I've got some pretty interesting dyno readouts of my 1880cc (90.5x73mm) engine & my 2027cc (94x73mm) engine. The only change I made when I rebuilt the 1880cc was switch to 94mm pistons to incease the capacity.
The hp was only increased slightly from 90.4 @ the wheels to 93.6@ the wheels, but where the power comes in is dramatically inceased.
And no, 94mm pistons do not run any hotter, my head temps & oil temps are the same as before.
regards
Jak
PS just a little foot note, 90.4 hp with 90.5 pistons, & 93.6hp with 94mm pistons, those numbers are a little weird huh??
jakriz ·
.
56astro ·
I suppose you'll get a lot of
"I told ya so's"
More power and comes on earlier, although peak was reached a little later.
Good one Jak :thumb
FirstName V LastName W ·
Jeez Guys looking at those dyno sheets almost made me seasick when following the mixture curves or should I say waves.
:repuke
Without bagging anyone out or trying to sound negative those carbies really need to be sorted out if you are serious about comparing figures between engines or if you like more to the point comparing 90.5s to 94s a pretty tired argument I think in anyones books.
From memory I think mixtures should read somewhere in the ball park of around 12.5 : 1 for optimum performance. Having said that, cant wait to see what sort of power these little engines could produce as the numbers are very good in retrospect, always keen to see the VW performance people out there doing their thing in motor racing, keep it up.
:thumb
jakriz ·
Yeh I know about the air fuel, but they were the same jetting setup for both, so they are a direct comparison.
Jak
70AutoStik ·
Try about 1 size larger on both the mains and air correction jets. I'd guess there's another 5-10 HP hiding in your current setup.
GL1972 ·
Looking at those figures maybe I should build a 82X94 instead of a 82X90.5!
jakriz ·
This is the tourqe readout as well. U can see the dip in the tourqe curve in relation to the hp curve.
I've got it on video that the tacho went to 6900rpm, & I'm pretty sure that it was taken from around 2800 to 3000rpm.
I'm definantly going to try the larger main jet & go from there. Wish I had a dyno in my garage.!
It's funny Brendan, I was actually going to suggest u go with the 94's to make 2276 as apposed to 2110cc.
I'm definantly going for the bigger crank once I get the air fuel sorted.
regards
Jak
GL1972 ·
Jak,
That's a big deal how the power and torque come on sooner. Any guess at the HP range for mine?
82X90.5
Twin 40 Dels
CB044s mild port job.
Engle 110
P.S. I will go to 94s when I build the 1776 for my daughter.
jakriz ·
U would hope for 100hp at the wheels (but don't we all) but with that small cam it may just end up being a tourqe monster & run out of breath at 5000rpm.?
I can't guess anymore, but the dyno tells all, I suggest changing that cam for a K-8 with 1.4s..................but u knew thats what I would suggest.
Jak
1303 ·
Jak
Have you found out how to convert the torque curve to foot/pounds?I would be interested to see the difference between your 2027cc and my 2110cc
Cheers
Paul
jakriz ·
No I havn't yet mate, but I suppose we just hold them up to the light..............
Can u take a digital pic & post it in here, i forgot to take a pic on saturday. Interstingly enough, he only took your car to 6000rpm on my video, wheras he took mine all the way to just shy of the 7000rpm porsche tacho. maybe the long rod verse short rod aspect is coming into effect??? Then there is the 3mm crank size difference as well.
I want 100hp at the wheels & apart from forced induction, after getting the mixture fully sorted, an 84mm crank is looking even more atractive, especially since my case has been CNC machined for it already, just open her up & drop it it.
Jak
1303 ·
mmmm,
82mm or 84mm and some CB Performance CNC ported heads are also on my wish list!!!
One day , maybe
GL1972 ·
Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it ...84X94.
The 110 cam will also go into the daughter's 1776 so a K8 and rockers will definately be on the shopping list.
BTW car is now on all 4 wheels!!
Baja Wes ·
I can convert the torque if those RPM points are correct.
Baja Wes ·
the two rpm markings on the graph don't match each other. Are you sure of the 2800 or the 6900?
