1600 GSi tuning

[Marcovan]

if i woz to get a performance cam exhaust system manifold air filter and
chip for me wee mota wot sort of bhp dya think it`d be puttin out. and would it be noticably quicker. wadda ya reckon....

[fo0q]

depends wot engine your starting out with pal.

[brian]

He said what engine it is above :roll:
dependin on what stuff ya use ya could pull another 30 to 40 bhp out of it
plus ya would have a quick engine which is light! has to be worth doin it. :D

[Marcovan]

cheers brian. next question then would I end up spendin as much money doin these mods as it would cost for a 20 16v transplant I reckon i would don`t u.

[dangermousegsi]

the cost of a transplant depends on who u take it to courtney/regal charge two-three grand, i spoke to a place who do the wrk on my gsi an he said hed only charge labour if i provided the engine an all the wires cause he hadnt done a nova transplant b4 he couldnt give me an exact price, speak 2 henryk at MIG an see what he says he did a calibra turbo transplant into my mates astra gsi did a damm good job at a good price 2 think there numbers in total vauxhall mag

it would be cheaper to put cams/zorst/chip/filter on what u got an u would prob find that would c off most things from the lights skimm the head that makes the gsi fly

[Anonymous]

you can get 150bhp out of a 1600 lump (non turbo) but its cheaper and more relaible to fit a valver, and it will be more economical too.

Chip

[MC]

Cheaper? You'll still have to get the zorst system, which in the mods you list is probably the most expensive item.

You say the valver will be quicker than a well tuned 1600? I didn't have one valver even come close to my 1600 at Trax. The only Nova that was on my pace was Mark Watts' 2.0 16v Turbo running 250bhp. The 1600 would be quicker off the mark, but might suffer a little above 120mph. My 1.6 sat in the middle of all the 2.0 16v 1/4 mile times at the pod too, modified and standard.

[NovaGSi1600]

The first mod you should consider is a Blydenstein B+ head conversion, you get about a 15% performance gain and with the head conversion all the mods you mentioned above would work much better!
I've got a B+, Kent cam + pully and 57i and the engine is producing 120BHP and 114ftlb of torque, it takes most things at the lights and pulls quite strongly to 110mph.

Cheers,
Mick

[Anonymous]

NO, you are putting words into my mouth there boy im afriad!

I did NOT say the vavler would be quicker, i said more economical, and more relaible.

My valver conversion cost me less than 800 quid, including EVERYTHING, that even included a head gasket / cambelt chagne and paying someone else to do the seam welding and paying a mate to throw the engien in as i didnt have time to do the conversion myself. you cant get 150bhp out of a 1600 for 800 quid.

Also, in terms of raod driving the vavler would be an easier car to drive quickly as you arent diving up and down the gears playing hunt the torque like you do with a cammed up 1.6

Handling wise the small bore motor is going to win every time, no question, not really an issue on a raod car though, visibility limts corner speed on my vavler before the handling does generally.

Chip

[Anonymous]

Ps

Plus with the valver, yuo can always tune it firther at a later date if you want, ultiamtely in a straight line the 2.0 16v is always going to be quicker with similiar mods than the 1.6 8v

Chip

[MC]

You have alot of misconceptions about the 1600.

CP will back me up on all of these points. Torque is readily available throughout the range on a well setup 1600 8v. The 8v's are the key! In my 1600, I could accelerate within the torque band in any gear, whereas a 16v engine needs a few more rpm before you can do that. I know, I owned an driven both types. The incredible low down torqe of the 8 valve will pull you out of a bend even if your in a gear to high wheras if you cought my 2.0 16v below much below 3000rpm, you'd be left behind.

As far as economy goes, that BS too I'm affraid. If I drove the vaver economically it'd average about 35-40mpg, and on thrashing it'd drop right down to the low 20's maybe less. (I know I had a fuel comp). The 8 valve would run 35mpg plus, possibly even more, and if I did thrash it, it would drop below 20mpg, but much quicker on the open road with it.

