[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

does this sound right?



This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_NtungMbTz5RuEiypdIKGSg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

ok I am a crack head thank you but you would be surprised with the results and I did not say a g60 harness I said a digi harness ecu and custom chip
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jason 
  To: Allyn ; The Hitman ; scirocco-l@scirocco.org 
  Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 12:06 PM
  Subject: Re: does this sound right?


  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











--Boundary_(ID_NtungMbTz5RuEiypdIKGSg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ok I am a crack head thank you but you would be 
surprised with the results and I did not say a g60 harness I said a digi harness 
ecu and custom chip</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV 
  style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> 
  <A title=jason@scirocco.org href="mailto:jason@scirocco.org";>Jason</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=amalventano1@comcast.net 
  href="mailto:amalventano1@comcast.net";>Allyn</A> ; <A 
  title=vwscir88@hotmail.com href="mailto:vwscir88@hotmail.com";>The Hitman</A> ; 
  <A title=scirocco-l@scirocco.org 
  href="mailto:scirocco-l@scirocco.org";>scirocco-l@scirocco.org</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 16, 2002 12:06 
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: does this sound right?</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>At 11:51 PM 9/13/2002, Allyn wrote:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="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 
  .... &lt;drumroll please&gt;&nbsp; 5-10 horsepower.&nbsp; (4.8 - 9.5hp)&nbsp; 
  <BR><X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>10lb-ft of 
  torque at 2000rpm would be a 3.8hp 
  gain.<BR><X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>10lb-ft 
  of torque at 7000rpm would be a 13.3hp 
  gain.<BR><BR><X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>(At 
  5252rpm, torque (in ft-lb) and hp (in SAE units) are equal.&nbsp; 
  <BR><BR><BR><BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; there's a guy 
    from gruven auto works who's claiming that by switching to a<BR>&gt; corrado 
    g6o ecu and a fuel rail from any '91 digifont car he added 35hp to<BR>&gt; 
    his '88 scirocco. sounds kinda fishy to me, what do you guys 
  think?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It is completely and utterly ridiculous.&nbsp; Look at 
  the power output on the Digifant 1.8 versus the CIS and CIS-E 
  1.8s:<BR><BR>JH<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>CIS<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>90hp<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>105lb-ft<BR>RD<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>CIS-E<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>102hp<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>110lb-ft<BR>RV<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>DIGI<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>100hp<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</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!&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; "Accurate" means powerful -- 
  contrary to most people's beliefs, you don't get more power by dumping more 
  fuel.&nbsp; You'll make the best power with a mixture slightly richer than 
  stoich.&nbsp; CIS-E does a great job of that, even as it ages and shit on the 
  car breaks, until full throttle.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Even still, I think we've all 
  found that the pre-programming does a pretty damn good job.&nbsp; 
  <BR><BR>Brett swapped his 2.0 16V from CIS-E to Motronic and (before the chip) 
  gained something like 5hp.&nbsp; It's an improvement, of course, but the real 
  benefit is the ability to enhance that further in the future.&nbsp; 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:&nbsp; 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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_NtungMbTz5RuEiypdIKGSg)--