GL1972 ·
Jak,
Not sure if a pickup for RPM was connected to the cars. You might need to do some calculations with wheel diameter, final drive ratio (or the ratio of the test) and apply it to the KPH reading along the bottom axis of the graph to get the RPM reading.
HotRodMatt ·
If you don't use the pick up on the dyno dynamic machines it can be set manually using a ratio ... run the car to a certain speed cheek the revs thru the car tacho (or one attached) then tell the dyno the speed and revs.... then it gives the engine rpm...
Baja Wes ·
Here's the chart assuming the 6900rpm @ 127.5kph is correct.
jakriz ·
Thanks very much for that Wes, most appreciatted, the 6900rpm is definantly correct as I have cross referenced it with the video, but the dyno operator holds it just below 3000rpm before giving the final run through the revs.
regards
Jak
70AutoStik ·
Just gotta ask - what cam, heads and carburation you running, jakriz? I was just pokin' back through the messages and saw something is choking your engine past about 5-5.5k. (probably head-related, but it could be carbs.)
And I gotta add: Your comment that 94s don't run any hotter because you have oil and head gauges isn't very scientific. An engineer worth a pinch of snot (not the very mouthy one that gets around here,) will tell you that 94 vs 90.5 will run hotter (try an infrared spot sensor on the cylinder surface,) it's pure maths: increase in energy throughput and friction (in the larger swept surface) and decrease in surface area available for disspation will mean the cylinder and piston will be running at a higher temperature. The question is: how will this effect the performance and longevity of the engine?
Piston and cylinder technology have come a long way since Gene Berg died. But I'd still like to see a back-to-back comparison of leak-down figures after, say, 40,000km before anyone claims there aren't heat problems with 94s. Drag racers don't make such claims, but they do work _with_ such factors.
68AutoBug ·
94s are supposed to run hotter because of the thinner metal in the cylinder compared with the original cylinder..
unless the cylinders were not made by VW and the thickness is the same, allowing the heat to disperse the same...
Lee
jakriz ·
Forget the theories , scientific calculations etc etc, I've just done a back to back test with 90.5 to 94 & I've done 3 Supersprints this year with the 94s, not just posing around the street & daily driving to work, how does 4000rpm to 7000rpm for 10 laps at a time sound. I'm far from any scientist, but making only a piston size change & then heading back out to the track for some racing will beat anything u will read in a book any day of the week.
My good friend John who also races has had the same 1916cc together since 96, daily driven to work & also does 9.6seconds on the 1/8th mile! Tell him that 94's don't work for a long time.
That aside, why do u think that the engine doesn't pull past 5000rpm? It didn't make full power until 6500rpm, the heads are 040's with 40x35 valves, ported by Richard Holzl, tall straight shot manifolds that have been match ported, dual Berg springs, Berg 1.4 rockers with a Steel Billet cam in the K-8 grind, 555thou lift with 298duration. The heads probably are restricting it & I have a set of 044 magnums with 42x37.5 valves to go on at the end of the year. Maybe I'll get 100hp at the wheels then?
regards
Jak
jakriz ·
Oh & the carbies are 45mm Dellortoes with the CB Performance update kit (horizontal discharge tubes) , I've also just yesterday the standard fuel pump for an electric one & have already noticed a little more pep throughout the entire rev range. I'll try & get back to the dyno next weekend before my next event at Eastern Creek .
JaK
Baja Wes ·
Autostik, you need to get realistic. The difference in temperature your talking about isn't worth knowing about. Changing the ambient air temperature by 1 degree is going to have more of an effect than what you are talking about. If you were an engineer, you'd know that.
Jak's head and oil temp sensors are just fine. The head temp is the main one to worry about and he monitors it.
Lee, 94's are not thin walled. They are thick walled cylinders just like stockies.
I guess people can listen to people that sprout out strange theories with no practical experience, or they can listen to Jak that has actually tried more than the rest of us. I know I'd be listening to Jak.
lugnuts ·
What he said :thumb
Cam ·
As much as I have respect for the Bergs. Apparently their 94vs90.5 tests were done something like 25-30 years ago :o
Nothing improves the breed like racing. Sticking a car on the track will prove it everytime. Just ask Motor magazine about the HSV's at Winton. A couple of laps and they were all pissing fluids and "feeling like half a million kay taxis"
Daily driven and raced is enough proof for me.