Like you I did alot of work myself too. Carns second hand for ?150, I also at one point I bought a head for ?300, cam for ?175, and of course a zorst system and manifold which was around ?300 (you'd be paying that on a valver if you had any sense anyway) . So the basic engine component are about ?625 plus the zorst and a few gaskets. It so happened that the lump I had was shot, so I did pay for a rebuild, but that could happen on any engine.

My car also never broke down, and didn't go out of tune.

At the end of the day, everyone will have there own preference, but until you've lived with both types you can't really make a sound judgement. People like us are lucky that we can do these things ourselves and cut out labour costs, but I know for a fact that if I had ?3000 to spend on a valver conversion by Courtenay, I'd rather have a well sorted small block lump.

I'm not against 16v's, more so big engine conversions. I just think you can get the same real world performance out of a small block engine coz what you loose in outright speed, you gain in useability.

I also have the experience of driving CP's car, which is phenominal.

[MC]

Appologies for the poor English, I'm trying to type this in secret at work!

MC

[Anonymous]

Sorry mate, going to have to disagree with you on the torque thing, as soon as you start going for long duration cams the bottom end really falls out of the torque curve on the small block motors.
same is true for economy, in standard for the 1.6 is amazing, 45mpg + is easily achieveable, but mid 30s is max for a 150bhp one, where as i get well voer 40mpg out of my standard valver when driven steadily.

Pison rings are antoher issue, to get the power out of the 1600 requires high comrpession and a lot of strain on the rings, if you do (like me) 30,000 + miles a year in your nova, you will be rebuilding it once a year with a 150bhp 1600.

As soon as you up the stakes a little and talk about 180bhp you'll find the 1600 really cant compete at all anymore either, yuo are talking mpg in the twenties and peaky as hell to drive, where as a standard vavler motor with thorttle bodies will produce this power whilestill maintaining a perfectly flat torque curve and 40mpg.

Im not dissing the small bore motor, they are cracking little lumps, but in terms of a fast raod car there is no substitute for capacity and in terms of economy there is no substitute for mdern 16v technology and decent fuel injection.

Chip

[Anonymous]

PS

Lol at the english thing, im the same, typign a little window so no-one notices, so its dificult to proof read!

Chip

[NovaGSi1600]

@MC, what mods have you carried out to get that type of power from a 1.6 8v?

Cheers,
Mick

[MC]

1.6, bored to 1650cc (10.5:1 comp ratio), piper/courtenay fast road cam, twin 40's using 30mm chokes and no filters and a custom inlet manifold. (Chip, you'll have to just believe me on this one, the 30mm chokes gave so much torque I could spin the wheels in 5th in the wet if I wasn't easy on the throttle). 4-2-1 and system, altered gear ratio's, Blydenstein B+ head.

Now Chip, I meat you on Sunday, and talked to you for a while (quite a bit about the turbo conversions). I was with CP, so you know the sort of guy I am, I'm not a Bullshitter. My engine is in Breeny's car, the blue SR on 17's. I would have no hesitation in saying that that engine develops more low down torque than a standard 2.0 16v. CP had a very similar engine although with a rally cam. We built them together. You know he's not a Bullshitter either. By nature a 16v engine will deliver more horsepower but less low down torque than an 8v of equivelant capacity. That is fact. Greater volume of intake at slower spedds give more power and less torque.

I've spent alot of time with 8v's and 16v's of all engine size, so I am not drawing these conclusions lightly.

[Anonymous]

agree that a 30mm choke is a good size for low down torque, but ill put money on a stadard valver making more torque at for example 2500rpm, do you have a power curve to look at.

i think you are somewhat taking me out of contest though, i did say that at 150bhp the 1600 is still fairly torquey, i was saying that if a higher power level was required (ie 180) then you would have to start sacrificing the bottom end grunt as youd be needing 300 degree cams or whatever.

I know how good a 150bhp 1.6 can be, but i would dispute that you can get good economy on 40s, well certianly not in the same ball park as a standard valver anyway.

