Numbers Don't Lie

[HudsonHawk]

So what's the fuel pressure set at?

My little 2254cc had 22.5:1 CR N.A. with ~2500psi off the fuel injectors. I hear they have gone way up on fuel pressure since then. I sold it at 290k.

Chevy LUV

Mine is only 5.9L, 20:1 CR, 27 lbs of boost and ~20k psi Direct Injection. Produces 555 ft. Lbs of torque at 1400 RPM and 305 HP at 2800 RPM.

It's got 136Kmiles on it. May have to change the spark plugs soon.

[Dave04]

May have to change the spark plugs soon.

Can I come watch you? Mine is at 156K miles, so I'm over due

And my intercooler is probably bigger than the 1.6L motor...

[Miatamaniac92]

Speaking of big trucks, I caught part of the NatGeo program about Peterbilt's factory in Denton:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.co.../2907/Overview

Chris

[ray_sir_6]

Relying on a dirty dyno WB is an unsafe practice. In most cases it doesn't tend to jive with any onboard WBo2 sensors.

Then you need to goto a better tuning shop. Our WB O2 is always within .1 A/F of the reading from the car we are tuning. I guess that's another reason we are a certified dyno shop, not just someone who happened to buy a dyno.

Wow it's flat, it's also low. Even if both those dynos made exactly the same peak HP at redline, the 1.8L would make more torque throughout. That equals a faster car.

Did you read the last part of my statement that you quoted? Meth Kit and/or higher compression ratios would have given the 1.6l the same or more torque.

It dropped off a lot of boost up top.

Really? Mine lost 2psi and still managed to peak at 7k. Did it lose like 4-5+ psi? Must be trying to run over 10psi with a stock Greddy WGA or something.

In your effort to overlook everything that's benefictial about a 1.8L turbo setup you need to quit worrying about AFRs.

It's not a fair comparison if you have one tuned like shit, and the other tuned just slightly less shitty. Just like Mr. BRG stated that the overlays I made are not a fair comparison since his tune was such shit. I accepted that, and have stopped making references to that overlay.

Please, by all means don't notice all the extra low-end you get with the 1.8L....Your Meth kit cannot provide all that torque down low.

That and a higher CR set of pistons will easily. If the Meth kit can't offset it, it will certainly get it within a few lb/ft. The higher CR would easily make that, but you might have a dangerous tune depending on the fuel you are running. Hence why I don't recommend anything over 9:1 CR unless you are doing a meth kit, just to let you take advantage of the higher CR by running good timing as well.

Now here you go, two dynos with the same peak HP. One makes "peaky" torque and it drops off towards redline. The other makes flat torque and it actually rises towards redline. Which would you prefer?

That one isn't very peak, it looks like a rough plateau, the one I called peaky had a peak and then fell back off quickly. I would rather have the one with the larger area under the curve...which could be a 1.8l low compression motor, or a higher compression with Meth kit. If you could get both for the same price, what is the argument? I never said the 1.8l wasn't a good engine, but for sub 400whp setups, you can get the same low end and peak torque and whp outputs with a well setup 1.6l for the same price as doing a swap to a 1.8l. So if you ALREADY have a 1.6l block or TWO, why the hell would you want to dump them and get a 1.8l?

Aren't you the same person who said the extra money for a AEM isn't worth it cause you can get a MSPnp for $700 less? Now you say spending $700 for a 1.8l is a good investment? Which is it? Is it about the best price or the best setup?

Cliffs: 1.6l with Meth and 9.5:1 CR = same or better low end torque and whp as 1.8l
Both cost $700.
If you already have 2 1.6l blocks, IE, a SPARE, how is it considered logical to get rid of both and get one 1.8l?
It isn't.

[ray_sir_6]

But when you add those options to the large displacment engines you get even more power. This is the point they are trying to make.

I am aware of that. The point I am trying to make is that for a 300whp Miata, you can use both a 1.8l and 1.6l. For the same money spent (since the 1.6l is already on hand, actually TWO) you can get the same power and torque (yes, even low end) as the 1.8l using a 1.6l. Plus you have a spare if something goes wrong. They seem to think that .2l less is a huge handicap and that it can't be overcome by a sound build. If you do it right, you'll have a faster 1.6l track car than a 1.8l for the same amount of money.