This is being discovered by alot of tuners in the last couple of years. Everyone was so scared by what Berg said they've only just gone "stuff it, lets try break 'em" (has been happening on shoptalkforums alot lately) and finding theres no difference except for better performance. The 92 and 88 thin wallers are still unreliable, but thats another matter all together.
[Edited on 6-10-2003 by Cam]
70AutoStik ·
Thanks for the intelligent and honest reply Jakriz. I wasn't trying to attack 94s, simply pointing out that some people look in the wrong place for possible effects. Past information from people such as yourself completely changed my opinion of the current viability of 94s - technology has come a long way in the past 30 years and running 9s in any street-driven car for any length of time is pretty impressive.
My needs are a little different due to where I live, however, and I'm sticking with the 90.5s until someone produces some evidence that I can get the life I need on lots of long hauls - I pull more k's in a year than most do in the life of their car...
As for saying it's not pulling past 5000, have a look back. I said it seems a little "choked." I suspect, as you do, that the ports are holding it back from it's full potential. There's only so much the best porter in the world can get from an 040, that's why CB invented the 044...
Once you've done that, you may find that you've surpassed the abilities of the 009 (please don't tell the True Believers I said that,) and look at the MSD. Back in the days when we couldn't get things like the MSD at a realistic price, we'd fit slightly stronger springs to the 009, or whatever, to move the curve a little further up the range; then increase the static advance as much as we could again.
jakriz ·
Little gain in power?, C/mon Ben, your more experienced than that, look how much fatter the power line is. I've got the lap times to prove it as well, I took 2 seconds off Oran Park short, 4 seconds off Oran Park lon & 2 secinds off Wakefeild, yet to do Eastern Creek again. & for the first time I can keep up with CT in a straight line & we are using the same gearbox. With the 90.5's (1880cc) I just couldn't stay with him on the straights.
Proof enough for me
Jak
Baja Wes ·
Ben Durie wrote:you are sprouting untruths again, 94's are thinner at the stud holes and the bottom, nothing like the std cylinder,
I said a very general comment to make people realise they are not thin walled cylinders like 92's.
I'd also be interested to know what tests have shown they run hotter. Not being a smart arse, I'd just like to see what has been done, and if it's done properly. I mean a 1916 is obviously going to run hotter than a 1600, because it's making almost twice as much power.
T25Turbo ·
If you guys are serious about track work, scientific tests on piston sizes and horsepower figures, I would think the benchmark would have to lie with Electronic Fuel Injection + Electronic Ignition Control. (Haltech, MoTec)
I know everyone doesn't have the dollars associated with these mods, but surely you are grasping at straws comparing 1950's technology with what can be had on todays roads.
You may quibble about 5-10hp here and there, but this won't mean crap when another turbo jap car goes sailing past you on the freeway with airconditioning and cruise control.
I think its time to bring on the new wave.
Volkswagen should have persisted with the flat four thing, just look at Subaru.
I think the smartest thing anyone can do is cut their losses and implant a subaru motor with/without turbo and laugh all the way to the finish line (and the bank).
Bizarre ·
You are missing the point
Yep if we were after cheap power we would have gone Wes' route and put a jap donk in.
We are interested in VW power. That is why we drive them (fast and hard). Basically keeping them stock - not some hybrid. If we were after just power a Jap grey import is the go.
We are interested in what you can do with a naturally asperated (read induction noise) flat for.
To each their own but the point of this is air cooled flat four
[Edited on 12-10-2003 by blue74l]
jakriz ·
T25turbo (don't know your name) I think that u are in the wrong section of the forum, I believe that we have a conversion section now, u may want to go comment there. It still amazes me that people still make comments on posts when the comment is irellavant & insignificant
By the way, I've seen 4 wrx conversions in a vw & although they may be quick in a straight line, they still can't handle like a standard engined beetle
Jak
Peter Leonard ·
Ben Durie wrote:Wes,
you are sprouting untruths again, 94's are thinner at the stud holes and the bottom, nothing like the std cylinder, and they do run hotter, Jaks test shows little gain in power, not enough to justify the crankcase mutilation needed to fit em.
what the..?
last time i checked bbq plates were made of low grade mild steel. and they warp because they're usually heated unevenly, and have no support. apples/bananas here dude. my 94's have been blasting their way around the country for more than five years. they're also about to be transplanted onto a new motor. I'll try and get some photos for the faithless. I also wouldn't like my case to be butchered to fit 94's, get a machinist to do it. criminy.