I notice you arent even commenting on the reliability issue :P



Chip

[MC]

It's so reliable, I didn't even think of it. Never had a break down. The only problem I ever had was a split water pipe. Just old piping. The engine still lives on. I think Breeny is trying to see if he can break the record for running and engine without an oil change! Seriously it never gave me any trouble. It always started first time, even in the cold with no choke/cold start required. I just knew how to look after it. The carbs never went out of tune (loctite on the balance screw). Never broke a drive shaft either!!!!!!!

You too are taking this out of context. The original point was that you could do both for similar money, and if you did that, I believe the small block would be a better choice all round, although I do agree that tuning potential would be limited there after. I was pretty happy with the engine at that point and started turning my attention to gear ratio's. All I really wanted to finish it off was an LSD.

The valver also suffers from long gearing on the f20 - That needs sorting.

Don't forget Chip, I have owned a 2.0 16v and the 1.6. I would still be pretty sure that at 2500rpm the 1.6 would have more torque. In fact I have 1/4 mile timing slips, and will look up the interim times at each stage. The 2.0 16v had to be spun almost to avoid bogging. wheras the 1.6 could be started in away you felt like.

M.C.

[Anonymous]

maybe your valver wasnt a very good example, because normally they pull very well from low down, tehy are about 130lbft of torque at 2500 if i recall correctly in fact.

Chip

[MC]

Is that peak, or just at 2,500rpm.

It is fact that 16v engines give peak torque higher up the rev range than 8v's

MC

I'm guessing nearer 160lb/ft and thats around 3000rpm.

[Anonymous]

That not peak no, the 16v engine does indeed have a torque curve that is skewed higher up the rev range the standard 8v, BUT the whole curve actaully sits taht much higher to begin with that even at low revs the 16v stil matches the 8v, and even more so against the 1600.

The XE lump is unusually torquey for a 16v, miles better than most valver motors.

Peak bhp on the valver must be nearer the 160lbft mark i should think yes, but its the overall flatness of the curve that is impressive, and probably not rivelled by a cammed up 1600, thats why i was wondering if you had a printout, as id be interested to see the torque at various points.

Can you remember what the peak figure was?
Or i that what you were on about when you said 160@3000 (which is 91bhp, pretty good for so low down!)


Chip

[Breeny]

technical babble to me.

I know what i race and dont race, I kept up with CP's 1.4 16v on the way to Weston thats all i know! lol

Oil change coming soon Mark, dont worry...

[Breeny]

oh and no reliabilty issues with the engine apart from the electrical problem posted. (which has nothing to do with the modifications done)

[MC]

Where are you getting the idea that this engine is ‘cammed up’? You’ve been reading to many science fiction novels. The cam on there is about 275 in duration with mild lift. The valves are enlarged, but nowhere like the surface area of a 16v lump. You’d need to be running 300deg duration to get the characteristics you describe. CP was running a 285 road/rally cam and he still had low down torque, granted not as much as me, and he did have a little more peak horse power, but the difference was slight. You’d have to have a very wild cam, and very large valves to mimic the torque curve of a 16v. You seemed to know quite a lot about Turbo tuning, but you obviously have some misconceptions on 8v’s.

You obviously aren’t gonna believe it until you whiteness it. We’ll have to try and link up with Breeny, and demonstrate. After we have some realistic size wheels on there!

The 1.6 was all torque and little peak hp. The big powered 2.0 16v’s wouldn’t come close till the end of the ? mile, and my encounter with Mark Watts at track proved this. I would power away from him out of each bend, until he came on song to the end of each straight. My initial torquey acceleration would be enough to hold of his peak power and speed even on the main straight at Silverstone, and he was apparently running 250bhp.

[Anonymous]

LMFAO @ the way this ig going in circles!

yuo are TOTALLY mis reading what i typed, i sad that at 150bhp you can still ahve a ncie flatish torque curve fro ma 1600, cause of the mildish cam utilised, my comments werent about that when i was talking about cammed up motors, i meant for a 180bhp or whatever fi the guy decides he wants more power later.

We are SO much agreeing with each other, that its hilarious, we both even picked 300 degrees as an example of a lumpy cam.