Max bore 1.8 is 85.5mm. 292.16cc difference. Good try, though.

Only available pistions that I found are 84.5mm for the 1.8l. Are you looking to go with custom 85.5mm pistons?

Raising CR won't improve spool, either. A lower CR motor is less efficient, which by definition means more of the gasoline burned gets turned to heat energy vs torque. That heat energy is exhausted through the turbocharger, and since half the energy used to spool the turbocharger is heat energy, the turbo will spool faster. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong, here, since theory is just theory, but I would need an identical setup with ONLY CR CHANGED - not a new exhaust, not a different head, no BS - that shows a higher CR motor spooling a turbo faster.

I'll be glad to post up dyno comparisons when I do my engine build. 9:1 stock vs 9.5:1. I won't be changing anything else. Till then we can agree to disagree on this.

Once you've spent the $700 on all of that, and let's say you do end up equal to the power, spool, response, etc. of a 1.8 - the 1.8 guy can still add meth on top of his setup and make more power than you, whereas you're stuck. So you can spend the same money you'd put into high CR pistons and a meth kit on upgrading to a 1.8 setup, get the same results... and then have an upgrade path if you want more. No matter what you spend on a 1.6 to make it equal a 1.8... the 1.8 guy can do the same mods afterwards and step ahead.

Yes. That is 100% true. But now you have 2 engine builds to pay for. We could use that same amount of money to do a small nitrous kit. Or maybe port some parts. Or install a CryO2 kit? Or run race gas? Still the same result, a 1.6l that is as good or better than the 1.8l for the same amount of money. Using the engine you already have will always be more cost efficient, if you spend your money wisely.

There is a reason lots of people swap to 1.8 motors. There is a reason people remove built 1.6s to install built 1.8s. There is a reason many people who build 1.6s end up regretting it. Just because you think something is a bad idea, doesn't actually mean it is.

I never said it was "bad idea", I said it wasn't worth it for a 300whp build. The difference is so minor that it isn't worth the extra $$$ to get a 1.8l. If you decide you want to spend some extra money, you could make the 1.6l output very similar (or even better) numbers, for less money than a 1.8l engine to swap in. So therefore you save money, and you still have that spare 1.6l if you put an "oil inspection window" in your first block. What happens if the 1.8l pops? Go spend another $700? So that's now $1400 more than the 1.6l. For that $700 he could do some cams in the 1.6l.

Any plans to reply to my last post, or is it too rational for you to wrap your head around?

Sorry, I didn't know you were sitting around waiting. I've already figured out that that is exactly your issue. My side is too logical for you to accept. I have rebutted all your reasoning with simple logic and it's baffled you to no end.

You can overcome having less displacement by being more efficient.

[ray_sir_6]

But when you add those options to the large displacment engines you get even more power. This is the point they are trying to make.

But .2l increase is a Meth kit and higher CR pistons away from being overcome. That is the point I am making. Make the 1.6l a more efficient airpump than the 1.8l and the .2l is pointless and unnecessary.

I'm going on Ray logic here.

Everyone should swap in a Ford 5.0l. Displacement is king, anyone running less is an idiot. A turbo car can NEVER compete with a big displacement engine. I don't care if you can make more power and torque with a puny 2.0l motor, it's still inferior cause I have 3.0l more.

Sorry, just using Bra logic there.

Dammit, reading comprehension fail. I assumed the 1.6L dyno Ray posted was the first one in red, oh well. I forgot Ray lives in a magical word where his turbo makes more power per psi than any other turbo miata on the planet.

All my content is still valid, I just would have went at this a different way.

Yes, they are still valid. You posted turbo 1.6l vs 1.8l making similar power. Sadly you can't comprehend the idea of adjusting the output of a 1.6l cause of the addition of a Meth kit, and higher CR pistons. I am sure you have seen changes that take affect while tuning, right? What happens when you ramp up timing from 2k rpm to redline(meth kit, in case you can't figure that out)? Hmmm....you gain TORQUE. What happens when you also add more compression to that mix (higher CR pistons, don't want you to get lost here)? Hmmm...more TORQUE. Try applying that to your 1.6l dyno's and see how they compare? What, the 1.6l would make more TORQUE.....EVERYWHERE?!? Wow, that was difficult to do, maybe you should take a break, don't want the "brain" in Braineack to die from overwork.