If you have a cast B'B Q plate that is too thin it warps right ?
We drive with BB Q plate material cylinders, not ideal but cheap, if you want long life the thicker the better.
You don't need to be an engineer to know that if a metal structure is thinner it has to be weaker, more prone to heat distortion etc .
Of course its all been covered before.
regards
Ben
Peter Leonard ·
for some reason my reply was left off the quote.
in short, and without the swearing and smacking of my forehead:
bbq plates warp because they're unreinforced unsupported mild steel, heated unevenly and cooled unevenly.
my 94's are being re-used in another motor in a few weeks, i'll take some photos of what they look like after five years of abuse. the motor they're in is perfectly fine, i just decided to jam some more power in the back of my dub. means new heads, and carbs and counterweighted crank, same barrels.
this debate is so much fun.
*sigh*
Peter Leonard ·
ahh.. now the reply has turned up in the middle of the quote..
freaky.
:alien
FirstName V LastName W ·
Hey Ben, man when are you going to wake up and smell the coffee, it is practically under your nose and you still dont get it.
As Jack and Peter said there is NOTHING wrong with the 94mm Piston and Barrell kits we have here in Australia today.
Get your head out of the sand and do some homework. Likening a 94mm barrel to a BBQ plate is like comparing apples to oranges.
I have also used both the 90.5mm barrel and the 94mm barrel on the same engine with more importantly the same static compression and quess what heres a news flash for you there was only10 degress difference in engine temp between the two. The engine is still in the car now daily driven and shows no signs of leak down or blowby.
If any one out there is looking at running a set of 94mm Pistons and Barrels with a std crank or a strocker than I would say go for it, as long as you stay realistic with the static comp and observe all the rules of properly fitting all the tinware for the late dog house style cooling you can't go wrong in my books.
Ben you just ain't keeping up with the times.😉
[Edited on 12-10-2003 by FirstName V LastName W]
Baja Wes ·
Ben Durie wrote:Wes,
We are often testing , in fact I have a 94 x76 engine in my street car at the moment.
I found a crankcase with the area behind the fly-wheel cast thicker (filled in ) so I machined it for 94's on our bridge port type Mill.
So far it seems to make similar power to the 90.5 x75.5 engine that was in the car till a recent problem keeping the fly-wheel on.
Oh yeh it does make more heat.
So what your saying is a larger capacity motor runs hotter than a smaller one. You need to compare apples with apples. Again I am not stirring you, I just want to see some accurate scientific data.
Wes admit you are wrong 94s are thinner than 90.5s all bar the top bit.
When did I say 94's are a thick as 90.5's all the way down? What I said was
Lee, 94's are not thin walled. They are thick walled cylinders just like stockies.
Which was in response to what I thought was Lee confusing a 94 with a 92. I didn't mean to imply they are exactly the same thickness everywhere. It was a very general comment. But you have agreed that the top part of the cylinder where all the heat goes through is the same thickness.
jakriz ·
Ben Durie wrote:hi Jak,
In my opinion 4hp is not worth the machining of a larger hole to fit the barrels, removal of precious crankcase material weakens the weak spots.
Ben, I have the greatest respect for u , but I'm surprised at your comments, maybe u havn't had a real good look at the graphs on the front page??
regards
Jak
PS do u have any dyno figures for your 94x76? Pauls got 93.7@ the wheels
Craig Torrens ·
Ben Durie wrote:hi Jak,
In my opinion 4hp is not worth the machining of a larger hole to fit the barrels, removal of precious crankcase material weakens the weak spots.
Wes,
We are often testing , in fact I have a 94 x76 engine in my street car at the moment.
