an 8000 rpm redline for a 1.8 block and a 7500 rpm redline for the 2.0 block, i ran dyno
simulations using dyno 2000 and plugged the results into cartest 2000, getting simulated drag
numbers. both simulation programs arent necessarily perfect as far as comparing to the actual
physical end result you will get, but they are very very good for finding out which direction
parameters go when changing variables. The result?
    Regardless of the 2.0 having 25 more ft-lbs of torque at 6000 rpm and 40 more hp at a 8000 rpm
peak, at 7500 rpm, the 2.0 was making the same HP as the 1.8 was at 8000. This is exactly how the
'gearing' comes into play. This alone (combined with the last couple of paragraphs from that torque
article) should show the faster car.
    With the numbers plugged into cartest, the 1.8 was .06 faster in the quarter. Now granted that
isnt a huge gain or anything, but the mere fact that it is at least equal is enough for me to bypass
the thought of blowing $$$ on a couple of 2.0 blocks. I am forced to make this somewhat of a budget
project, since the $$ is going so many directions at once it isnt funny. If i can do some more
porting and keeping the flow path clear to save the $600 in blocks, i'm gonna stick witht he
porting. Not only that, but to get the 2.0's curves all i changed was the bore/stroke of the
simulation. All other engine numbers were untouched (the same as throwing the 1.8 head on a 2.0
block), so in theory i wouldnt even have to do the extra porting to compensate.

Some other stuff to back all of this up:
http://users.snip.net/~str8g/cars/rr.htm
1.8 16v (stock) bottom end, car runs a 12.56 quarter
http://users.snip.net/~str8g/cars/pw.htm
1.8 16v (also stock) bottom end, car runs a 10.957 quarter

(stock has importance here, since i plan on spacing the head on a somewhat stock block)

yes, you heard right... a 10 second vw (no nitrous), running on a 1.8 instead of a 2.0. These guys
surely had that block out of the car at some point in time, but they put the 1.8 back in. If 2.0 is
the way to go, why/how are those guys running 10 second cars with 1.8's???

Keep in mind that if you are going n/a, 2.0 is the way to go. throwing boost at the engine changes
alot of crap, shifts torque curves, and makes everything 300 times more complex.

ok, enough babbling outta me...

Allyn Malventano, ETC(SS), USN
87 Rieger GTO Scirocco 16v (daily driver, 170k, rocco #6)
86 Kamei Twin 16V Turbo Scirocco GTX ('it has begun', rocco #7)
87 Jetta 8v Wolfsburg 2dr (daily driver, 260k, 0 rattles, original clutch, driveshafts, wheels :)


----- Original Message -----
From: "16V Jason" <jason@scirocco.org>
To: "Allyn" <amalventano1@comcast.net>; "scirocco list" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: for those of you that like low end torque...


> At 09:03 PM 4/12/2002, Allyn wrote:
> >this is a must read:
> >http://g-speed.com/pbh/torque-and-hp.html
> >puts things in very good perspective. i'm definitely sticking with 1.8's
> >in the twin now.
>
> Hang on Allyn -- you mean to say that you're going to stick with 1.8s
> instead of going to 2.0s?!  If that's the case, you might wanna re-read
> that article.  The 2.0 has a tremendous amount more low-end torque, but it
> also has significantly higher high-rpm torque; and therefore also more
> horsepower.  And therefore it's much faster.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> >Allyn Malventano, ETC(SS), USN
> >87 Rieger GTO Scirocco 16v (daily driver, 170k, rocco #6)
> >86 Kamei Twin 16V Turbo Scirocco GTX ('it has begun', rocco #7)
> >87 Jetta 8v Wolfsburg 2dr (daily driver, 260k, 0 rattles, original clutch,
> >driveshafts, wheels :)
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Scirocco-l mailing list
> >Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> >http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>