563 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

The dyno  sheet that Jim provided (thank you Jim) of Todd Buras's 1.6 is I think that everyone in the know will agree that car is hands down the top 1.6 in the country. So we are looking at a car that is the overdog of all 1.6 cars IMHO.  Does any other 1.6 owner out there get more than 110.9 torque on a dynojet  with SAE correction factor.

Pat
Are you saying we built Todds engine to a better standard than I would build mine or Craigs? Why would I do that? That is 1-2 at the Runoffs in that video, I think it is fair to say those are two of the best 99's in the country as well, good enough for 1-2 at the runoffs. Fair enough?

So you are looking at three of the top ten out there. Those are three of the best 99's that have left our shop and the ONLY 1.6 we have done. Stands to reason, we can probably do better if I put 10% the time in the 1.6 as I have in the 99's?

[Jim Drago]

Your point two, we are watching a pro driver in a 1.6.
 
Some places I sholdn't go but, ow well.
 
The 1st part of the video the 99's could pass the 1.6 at will. Buras passed Berry after Drago softened up Berry and Berry wisely gave Buras T12. An observation, nothing more nothing less.

Just a general opinion...
My definition of a Pro driver is someone who gets paid to race cars for a living, bottom end of that spectrum would be a guy like Randy Pobst.

By your definition, Anyone in this video I would call a "pro". If you can run at the front of a well attended major, the Sprints or the Runoffs. You can run with ANY "pro" using your definition, Todd included. BTW, Tom Long does make his living driving cars, so I would consider him a "pro"

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As I remember it Burgas say he always buys whatever tired tires Donny steyn sells... so I read that yo say early in race everyone has better tires then he pro in the pos 1.6 yes the car stands tall... what's your next stupid point?

[pat slattery]

Pat
Are you saying we built Todds engine to a better standard than I would build mine or Craigs? Why would I do that? That is 1-2 at the Runoffs in that video, I think it is fair to say those are two of the best 99's in the country as well, good enough for 1-2 at the runoffs. Fair enough?

So you are looking at three of the top ten out there. Those are three of the best 99's that have left our shop and the ONLY 1.6 we have done. Stands to reason, we can probably do better if I put 10% the time in the 1.6 as I have in the 99's

I am saying that 1.6 is the best in the country and don't believe that car is typical of most 1.6 cars, and if I am wrong, I wish other 1.6 owners or builders tell me I am wrong. I am certain that your cars are top of the line also Jim

[FTodaro]

Can someone interpret the sign language? It looked Italian to me.

So, if you have a top prep car and can drive, it looks like the 1.6 is pritty good. Maybe it's time for the folks who think they are at a disadvantage, need to examine car prep and driving skill before the claim that it's the rules holding them back.

It we are going to keep this going then I want a special rule for drivers over the age of 55.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

My 2000 for that matter pat is not the typical or representative of most 99-00 car out there.. there are very few as fast, charb admit mine faster then his at cota when I pushed him down entire front straight. Drago has tough time getting on my bumper at stl major. So your point is mute.... spend time and money on car any caveman can do it... no matter what model

[Johnny D]

Top drivers, top prep cars in the top race, sounds right to me.

 

Not the best the driver, not top prepped, join the club to most of us.

Kind of why we have these things isn't, to see who is?

J~

[Jim Drago]

I am saying that 1.6 is the best in the country and don't believe that car is typical of most 1.6 cars, and if I am wrong, I wish other 1.6 owners or builders tell me I am wrong. I am certain that your cars are top of the line also Jim

Probably over stepping bounds.. But Miatacage has one of my 99 engines, the difference between it and their 1.6 cars is comparable to the difference in Todds and our 99's.

I really don't know any better comparison. I will concede that is a very good 1.6, maybe the best. I will also add that there is no 99 better than Sandlins. So how much better can we get, arguably the best of each vintage? Does anyone who has raced against Pats 99 disagree with that staement? The other two 99's obviously aren't that shabby either.

[Johnny D]

If the Parity was set at typical, it would be all screwed up at the top.