I found a crankcase with the area behind the fly-wheel cast thicker (filled in ) so I machined it for 94's on our bridge port type Mill.
So far it seems to make similar power to the 90.5 x75.5 engine that was in the car till a recent problem keeping the fly-wheel on.
Oh yeh it does make more heat.
Wes admit you are wrong 94s are thinner than 90.5s all bar the top bit.
Turbo Guy,
I beat several WRX cars at King Edward Park on the weekend , and I don't have 4wd or a turbo .
the rest don't require an answer.
regards
Ben
[Edited on 10-12-2002 by Ben Durie]
You don't believe in 94's, yet you built a motor with them just to try !!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this because you're only just doing the reseach ??
Maybe if you start 8 dowelling your flywheels they won't come loose.......oops you don't believe it that do you😀
CONGRATS to Colin, for yet again another 94mm (1916) powered VW winning the state hillclimb series, now 8 years in a row a 1916 has won:thumb
56astro ·
Man, I gotta have one of those 1916 thingos with them 94's in there". They're the one all the fast cars have aren't they.
Come on Craig, "8 years in a row", that's just being absurd now!
jakriz ·
Will do Ben, i've got brand new total Seal rings in there now & I'm having the barrels & pistons ceramic coated over Xmas to prolong their life.
Jak
Stanley ·
jakriz wrote:PS just a little foot note, 90.4 hp with 90.5 pistons, & 93.6hp with 94mm pistons, those numbers are a little weird huh??
Does that mean I can expect 87hp out of my 87 mm pistons ?.....:P
[Edited on 13-10-2003 by kafer69]
Peter Leonard ·
i think he was kidding, ben...
lets call this the "apples and oranges banana post"
anyone care to explain how 'leakdown' tests are done?
amazer ·
Leak down tests are easy. I filled my kombi up with 4.5 litres of oil, ran 100kms and had it all blown out the breather into the air cleaner. Still motored along at the speed limits though. I love VW engineering.
hehehe when is a leakdown test successful, when you find you have plenty?
[Edited on 14-10-2003 by amazer]
56astro ·
Hehe
Bit like a brain scan, hey Amazer!
😀
70AutoStik ·
Ben, I must take issue with you: Please don't ever call Wes "scientific." He's an engineer, not a scientist, never could be - his ego would never allow him to learn anything. One day I'd love to find out what kind of engineering he does, because it obviously has nothing to to with engines.
At least you finally got him to admit that reducing the cooling surface area will not increase cooling efficiency - i.e. an increase in energy throughput will result in higher temperatures. You'll never get him to understand that oil and head temperatures are not necessarily going to reflect piston and cylinder temperatures accurately. I have seen tests done with a laser surface temp guage demonstrating the increase in surface temprature, but the important issue here is the eveidence seen in the effects on the pistons and cylinders themselves.
I do not know of a highly experienced builder who does not say that the 94s run hotter and therefore should not be used on type 2s and 3s. As has already been pointed out, Wes does not build, or even run, VW engines...
It seems there are a lot of situations where 94s can be run quite effectively and reliably, it's just a shame there are people jumping to conclusions and telling everyone that they therefore don't have any issues.
Baja Wes ·
70AutoStik wrote:Ben, I must take issue with you: Please don't ever call Wes "scientific." He's an engineer, not a scientist, never could be - his ego would never allow him to learn anything.
Don't you fix photocopiers for a living?
One day I'd love to find out what kind of engineering he does, because it obviously has nothing to to with engines.
A lot of my work involves finite element analysis. A bit of stress analysis and thermal analysis of large industrial equipment, furnaces, rotary coolers. But hey I will never know as much as someone with your experience....
As has already been pointed out, Wes does not build, or even run, VW engines...
I ran 1776, 1835, 1915's so I think I have some idea.
That's about all I have to say. The rest of the arguing on this thread is retarded. The 94's run hotter arguement is demented, since it is a larger engine with more power. I mean an engine with dual carbs will run hotter than one with single carbs if they are both driven flat out, so does that mean everyone should run single carbs? Get real. 94's have an extensive track performance with many reputable engine builders. If people want to stick their heads in the sand and not use 94's, so be it. It's not my loss.