It's a waste of money! If you had a meth kit and a 1.6 you'd be making more power since the boost would make more displacement...

We should totally put one of those turbo diesels in a Miata. It's turbo and tons of displacement. 1.8l is soo yesterday. I mean, look at it's low-end torque. Why isn't everyone running these?

You want a great example for CR, boost, and power?
4G63 6-bolt – 7.8:1CR Stock 8psi
Rated power – 195hp

4G63 7-bolt – 8.5:1CR Stock 10psi
Rated power – 210hp

Is that a good enough comparison for compression ratios? And the 2G has a SMALLER turbo than the 1G.

No suprise the one with higher CR and more boost is making more power. What's your point?

It's running LESS airflow. Not a turbo guy, are you? Smaller turbo puts out less airflow even though it's running more psi. Some 2G DSM guys switch to the 1G turbo cause it makes more power (cause it flows more).

TD05-14B (1G DSM MT): 405 CFM @ 15 psi
T-25 (2G DSM): 325 CFM @ 15 psi

The only reason the 2G makes more power is cause of the higher CR. The 1G head actually flows better, too.

PS. I fixed my quote, too.

[Savington]

Only available pistions that I found are 84.5mm for the 1.8l. Are you looking to go with custom 85.5mm pistons?

Supertechs, available in multiple compression ratios.

Yes. That is 100% true. But now you have 2 engine builds to pay for. We could use that same amount of money to do a small nitrous kit. Or maybe port some parts. Or install a CryO2 kit? Or run race gas? Still the same result, a 1.6l that is as good or better than the 1.8l for the same amount of money. Using the engine you already have will always be more cost efficient, if you spend your money wisely.

How do you have two engine builds to pay for? The parts cost to build a 1.6 is the same as the cost to build a 1.8. You spent $700 on a meth kit and high-comp pistons, I spent $700 on a 1.8 block and 99 head to start my build with. That's the only difference. I'm not sure where this magic money to run race gas, nitrous, or porting is coming from.

I never said it was "bad idea", I said it wasn't worth it for a 300whp build. The difference is so minor that it isn't worth the extra $$$ to get a 1.8l. If you decide you want to spend some extra money, you could make the 1.6l output very similar (or even better) numbers, for less money than a 1.8l engine to swap in. So therefore you save money, and you still have that spare 1.6l if you put an "oil inspection window" in your first block. What happens if the 1.8l pops? Go spend another $700? So that's now $1400 more than the 1.6l. For that $700 he could do some cams in the 1.6l.

Are you seriously arguing that building a 1.6 is cheaper than building a 1.8 because you have a spare, just in case you blow up your built shortblock? And not just lose a ringland, or something, you're referring to a catastrophic 100% destruction failure.

[ray_sir_6]

Supertechs, available in multiple compression ratios.

Actually, only 9:1 or 11:1 CR in 85.5mm

How do you have two engine builds to pay for? The parts cost to build a 1.6 is the same as the cost to build a 1.8. You spent $700 on a meth kit and high-comp pistons, I spent $700 on a 1.8 block and 99 head to start my build with. That's the only difference. I'm not sure where this magic money to run race gas, nitrous, or porting is coming from.

My bad, I thought you mentioned also doing higher CR pistons. But you were only saying what was done to the 1.6l. The extra money is the $400 for the meth kit to go on the 1.8l.

Are you seriously arguing that building a 1.6 is cheaper than building a 1.8 because you have a spare, just in case you blow up your built shortblock? And not just lose a ringland, or something, you're referring to a catastrophic 100% destruction failure.

Yeah, a spare, plus a 1.6l ready to get built. No looking for a block, no looking for a head, just walk out to the garage.

Total engine loss happens more than you would think. Some minor issues scar up the bore so much that you can't bore it out again. So you are running 85.5mm pistons and scratch the bore, now what? A new engine is what.

Now you might be spending another $500-700 to find another block and/or 99 head. Whereas you already have the replacement block for the 1.6l.

Is it starting to make sense? That for 300whp, it just isn't worth getting a 1.8l when you already have not just 1, but 2, 1.6l blocks already. The cost of the 1.8l can easily be put in the 1.6l and you will come out better off.

