[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
does this sound right?
--=====================_13974784==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 11:51 PM 9/13/2002, Allyn wrote:
>if the engine flows well enough, it may have been running too lean at high rpm
>with stock cis-e. if he gained 35 hp, its probably because he gained something
>small like 5-10 ft-lbs of torque dur to proper mixture at the rpm (but at
>~5000
>rpm that small difference makes a decent hit on horseys).
Whoa, whoa, horsey, whoa! :)
5-10 ft-lb of torque gained at 5000rpm would add .... <drumroll
please> 5-10 horsepower. (4.8 - 9.5hp)
10lb-ft of torque at 2000rpm would be a 3.8hp gain.
10lb-ft of torque at 7000rpm would be a 13.3hp gain.
(At 5252rpm, torque (in ft-lb) and hp (in SAE units) are equal.
> > there's a guy from gruven auto works who's claiming that by switching
> to a
> > corrado g6o ecu and a fuel rail from any '91 digifont car he added 35hp to
> > his '88 scirocco. sounds kinda fishy to me, what do you guys think?
It is completely and utterly ridiculous. Look at the power output on the
Digifant 1.8 versus the CIS and CIS-E 1.8s:
JH CIS 90hp 105lb-ft
RD CIS-E 102hp 110lb-ft
RV DIGI 100hp 109lb-ft.
If Digifant was efficient enough to give a 35hp boost to a 16V, why does it
perform just about the same as CIS-E?
The fact of the matter is that Digifant was somewhat more advanced than
CIS-E in that it controls spark as well as fuel in one control box, but
make no mistake; there are 2 computers in there, and it is most certainly
not as advanced as Motronic, which combines all of that functionality in
one computer chip.
Furthermore, a 35hp gain on a 16V would translate to 158hp! VWKING, you
can't be serious in thinking that a normally aspirated 1.8 16V with
Digifant will put out the same amount of power as a 1.8 8V with Digifant
and a supercharger!?
I'm not saying that there aren't any gains to be had by a freer-flowing
intake and fuel injection system, but 35hp is the kind of gains you can
expect on a 500-Cubic Inch V8 with a severly restricted intake. 35hp on a
123hp 1.8 liter is a monstrous achievement.
Other than being slightly restrictive (especially at very high rpms on
opened up, 2.0 motors) CIS-E is incredibly accurate except that it closes
its eyes at full-throttle. "Accurate" means powerful -- contrary to most
people's beliefs, you don't get more power by dumping more fuel. You'll
make the best power with a mixture slightly richer than stoich. CIS-E does
a great job of that, even as it ages and shit on the car breaks, until full
throttle. Then it goes into a pre-programmed "This much air means this
much gas" mode and doesn't look to the O2 sensor to tell it if it's giving
enough gas or not. Even still, I think we've all found that the
pre-programming does a pretty damn good job.
Brett swapped his 2.0 16V from CIS-E to Motronic and (before the chip)
gained something like 5hp. It's an improvement, of course, but the real
benefit is the ability to enhance that further in the future. Only 5hp to
be gained from a primitive system like CIS-E to a much more advanced system
like Motronic speaks droves about the accuracy of CIS-E.
And the whole idea of using a G60 computer on a normally-aspirated car
sounds awfully strange to me.
Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, and here's mine: My answer
to Allyn is a resounding "Nope, it doesn't sound right", and to VWKING it's
"You're on crack."
Jason
--=====================_13974784==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
At 11:51 PM 9/13/2002, Allyn wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>if the engine flows well enough, it
may have been running too lean at high rpm<br>
with stock cis-e. if he gained 35 hp, its probably because he gained
something<br>
small like 5-10 ft-lbs of torque dur to proper mixture at the rpm (but at
~5000<br>
rpm that small difference makes a decent hit on
horseys).</blockquote><br><br>
Whoa, whoa, horsey, whoa! :)<br>
5-10 ft-lb of torque gained at 5000rpm would add .... <drumroll
please> 5-10 horsepower. (4.8 - 9.5hp) <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>10lb-ft of
torque at 2000rpm would be a 3.8hp gain.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>10lb-ft of
torque at 7000rpm would be a 13.3hp gain.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>(At
5252rpm, torque (in ft-lb) and hp (in SAE units) are equal.
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>> there's a guy from
gruven auto works who's claiming that by switching to a<br>
> corrado g6o ecu and a fuel rail from any '91 digifont car he added
35hp to<br>
> his '88 scirocco. sounds kinda fishy to me, what do you guys
think?</blockquote><br>
It is completely and utterly ridiculous. Look at the power output
on the Digifant 1.8 versus the CIS and CIS-E 1.8s:<br><br>
JH<x-tab> </x-tab>CIS<x-tab> </x-tab>90hp<x-tab> </x-tab>105lb-ft<br>
RD<x-tab> </x-tab>CIS-E<x-tab> </x-tab>102hp<x-tab> </x-tab>110lb-ft<br>
RV<x-tab> </x-tab>DIGI<x-tab> </x-tab>100hp<x-tab> </x-tab>109lb-ft.<br><br>
If Digifant was efficient enough to give a 35hp boost to a 16V, why does
it perform just about the same as CIS-E?<br>
The fact of the matter is that Digifant was somewhat more advanced than
CIS-E in that it controls spark as well as fuel in one control box, but
make no mistake; there are 2 computers in there, and it is most certainly
not as advanced as Motronic, which combines all of that functionality in
one computer chip.<br><br>
Furthermore, a 35hp gain on a 16V would translate to 158hp! VWKING,
you can't be serious in thinking that a normally aspirated 1.8 16V with
Digifant will put out the same amount of power as a 1.8 8V with Digifant
<b>and a supercharger!?<br><br>
</b>I'm not saying that there aren't any gains to be had by a
freer-flowing intake and fuel injection system, but 35hp is the kind of
gains you can expect on a 500-Cubic Inch V8 with a severly restricted
intake. 35hp on a 123hp 1.8 liter is a monstrous
achievement.<br><br>
Other than being slightly restrictive (especially at very high rpms on
opened up, 2.0 motors) CIS-E is incredibly accurate except that it closes
its eyes at full-throttle. "Accurate" means powerful --
contrary to most people's beliefs, you don't get more power by dumping
more fuel. You'll make the best power with a mixture slightly
richer than stoich. CIS-E does a great job of that, even as it ages
and shit on the car breaks, until full throttle. Then it goes into
a pre-programmed "This much air means this much gas" mode and
doesn't look to the O2 sensor to tell it if it's giving enough gas or
not. Even still, I think we've all found that the pre-programming
does a pretty damn good job. <br><br>
Brett swapped his 2.0 16V from CIS-E to Motronic and (before the chip)
gained something like 5hp. It's an improvement, of course, but the
real benefit is the ability to enhance that further in the future.
Only 5hp to be gained from a primitive system like CIS-E to a much more
advanced system like Motronic speaks droves about the accuracy of
CIS-E.<br><br>
And the whole idea of using a G60 computer on a normally-aspirated car
sounds awfully strange to me.<br><br>
Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, and here's mine: My
answer to Allyn is a resounding "Nope, it doesn't sound right",
and to VWKING it's "You're on crack."<br><br>
Jason<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
</html>
--=====================_13974784==_.ALT--