J~

[Cnj]

I am saying that 1.6 is the best in the country and don't believe that car is typical of most 1.6 cars, and if I am wrong, I wish other 1.6 owners or builders tell me I am wrong. I am certain that your cars are top of the line also Jim

Pat, I am a loss to follow your logic. Agreed that "typical" 1.6's probably don't match the Buras car. So what? "Typical" 99's don't match Sandlin or Berry's either. The video shows top cars running against each other showing very similar (not neccassarily identical) performance. I have no doubt that a less well prepped "typical" 1.6 (or 99) would have difficulty keeping up with this group.

CNJ

[Danny Steyn]

For the interest of the class (less any agenda by Mazda) I personally believe that both the 1.6's and the 1.8's need a concession. IMHO there are way too few of them seriously competing.

 

Jim, with respect to Todd's car, IMHO it is an outlier, and we have all seen cars that have just made better numbers and performed better than they should. Unfortunately this happens less often than the reverse, when, despite doing  everything perfectly, for some reason the engine just does not produce what you would expect of it.

 

Once again, IMHO using a sample set of 1 to establish a rule set is not the sensible way to do it. In the case of '99's we have many examples of cars making similar numbers. What would be interesting to see is how many 1.6's are duplicating Todd's numbers. In the absence of others, it would make sense to adjust to something that is seen on a regular basis amongst the top 1.6's (1nd 1.8's).

[Danny Steyn]

DD. IMHO Road America is one of the tracks where we spend the LEAST amount of time below 5500 RPM.

[38bfast]

It has been said over and over again. You can build a killer 1.6 but its a pain in the ass and the cost is higher than a 1.8 or 99. So why bother. Most of the top teams have figured this out and have moved on to the newer cars.

If your are a die hard 1.6 fan Jim or I can build you a killer 1.6. Just be prepared for how much it will take to make that happen.

Denny, there are a lot more 1.6s out there that have great power numbers. That does not mean they have the total package of driver/setup/power/motivation/time and money. As you know all required to run at the pointy end in SM.

[AW33COM]

What would be interesting to see is how many 1.6's are duplicating Todd's numbers.

 

I can tell you right away, watching that video above was very depressing.  My stock 1.6 does not even sound like the car in the movie.  The 1.6 above sounds like an 9000RPM rev-ving Honda comparing to my car.  I know the comparison is not fair, but Jesus.   If my 1.6 engine can sound like that alone, the parity is fine.  

 

Speaking of parity, can someone explain me how it was calculated?   Was it all based on stock power to weight, pro build power to weight, or what? 

[Ron Alan]

I know you got my point...

 

David...if you have already posted YOUR EXACT torque solution, I apologize for missing it...can you post it again?  Will it be possible to make this change without changing the overall HP/Weight ratio in the 1.6? Do you also propose changing the rev limiter in the 1.8 cars so they can at least be equal to the 1.6 at the top shift points? Actually never mind on that last question...short shifting puts us in a great torque range  

 

We do have 2014 left on the current performance adjustments correct? To bad, because the 1.6 could really be made an overdog for Laguna and make a lot of West Coasters happy! As it stands, the East Coasters will have a small chance still    

 

Ron, my focus remains very narrow. 1.6 torque under 5,200 rpm. I'm attempting to open dialog on getting the 1.6 torque under 5,200 rpm on equal ground with the "plus" cars. Who wins the straight line race under 5,200 rpm a 1.6 or 99 plus.

 

 

 

 

 

Kyle's post may be part of the solution for the 1.6 torque improvement under 5,200 rpm. Ron, what are your thoughts on this?

You did not answer my questions?? Or did you actually think of Kyles solution prior to what he posted and had to include him in? You are asking for a very specific change to the 1.6...how do YOU achieve this???  How I would do this doesn't matter...because I would be talking out my Johnny and don't care. But if your proposal makes sense and can be achieved with a reasonable cost solution(and does not affect the power to weight ratio in the 1.6) then i would go to bat with you! Would you go to bat with me to have all rev limiters equal?

 

We just had a pretty big event last month at Sonoma...70 cars. Top 1.6 drivers/cars as well as 99 drivers/cars. In 3 races, I believe a 1.6 car took a win, 2nd, and 3rd. Basically,  at this track, the 99 car was not dominant.

[LarryKing]

Just out of curiousity was Berry pushing Buras up the hill every lap in the video Jim posted?