That isn't saying that the 1.6l is BETTER than the 1.8l, just that for a low goal of 300whp, there isn't enough difference to require a 1.8l. The 10-20tq can be gained thru other means, which is as cost effective as the 1.8l (actually, I only spent $600 vs $700 for the 1.8l).

If the guy wanted closer to 400whp, the 1.8l would be a better option. If shooting for over 500whp, the 1.8l is the ONLY option (excluding "price doesn't matter" 1200whp 1.6l builds).

[Savington]

Actually, only 9:1 or 11:1 CR in 85.5mm

mul·ti·ple (mŭl'tə-pəl)
adj. Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component

Total engine loss happens more than you would think. Some minor issues scar up the bore so much that you can't bore it out again. So you are running 85.5mm pistons and scratch the bore, now what? A new engine is what.

No, that's not "what". Total loss means there are no salvageable parts. You threw a rod, piston tapped the head and damaged it, and you need all new everything. I total-lossed my '94 block. Threw a rod, piston tapped the head, blew the head gasket, coolant system pumped into the oil pan and spun all the rod/main bearings and scored the cams. I could have shut it down immediately, but I decided I didn't want to be stranded on the shoulder of 101 at 11pm so I drove it a mile to the next exit.

A scratched bore which requires an overbore means you have to go find a $200 shortblock, which is the same money you'd spend having another set of high-compression pistons made - if you did 85.5mm pistons, which isn't required. You can do 84s, or even 83.5s, and still get a sizeable (15%) displacement bump, with 2+ overbore sizes available.

That isn't saying that the 1.6l is BETTER than the 1.8l, just that for a low goal of 300whp, there isn't enough difference to require a 1.8l. The 10-20tq can be gained thru other means, which is as cost effective as the 1.8l (actually, I only spent $600 vs $700 for the 1.8l).

Nobody said require. We said it was a good idea. You're still trying to argue that having a spare 1.6 to replace your built 1.6 if you blow it is reason enough to not switch, which is IMO moronic. If you are planning contingencies for when your built motor fails, you have other problems.

What happens when that meth system fails? Do you get failsafes in a new system for $400? What about the additional running costs of meth? I've also given you the benefit of the doubt this entire time on this: can you prove that a meth system and high compression will add that 20wtq back on the low end? Prove with a dyno chart?

You also talk about 300whp like it's not a big deal. The turbo a lot of folks are looking at to make that power is the 2860RS. It's BEGi's turbo of choice for their 250whp+ crowd. I've driven that turbo on a 9:1 1.6 (full FM motor, so headwork as well), and it was, to be honest, awful. Poor spool, poor response between gears, and overall just too big for the motor. Excellent power when it finally kicked, but you had to wait for it.

I've tuned and ridden in a 1.9 liter car with the exact same turbo (same kit, actually, BEGi S3), and that turbo felt FAR better in the larger motor. I don't know whether his motor is an 8.6 or a 9:1. It spooled earlier, came in smoother, and was easier to drive in general. The car felt snappier on the low end as well (2-3k) no doubt a benefit of the increased displacement. I got a ride in that same car on the track, and it looked easy to drive, with no delay in boost response; I wouldn't want to drive the 1.6 with that same turbo on track.

If we were talking about 50cc or 100cc here, I could see your point, in that having the motor in the garage already makes it a more convenient starting point. We're talking about 250cc here. It's not an insignificant amount of displacement, and it provides significant benefits as a result.

[Radio-Active]

Oh, go stick a 1.3L Renisis engine in the car and turbo charge it.

[HudsonHawk]

We should totally put one of those turbo diesels in a Miata. It's turbo and tons of displacement. 1.8l is soo yesterday. I mean, look at it's low-end torque. Why isn't everyone running these?

Not enough verticle clearance under the hood. I would love to have a Turbo Diesel in a Miata. It would probably get 40 or 50 mpg.

[ray_sir_6]

mul·ti·ple (mŭl'tə-pəl)
adj. Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component

I like that. You can quote dictionary.com, maybe you should look up "pertinent" and try to count those "mul·ti·ple (mŭl'tə-pəl)" piston options again. If that is a little over your head...let me explain. Are you planning on running 11:1 CR pistons in a turbo Miata? I didn't think so. So therefore they wouldn't even be considered when determining the quantity of piston options for a 85.5mm bore 1.8l BP engine when discussing turbo builds.