VWCOOL ·
Jakriz, I can see why you wanted to retain your 'baseline' intake setup for test consistency - but your thinking is, unfortunately, flawed. Let's face it, not changing your tune (either jetting or ECU) with an engine hardware alteration is something that - with respect - would get you laughed off any LS1, WRX or Mustang forum.
As for 94s, I laugh and laugh and laugh at people who want to throw away high-quality VW componentry and big $$ to risk the unknowns of aftermarket cranks and/or the evils of chopping out the reinforcing inside a VW case.
The use of 94s with a stock stroke has several benfits imo: Firstly, it doesn't upset what ios a reasonably successful stroke/rod length ratio (ie: doesn't put extra side load on the piston skirts/rods); The bigger bore allows the potential unshrouding of valves for better breathing, and they create higher peak airflow through the ports earlier in the rev range (good for throttle response and torque with carbs). The 'heat' myth is, to my mind, Berg propaganda from the 1960s. And thin walls around the base of the barrel? Der, so what? No heat load down there - it's below BDC. If you know what you're doing, you shouldn't be dropping the barrels on concrete anyway. The old 'making teh holes too big' argument, too, is halloween. The static and dynamic loads of the piston/barrel combo are in fact spread over a larger base... 'too much metal being removed'; is like claiming a larger poached egg ring is weaker than a small one...
Apart from routine care with over-boring of cast-iron V8s to prevent dropping into water jackets etc, no other engine, to my knowledge, has any discussion/argument such as this, based purely on arbitrary numbers relating to size of bore...:P
[Edited on 15-10-2003 by VWCOOL]
[Edited on 15-10-2003 by VWCOOL]
Baja Wes ·
VWCOOL wrote:And thin walls around the base of the barrel? Der, so what? No heat load down there - it's below BDC.
To prove your point for you, I have some interesting images for you. Unlike some people who come here to mouth off, I didn't read these in a book or copy them from elsewhere. I actually cut up some barrels to see the difference in wall thicknesses. How many people can say they've done that.
Here is a 92mm at TDC.
VWCOOL ·
Lol... thanks... That looks spooky!!
Bizarre ·
Hey Wes
You must go to the same shrink as me!
He showed that picture to me as well!!!
I thought it was 3 nakid ladies and a jar of honey!!
56astro ·
If you stare at that image long enough you will see a naked lady sitting on a chair infront of an open window!
:P
Baja Wes ·
And here's a shot of a 92mm cyl at BDC. You can see that the lower fins will not see much of the engines heat load.
I was investigating the effects of the combustion heat flux on the cylinder wall and fin temperature distribution. Alot of people will not realise that a cylinder wall can be too thin, but it can also be too thick. Thick barrels don't cool as well (before people mouth off at me, the chief engineer of Tatra agrees with me). And thin barrels are subject to distortion, not from being thin and weak, but because they are more subceptable to even cylinder temperatures around the barrel circumference.
I agree 92's are too thin, but I do not think 94's are being too thin. But hey, everyone can listen to who-ever they want to listen to.
Baja Wes ·
VWCOOL wrote:Lol... thanks... That looks spooky!!
Bet you can't guess how I made that image. 🙂
speedster356 ·
I too have been cuttin up p/c's on the trusty band saw at work. These are my 94's after only a few 1/4 runs! Yikes.
HotRodMatt ·
Explain Ben?
Pretty simple - it's not the 94's it's the builder fucking up!
Many many 94'd engines have been stripped without these conditions.
Many stock 1600 have been pulled out shot too!
(BTW - I have 90.5's so i am not biased).
jakriz ·
VWCool ( I wish people would put their f%$#king names), we are not on any other make Forum, so lets stop making that comparison, & besides, how many WRX's do u know that have changed their bore size?
Right from the start I've never made claim to knowing anything more than I've stated or then I have actually done. This 2027cc is only the 7th engine that I've done, so I'm no expert & I'm learning more & more everytime.