I know breeny, and see him quite often, so ill certainly get him to take me round the block in it sometime (ony fair, hes been in my valver, with spanishfly driving, which breeney DID actaully pronounce quicker at the time IIRC, atlhogu thats probably just cause rob drove liek a nutter!).

Chip

[MC]

OK, shall we leave it there? Kinda agreing.

Buy the way, Breeny drives like a girl, so no comparrison!!!!!!! :lol:

[Anonymous]

lmfao!

If you can even classify what breeny does as driving.........

[MC]

:lol:

[dangermousegsi]

i didnt understand a word of that but never mind

i was talkin to a guy last nite bout cars a general stuff(convinced my mate that he needs a supercharged cammd vectra gsi lump with a shot or two of nos to get his cav doin -10sec 1/4miles) an while he was sortin out my dodgy idle(air/fuel mix was wrong) he said that by adjustin the screw on the the air flow meter by 5 degrees u could get a cav 130 2 run at 160bhp he said it would have a similar effect on a gsi

true/false i dunno thought id ask im off to the scrappy for an airflow meter to give it a go an il let u know

[Anonymous]

LMFAO!!!!

Yeah mate, richening up a cav 8v gives it more power than a valver!

Whoever this guy was, dont let him anywhere near your fukking motor is my advice!

As for 10 second cavaliers, LOL!
A fwd cavalier wouldnt do a 10 second quarter if it was 1000bhp.

Chip

[dangermousegsi]

theres no need to take the piss i wont bother askin in future if ur gonna rip the shit outta me after i all i thought this was the place 2 ask a question like that :evil: :evil: :evil:

where did i mention it was a fwd cav? i looked but i couldn't find :roll:

[Breeny]

lmao @ me pansy driving! I can still drive it as you know Mark :P i just choose not to most of the time because of the points situation. Chip i'll bung me 14's on sometime and come up hemel, you should come along Mark.. it aint too far from you.

[Anonymous]

Its like fishing, look hes taken the bate now i can real him in, havent caught any brean for years, LOL

J/K about your driving mate.

Chip

[Anonymous]

Ok, we'll assume its a 4wd then, its going to need probably in the region of 800bhp to be standing any sort of chance of hitting a 10 second quarter.

But go on humour us, what spec was he talking about for a 10 second quarter, im guess the entire body replaced by carbon fibre panels, rear mounted engine, 15" wide rear wheels, sounds like a good couple of hundred grands worth i should think.

Sorry mate if i seemed a little out of line, its just my manner, i really dont have much time for people talking utter bollocks thats all (not you, the guy who fed you this shite), and as soon as you stated chatting about just tweaking the air flow meter to get 30bhp extra its pretty obivous the guy hasnt got a clue.

If you want a cheap way of tuning a cav sri motor, retard the cam belt a tooth, still wont give gains of that order though.

Chip

[dangermousegsi]

as for the full spec pass it was one of those if money was no object what would u do to ya car conversations that u have from time to time

sorry i got the arse,i know the air flow story sounds far fetched but i dont know my arse from my elbow when i comes to doin engine wrk so i thought id ask save makin a complete tit of myself an judgin by ur reaction it aint possible to do that.

[MC]

OK, now its settled down a little:

The airflow meter can be adjusted slightly to gain response and a little peak power. You won't get much at all, and you have to be carefull not to screw it up. On these earlier vauxhalls the airflow meter used a spring loaded flap. If you slacken the spring off one or two notches, the flap will open slightly easier and slightly further, providing less resistance to the airflow, and responding to the demand for fuel quicker. You don't really need to do this unless you have a free flow filter, as you don't need to provide extra fuel and response unless you are getting extra air and accepleration in air flow. You might gain 1-2bhp on top of the filter, but its easy to fuck it up.

[Anonymous]

dercent filter, plus tweak the meter, plus retard the cam belt once tooth all done together costs you only what you pay for the filter (20 quid if you get lucky) and is good for a 10% gain in peak BHP, will run worse at low revs though.

Chip