No, that's not "what". Total loss means there are no salvageable parts. You threw a rod, piston tapped the head and damaged it, and you need all new everything. I total-lossed my '94 block. Threw a rod, piston tapped the head, blew the head gasket, coolant system pumped into the oil pan and spun all the rod/main bearings and scored the cams. I could have shut it down immediately, but I decided I didn't want to be stranded on the shoulder of 101 at 11pm so I drove it a mile to the next exit.

Free tow options are available in most insurance policies. You should think about adding it. You should go by the N. Dallas machine shop that does alot of Miata engines. They have quite a few blocks with "oil inspection windows" in them. They even have some that are stock 1.6l and 1.8l engines, used for SM and IT cars.

A scratched bore which requires an overbore means you have to go find a $200 shortblock, which is the same money you'd spend having another set of high-compression pistons made - if you did 85.5mm pistons, which isn't required. You can do 84s, or even 83.5s, and still get a sizeable (15%) displacement bump, with 2+ overbore sizes available.

So spend another $200 to get another block. So now you spent $200 more, whereas the 1.6l would cost $0. And there are often such deep scratches that you can't overbore it. So if you have a spare block already, you could bore it out to max and not have to worry about it, cause you got a handy spare just incase.

Nobody said require. We said it was a good idea. You're still trying to argue that having a spare 1.6 to replace your built 1.6 if you blow it is reason enough to not switch, which is IMO moronic. If you are planning contingencies for when your built motor fails, you have other problems.

More dictionary.com stuff for you...."prepared", "contingency"...look those up.

What happens when that meth system fails? Do you get failsafes in a new system for $400? What about the additional running costs of meth? I've also given you the benefit of the doubt this entire time on this: can you prove that a meth system and high compression will add that 20wtq back on the low end? Prove with a dyno chart?

Yes, you can setup the ECU (hopefully you're not running stock) to pull timing and boost if the Meth Kit fails. I know the AEM WI Kit has an output for exactly that. The Meth kit should recoup the extra costs by being more fuel efficient. The way things are going, it probably a good idea to use one just to save on gas.


Just so you know, I'll deal with the rest later. My lunch is over, so back to work.

[ray_sir_6]

I've also given you the benefit of the doubt this entire time on this: can you prove that a meth system and high compression will add that 20wtq back on the low end? Prove with a dyno chart?

I'll see if I can get my Meth Kit installed and show a tune with and without. I need to get my car retuned for the higher boost, so I am gonna try to get the kit installed before we tune. I don't have my 9.5:1 engine built yet, so I can't give that dyno comparison just yet.

You also talk about 300whp like it's not a big deal. The turbo a lot of folks are looking at to make that power is the 2860RS. It's BEGi's turbo of choice for their 250whp+ crowd. I've driven that turbo on a 9:1 1.6 (full FM motor, so headwork as well), and it was, to be honest, awful. Poor spool, poor response between gears, and overall just too big for the motor. Excellent power when it finally kicked, but you had to wait for it.

Maybe they needed a bigger BOV. I have that issue now that I raised the boost. The BOV isn't venting enough, so it's slowing the turbo, and I have to wait on it to get spooled back up when shifting. That's not the engine, that's not having the right setup.

I've tuned and ridden in a 1.9 liter car with the exact same turbo (same kit, actually, BEGi S3), and that turbo felt FAR better in the larger motor. I don't know whether his motor is an 8.6 or a 9:1. It spooled earlier, came in smoother, and was easier to drive in general. The car felt snappier on the low end as well (2-3k) no doubt a benefit of the increased displacement. I got a ride in that same car on the track, and it looked easy to drive, with no delay in boost response; I wouldn't want to drive the 1.6 with that same turbo on track.

Why not, how often are you below 4k where it's off song? Not very often, and if you are, it's probably a very slow 1st or 2d gear corner, where having too much torque can cause wheel spin and corner exit traction issues. Yes, if you are running some sticky tires, it isn't gonna be as big a deal, but on a 200+ tread tire, you'll just be getting sideways and going slower than a lower low torque setup.

If we were talking about 50cc or 100cc here, I could see your point, in that having the motor in the garage already makes it a more convenient starting point. We're talking about 250cc here. It's not an insignificant amount of displacement, and it provides significant benefits as a result.

