ABF power
in [Tuning]
|
From: Depresion on 24 Jul 2007 09:30 "Doki" <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:46a5a407$0$24747$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk... > What's a realistic power output for an ABF (16V MK3 Golf engine) running on > megasquirt with standard everything? And what would be realistic with a bit > of porting? A lot of people wander around claiming "The ABF was designed > with rally use in mind so it'll hit 170 horses dead easy, the reason it > makes 150 in the Golf is because they needed a gap between the GTI and the > VR6". Which smells a bit bullshitty to me. Well VW stuck in a restrictive inlet manifold and throttle body on the G40 polo to bring the speed down below the 16v Mk2 Golf.
From: Sandy Nuts on 24 Jul 2007 11:06 "Tim.." <the.farm.no(a)spam.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:SvqdnSrgKM-tczjbRVnyhAA(a)bt.com... > > "Sandy Nuts" <not(a)forme.com> wrote in message > news:KRlpi.3183$By5.548(a)text.news.blueyonder.co.uk... >> "Doki" <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:46a5a407$0$24747$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk... >>> What's a realistic power output for an ABF (16V MK3 Golf engine) running >>> on megasquirt with standard everything? And what would be realistic with >>> a bit of porting? A lot of people wander around claiming "The ABF was >>> designed with rally use in mind so it'll hit 170 horses dead easy, the >>> reason it makes 150 in the Golf is because they needed a gap between the >>> GTI and the VR6". Which smells a bit bullshitty to me. >> >> Not really. The Corsa GSi C16XE engine was producing 150bhp when designed >> by Lotus. GM needed to wind the power back because it would compete with >> the Astra GSi. > > Same as the 1.4- Vx invented that nightmare 3 piece-mile-long inlet > manifold that strangles both motors whilst still allowing reasonable > torque... The X series of small block 16v engines aren't as good. The C16XE was the original with slightly better flowing head, then the X14XE 1.4 was introduced as a smaller bored X16XE. I can testify to the potential of these engines as a friend had an X14XE producing 132bhp on a set of R1 carbs.
From: Burgerman on 24 Jul 2007 11:40 "SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message news:1i1rcfj.18vd82kt673aaN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... > Burgerman <burgerman(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> "Doki" <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:46a5a407$0$24747$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk... >> > What's a realistic power output for an ABF (16V MK3 Golf engine) >> > running >> > on megasquirt with standard everything? And what would be realistic >> > with a >> > bit of porting? A lot of people wander around claiming "The ABF was >> > designed with rally use in mind so it'll hit 170 horses dead easy, the >> > reason it makes 150 in the Golf is because they needed a gap between >> > the >> > GTI and the VR6". Which smells a bit bullshitty to me. >> >> >> >> A real corrected 120 at the wheels. Guestimate. > > And that's exactly why I refuse to believe most dyno figures. > > Real 'corrected' figure, ffs. > > You've just guesstimated a guesstimate. > -- Do you have any idea of what a corrected figure is? Without a correction factor which is the real measured totally accurate as produced power in Kw or Hp (just as a ruller measures inches or a volt meter volts) simply corrected to a standard 20 degrees C and 1019 mbars. It means we can directly compare runs done on different days and at different temperatures and pressures as well as altitude. On a correctly designed dyno the actual standard used (such as DIN 70020 or ISO or ECE or is SAE-J1349 which are all practically identical but by different organisations) is displayed alongside the HP graph axis. Such as HP corrected to DIN 70020. And the actual correction factor value used eg CF: 0.01323 as a typivcal value should also be displayed. And you can choose to display non corrected figures if you prefer. But they are less useful. EG How can you test a vehicle at sea level on one dyno and then modify it and test it again at say bruntingthorp? Without correcting for absolute barometric and temperature the results cannot be directly compared. So if a manufacturer claims say 190bhp he must also state the correction factor and the standard and where the measurement was taken. Crank (engine dyno only you CANNOT do this on a chassis dyno. (Although some try because people like bigger numbers but its never correct) Wheels, or a value invented by the marketing department. Without the above qualifying statements any power figure is totally meaningless.
From: SteveH on 24 Jul 2007 11:56 Burgerman <burgerman(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > Without the above qualifying statements any power figure is totally > meaningless. Erm, yes. Exactly. Most internet power claims are bullshit, 'cos you have no idea what magical correction figures have been used to make a particular tuner's product look good / give the owner bragging rights. -- SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
From: Burgerman on 24 Jul 2007 13:00
"SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message news:1i1rln9.166epsi3v1o6nN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... > Burgerman <burgerman(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> Without the above qualifying statements any power figure is totally >> meaningless. > > Erm, yes. Exactly. > > Most internet power claims are bullshit, 'cos you have no idea what > magical correction figures have been used to make a particular tuner's > product look good / give the owner bragging rights. > That wasnt the argument. You said >> You've just guesstimated a guesstimate. And I explained to you exactly why a corrected figure is no guestimate and you cut the rest because you dont like being wrong. |