As for the erellavant comments on the rods & crank, my 73mm crank is actually a Sabaduzi crank that has been offset ground for the Cevy journals that then makes the 73mm stroke. U do know offset grinding is don't u?? & my rods are actually 5.7 inches long, a standard rod is about 5.394 or sometihng like that, so my side loads on the barrells are better than standard ( u obviously didn't know my engine combo before making this reply). I also didn't have to remove one iota of material to get the crank & rods in the case, & just as another example, my good friend Paul who also races with me didn't have to remmove any material to get his 76mm crank in either................
Just as a general note, how many engines have u built, high hp ones that is.
I only made this post as I love talking big hp engines with other vw people & I was tired of being on the yank forums talking to people with a 1776 & kadrons that makes 300hp. I thought that me posting the dyno graphs would let people know that I wasn't just talking out of my asre & show them some real dyno figures.
I just want to talk shop, not shiitt
regards
Jak
Baja Wes ·
Ben,
You and Autostik like to take everything I say as out of context as possible.
The main idea of what I have been saying is all the crap people dribble about the theoretical side of which cylinders is crap, and most of them don't know enough to even justify what they are saying. I've looked into the theoretical side in great depth, but prefer not to bore the forum people with the details.
As anyone that knows anything about engine develop knows, the theory is a great base for somewhere to start, but it is rigorous testing that proves if something works or not. That's what we should listen to.
That's why I listen to what Jak has to say. He has unbias test data from his own car.
I also listen to what you (Ben) have to say, because you have built more engines than I ever will, and have a lot of experience. The problem I have is I think you are a little biased at times, so I am sceptical of what you say. That's why I ask for facts not opinions.
Everyone here should look at the track record of various engine combo's and make their judgements from there. It doesn't take much to see 94's have an extensive track record with some very respectable engine builders.
Ben, stop getting so offended by everything. Why does it effect you whether people want to run 94's or not.
Cam ·
jakriz wrote:I only made this post as I love talking big hp engines with other vw people & I was tired of being on the yank forums talking to people with a 1776 & kadrons that makes 300hp. I thought that me posting the dyno graphs would let people know that I wasn't just talking out of my asre & show them some real dyno figures.
I just want to talk shop, not shiitt
regards
Jak
*ROTFLMAO* Oh that's sooo painfully true!
All these drop a "scooby motor in" people amaze me. I don't see the fun in that. This way you're developing, building and testing your own engine. Flow benches, dynos, etc... Are so much fun and really add to the racing experience (well I feel like a V8 supercar engineer when around this gear anyway😀)
Wes is probably the biggest conversion head around and has he started preaching? NO!!!
Forget Rex motors unless you want a quick power fix and some quiet driving. Plus I personally think these engines are past their prime when it comes to club use. I see heaps of them with big $$$ upgrades at club events here and they're not that special. So why would I drop a heavy water cooled motor into the arse of a sprint beetle? Sure, it would give a bigger power increase in a lighter car. But comparing a WRX (complete vehicle) to Jak's car and saying a WRX will "go flying past" it is BS. Lets look at a WRX simple 1/4 mile times. They're what? 15's high 14's on a good day. Jak could do that (IMHO) with his eyes shut.
God! when will people realise sprouting numbers is a pissing contest. People take some figures from motor magazine (which have been quoted by the manufacturer about their original concept development engine of an o/s model, prior to EM control crap, etc...) and figure thats what their VW is going to pump out at the rear treads... Gimme a break! It all comes down to what happens at the track. I saw a 425KW (at the rear wheels) Soarer, caged, on slicks, etc... at phillip island not too long ago. It was useless. Finished up tailing the cars it went out with by a large margin. The thing had no power band, if he had of stepped on it the thing would have just turned around. And what's the point of that?!?!? The same thing happens whenever any punk takes some hightech street/drag motor equipped track car out for a circuit day. It's pathetic really. You need as flat powerband as you can get. Unless ofcourse you have mass amounts of downforce, big slicks and can afford to take track data from each track and set-up 6 close ratio gears and full suspension set-up accordingly each time you go out.
I would love to see a WRX equipped beetle at the next dyno day, see the power increase over something like Jak's. I guarantee there won't be any pointing and laughing. I'm yet to be convinced about a/market conversions in anything other than something like a late model kombi for something like off roading and/or towing.