If both engines were gonna be built identical, then I would agree with you 100%. But this is incurring further financial burden, which if used on the 1.6l, offsets the >250cc difference. If he didn't have a block (or 2) already, sure, go get a 1.8l, cause it's the same effort and expense. I would never tell someone who has a 1.8l they need to goto a 1.6l. It goes right along with what you have said, which I never desputed, that .2l is an advantage. But for 300whp, it's not one that can't be overcome with a smarter application of funds on the 1.6l.

Oh, go stick a 1.3L Renisis engine in the car and turbo charge it.

That would be a pretty cool Miata. I believe a rotary-powered Miata is also currently the world's fastest Miata.

Not enough verticle clearance under the hood. I would love to have a Turbo Diesel in a Miata. It would probably get 40 or 50 mpg.

Doesn't BMW or someone make a I4 turbo diesel that is setup for RWD that was imported? Maybe a custom subframe and some hood modifications would allow it to fit???

[Titus]

[jeff_man]

[Savington]

So spend another $200 to get another block. So now you spent $200 more, whereas the 1.6l would cost $0. And there are often such deep scratches that you can't overbore it. So if you have a spare block already, you could bore it out to max and not have to worry about it, cause you got a handy spare just incase.

The same $200 you'd spend to have another set of high-comp pistons made for the 1.6 - unless you're in the business of re-using pistons that came out of a motor with a scored cylinder wall.

Yes, you can setup the ECU (hopefully you're not running stock) to pull timing and boost if the Meth Kit fails. I know the AEM WI Kit has an output for exactly that. The Meth kit should recoup the extra costs by being more fuel efficient. The way things are going, it probably a good idea to use one just to save on gas.

1. Your argument at this point, as I understand it, is that you can use a meth kit and high-compression pistons to offset the torque delta between a 1.6 and a 1.8. You're arguing that you can make the 1.6 more finnicky by adding a methanol setup, or you can spend the same money and put a 1.8 in. Why would anyone in their right mind choose the more finnicky setup? KISS - keep it simple, stupid.

2. 240 miles, 30mph average speed (most cars average 30mph give or take a couple mph over the course of their lifetime), 8 hours of driving. Let's say you're on it 5% of the time, or .4 hours (20 minutes). Assuming a 3gph nozzle, you'll burn a gallon per tank. Half a gallon of meth is $3.50 or so where I live, plus half a gallon of distilled water at around $.50. $4 extra per tank. At $2.50 a gallon for gas, assuming you use 10 gallons, this raises the cost per tank from $25 to $29, or a 16% increase. Can you prove that a meth/water system will add 3mpg average to the car?

I don't have my 9.5:1 engine built yet, so I can't give that dyno comparison just yet.

So you're just speculating, without any solid facts or proof?

Maybe they needed a bigger BOV. I have that issue now that I raised the boost. The BOV isn't venting enough, so it's slowing the turbo, and I have to wait on it to get spooled back up when shifting. That's not the engine, that's not having the right setup.

Funny, the 1.8 cars with THE SAME FUCKING BOV didn't have that problem. That only addresses the post-shift, response, too; what about the poor spool and overall low-end response loss I felt in the 1.6?

If both engines were gonna be built identical, then I would agree with you 100%. But this is incurring further financial burden, which if used on the 1.6l, offsets the >250cc difference.

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDEN. We already went down this road: I spend $700 on a 99 motor, you spend $700 on pistons and a meth kit. The motor blows up, I spend $200-300 on a shortblock and you spend $200-300 on another set of pistons.

If he didn't have a block (or 2) already, sure, go get a 1.8l, cause it's the same effort and expense. I would never tell someone who has a 1.8l they need to goto a 1.6l. It goes right along with what you have said, which I never desputed, that .2l is an advantage. But for 300whp, it's not one that can't be overcome with a smarter application of funds on the 1.6l.

Even WITH his pair of 1.6 blocks, it's the same effort and expense to get the same results out of a 1.8 as it would be getting those results out of a 1.6.

You're grasping at straws, here.

[miataspeedracer]

Why?

Why?

Why????

[black roadster]

[ray_sir_6]

The same $200 you'd spend to have another set of high-comp pistons made for the 1.6 - unless you're in the business of re-using pistons that came out of a motor with a scored cylinder wall.