[Jim Drago]

Jim, with respect to Todd's car, IMHO it is an outlier, and we have all seen cars that have just made better numbers and performed better than they should. Unfortunately this happens less often than the reverse, when, despite doing  everything perfectly, for some reason the engine just does not produce what you would expect of it.
 
Once again, IMHO using a sample set of 1 to establish a rule set is not the sensible way to do it. In the case of '99's we have many examples of cars making similar numbers. What would be interesting to see is how many 1.6's are duplicating Todd's numbers. In the absence of others, it would make sense to adjust to something that is seen on a regular basis amongst the top 1.6's (1nd 1.8's).

Since I have known you, you gave been down 2-3 Hp to everyone at the front, your words not mine. When I say I think the cars are close like at Atlanta, you say "Yes, but yours was down" So by your definition, again, not mine. What do you think would happen if we pulled the plates? It seems the plates may be keeping some in the game here and perhaps why you feel the 99 up cars are close and repeatable? As you know, there are no plates in the 1.6, so we don't have the crutch of the plate to equalize the best with average 1.6's. Whatever you gain shows on the track and is not hidden under the plate effect like it is in the 99 up cars. If we pulled the plates tomorrow, there would be a A LOT of very upset 99+ owners that are VERY content right now.

If someone wants a 1.6 car as fast as Todds or faster, all they need to do is build one or write a check. Not just to me either, to ANY reputable car builder. The reason you don't see more of these cars is the cost and posts like yours and others calling them outliers, non competitive and not attainable. Also because of posts like mine saying they are more expensive to build, harder to maintain in top form and still harder to drive than the 99's. Why bother? That does not change the fact that in top form the 1.6 cars CAN compete and WIN at any track. I think it is fair to say that Todd's 1.6 car beat you and I far more than we beat it. Yet, neither of us are crying foul? Sometimes you just lose!

If we change to adjust to the middle as it appears you and many others suggest, the 1.6 would be the only car winning. The guys in 1.6 cars that are complaining now would still be complaining and be just as far behind, I know that sounds harsh, but that is the reality. And in no way was any one car used to make the rules.

[Bench Racer]

Jim, I used a bad word "equal" torque, I should have used my percent numbers for the 1.6 torque being less than the 99 under 5,500 rpm. You mentioned (your words) a 4,500 rpm out of T5, only you have the on track data. If in fact the 1.6 data you posted is the same 1.6 that turned 4,500 rpm out of T5 are you telling me (us) that being 20 foot pounds less on torque the 1.6 can pull up the hill with the 99's. That 1.6 my friend in an outlier, or. There are outliers at both ends of the curve that skew results. Now so that I don't say any "harsh" things I'll sign off on this subject with you.

 

Danny, I understand.

 

Johnny, 75% (maybe more) of us are not at the pointy end.

 

Ron, I do not have a solution for closing the torque gap under 5,500 rpm. Yes indeed I did e-mail two places about a piggy back before Kyle posted. One response was, buy it and try it. Have not heard back from MegaSquirt. Also have an e-mail to an engine builder on how to close the torque gap. Told him I don't require details, only can it be done and how much. When you talk about power to weight ratio, be careful because some folks in the past have refered to their power formula. Improving torque under 5,500 without crossing the line does not impact the hp/weight ratio. Keep in mind use the hp/weight ratio above 5,200 and the torque/weight ratio below 5,200 rpm.

 

Damn, I wish it was the fall of 2014. 

[pat slattery]

Pat, I am a loss to follow your logic. Agreed that "typical" 1.6's probably don't match the Buras car. So what? "Typical" 99's don't match Sandlin or Berry's either. The video shows top cars running against each other showing very similar (not neccassarily identical) performance. I have no doubt that a less well prepped "typical" 1.6 (or 99) would have difficulty keeping up with this group.

CNJ

 

CNJ, using the best 1.6 in the country, as an example, the numbers still didn't bode  well for any 1.6 under 5500 rpms. I bet you can and will find many 99 cars that are equal or closer to the 99 examples than you will that one particular 1.6.  By the way it is my understanding that Mr. Buras has ditched his 1.6 for a 2001 car. 

[JRHille]

Give the 1.6 mega squirt plus some other reasonable mod. then give it a plate and adjust accordingly. Would keep costs away cost of having to flow multiple intakes and heads??