And I guess we just assume that the 99 head is just fine? How much was it for that special head? $500? Unless your into using a head that probably smacked a valve and possibly crammed one thru the dome.

1. Your argument at this point, as I understand it, is that you can use a meth kit and high-compression pistons to offset the torque delta between a 1.6 and a 1.8. You're arguing that you can make the 1.6 more finnicky by adding a methanol setup, or you can spend the same money and put a 1.8 in. Why would anyone in their right mind choose the more finnicky setup? KISS - keep it simple, stupid.

Why would you bother doing anything besides just using what you already have 2 of?? Can't get anymore simple than that.

2. 240 miles, 30mph average speed (most cars average 30mph give or take a couple mph over the course of their lifetime), 8 hours of driving. Let's say you're on it 5% of the time, or .4 hours (20 minutes). Assuming a 3gph nozzle, you'll burn a gallon per tank. Half a gallon of meth is $3.50 or so where I live, plus half a gallon of distilled water at around $.50. $4 extra per tank. At $2.50 a gallon for gas, assuming you use 10 gallons, this raises the cost per tank from $25 to $29, or a 16% increase. Can you prove that a meth/water system will add 3mpg average to the car?

This is a TRACK CAR. How often are you:
A ) below 4k rpm, where the torque from a 1.8l would make a difference?
B ) Going WOT only 5% of the time.

So you're just speculating, without any solid facts or proof?

I already showed a perfect example with the 4G63 engines. I'm sorry if solid facts from OEM sources aren't considered "solid facts" to you. Something about water and a horse keeps coming to mind, oh well. If that's not good enough for you, than you can just wait till I get my 9.5:1 engine together.

Funny, the 1.8 cars with THE SAME FUCKING BOV didn't have that problem. That only addresses the post-shift, response, too; what about the poor spool and overall low-end response loss I felt in the 1.6?

Well, it could be the tune, or a few other things. But I don't really see what that has to do with this discussion. The 1.6l and 1.8l could both have had 9:1 pistons for all you know, and the 1.6l wasn't running Meth, so it really has no relevance.

Following that form: My wife has a 1.8T VW (ARP Chip) and I have driven it. The Miata is faster in every way, despite running more boost (slightly smaller turbo), a better flowing head (20V), plus .2l more. From a dig, from a roll, and from a high roll, I just romp the hell out it. 1.6T > 1.8T.

Relevance = zero

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDEN. We already went down this road: I spend $700 on a 99 motor, you spend $700 on pistons and a meth kit. The motor blows up, I spend $200-300 on a shortblock and you spend $200-300 on another set of pistons.

...and that $500 99 head. And you just brought this up for the first time in this same post of yours. Sorry if there was alot to reply to and you got a little confused by what post you mentioned that in.

Even WITH his pair of 1.6 blocks, it's the same effort and expense to get the same results out of a 1.8 as it would be getting those results out of a 1.6.

You're grasping at straws, here.

Really? So I guess he just walked out to his garage and found a 1.8l block, and a 99 head just sitting there? Wow, it must have been a MIRACLE! Praise Jesus! That is more effort right there, and the 1.6l block was possibly $100 under the cost of the 1.8l, depending on the deal he got on the pistons ($200-300).

I just happen to work at a shop that carries Wiseco, so I got a pretty damn good deal on my custom pistons....but we're not talking about my 1.6l build here.

[Keifersmith]

So did you finally decide to ditch your two 1.6's and go with the 1.8 after all?



MIATA 1.6 ENGINE AND PARTS - $150 (PLANO)

Date: 2009-08-05, 11:28AM CDT
Reply to: [email protected] [Errors when replying to ads?]



HAVE TWO REBUILDABLE 1.6 ENGINES, WITH RODS, PISTONS, BLOCKS, AND GOOD CYLINDER HEADS. LOTS OF OTHERE LITTLE PARTS INCLUDED, WATER PUMPS, IN GOOD CONDITION USED CLUTCH AND PRESSURE PLATES, AND OIL PAN. I HAVE IGNITION COILS, AND ACCESSORIE PULLEYS, FUEL INJECTORS, AND INTAKE MANIFOLD... IM LOCATED IN PLANO, CALL 214-440-9699

• Location: PLANO
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 1307173156

• Copyright © 2009 craigs