199 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Lets start this discussion with reference to the torque of the 1.6 and the 99 suggesting that the 1.6 can not win a drag race below 5,500 rpm and the 1.6 has a slight edge above 5,500 rpm.  Consider all other items within the car to be equal (pretend the 1.6 engine is in a 99 chassis) to simplify discussion. Please let's not say we don't race below 5,500 rpm because that would not be factual. The frequency of racing below 5,500 rpm is less than we race above 5,500 rpm. The question is, how can we make the torque more equal between the 1.6 and the 99 below 5,500 rpm? The dyno graph picture is worth more than a thousand words. Per rpm look at the percent difference between the two engines. Or per rpm reduce the torque to pure load in pounds. IMHJ, any way one looks at the torque comparison below 5,500 rpm there response should be, that isn't even close to equal, how can they race equal. There can be a similar case altho not so great made for the 99 above 5,500 rpm. I did bring this torque item up at the Runoffs Spec Miata lunch meeting. My take is they know there is a sizable difference in the torque between the 1.6 and the 99. Sort of a challenge was thrown out, how do we make the torque more equal. My comment was, I'm not a motor builder. The intent of this post is not to bash anyone. The intent is to have everyone (1.6, 1.8, 99 +) play nice and agree the torque below 5,500 rpm needs to be more equal. From my reading this site the 99 evolution is occuring on the left coast. 

Thanks to Jim Drago for posting the dyno files.

 

David Dewhurst

 

Blue is the 2002

Purple is the 1999

Red is the 1.6

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

[bmw251]

By the looks of cars for sale... The answer is to sell your 1.6 and buy/ build a 99+... I am wondering if a set of mild cams could solve this issue.
The 1.6 guys are getting hit hard in the wallet .... Shoot ....there are even deals on 94-97 cars.... No deals on 99+...
If all are close , why does the market place look this way.?.....Ooooooops sorry.... Cams could be the answer.

Greg

[Kyle Freiheit]

Jim,

  Would you say that dyno comparison is a fair representation of the top prep on all of those year/cars? My gut says that 99 and 2002 are both really good numbers maybe not the highest and the 1.6 may be the best. 

 

Kyle

[Jim Drago]

Jim,
  Would you say that dyno comparison is a fair representation of the top prep on all of those year/cars? My gut says that 99 and 2002 are both really good numbers maybe not the highest and the 1.6 may be the best. 
 
Kyle

Are we really going to go there this soon in the thread? I said those were national winning numbers on each, not the best when posted, David just brought the graph over and not the text. I very clearly stated that when posted originally.

My 99 made 130.6/120.5 before leaving for the Runoffs, The best 01 I have seen makes just shy of 130/125 and that same 1.6 made 127.2/110.4. That was in first 15 runs when not remotely broken in. It made consistant 128's for three seasons after that once broken in. I'll post that sheet tomorrow since the car is gone now. All of those top numbers are obtainable by me a VERY select few others, they are by far the outliers, not the norm. The numbers in the sheet can be hit by most with a very good effort and the top guys pretty routinely. Imo that makes for the best comparison. Then my 130 will be 133 on different dynojets people use to sell engines and 127 on others. Dyno numbers, even dynojet with same correction in our class are meaningless, less compared back to back on the same dyno IMO.

I know not intentional, but this why so many are reluctant to post anything in these threads, it changes nothing, opinions are usually formed and people see only what they want to see, in both directions.

[Sebastian Landy]

Isn't this the type of thread to be started in the morning? 

[Kyle Freiheit]

Jim,

   I guess we got it out of the way early. I think that either the dyno sheet numbers or even your latter clarification are all definitely comparable but like you said the 1.6 is an outlier or not the norm even from other top builders. Seems its alot easier to the get 99+ numbers because of the plate as the plate definitely masks some of the things that a top 1.6 has to do.  

 

Obviously,  HP/Torque isn't the whole equation to thrust but where do we go from here? Are we as close as we can get with weights and plates and stock off-the-shelf parts? I'm not so sure how I would feel about going down a slippery slope of giving the 1.6 engine some non stock allowance to attempt to help with torque. If there is any allowance ever again for the 1.6 it has to make the car race well during a race(torque, temps etc) and over a season(less dyno time etc)

 

Where does that leave us then? Horses for different courses? 1.6s selling for pennies on the dollar? Cams? ECUs? 1.8 Swaps?

[Ron Alan]

 that same 1.6 made 127.2/110.4. That was in first 15 runs when not remotely broken in. It made consistant 128's for three seasons after that once broken in. I'll post that sheet tomorrow since the car is gone now. 

Better bring this car and a top driver to Laguna next year...thats a winner!

[Jamz14]

The dyno sheet showed most of the years. There are some missing.

[DrDomm]

What about '94's and '96's?  Just curious.

[Bench Racer]

The dyno sheet showed most of the years. There are some missing.

 

What about '94's and '96's?  Just curious.

The thread is working with the 1.6, 99 and 2002 because they were all run on the same dyno. Because I've never viewed graphs of the other engines using the same dyno, no comments on the other engines. And because my car is a pretty good 1.6 with dyno work on a DynaPack. For what it's worth my peak torque is a tad lower with the horsepower a bit higher and holds a bit further.  

 

Getting back on thread point, under 5,500 rpm the with all else being equal the 1.6 will loose the drag race to the 99.

 

 

 

 We dont race dynos, the video posted clearly demonstrates the best car in the video was the 1.6. But that is not the topic of this thread, it was about the TQ differential

 

Jim and I have had has this ^ discussion in the past and results viewed on this video clearly can be looked at more than one way.

[Jim Drago]

What about '94's and '96's?  Just curious.

 I did not have one on my dyno or would have posted.  

[Kyle Freiheit]

Are we really going to go there this soon in the thread? I said those were national winning numbers on each, not the best when posted, David just brought the graph over and not the text. I very clearly stated that when posted originally.

My 99 made 130.6/120.5 before leaving for the Runoffs, The best 01 I have seen makes just shy of 130/125 and that same 1.6 made 127.2/110.4. That was in first 15 runs when not remotely broken in. It made consistant 128's for three seasons after that once broken in. I'll post that sheet tomorrow since the car is gone now. All of those top numbers are obtainable by me a VERY select few others, they are by far the outliers, not the norm. The numbers in the sheet can be hit by most with a very good effort and the top guys pretty routinely. Imo that makes for the best comparison. Then my 130 will be 133 on different dynojets people use to sell engines and 127 on others. Dyno numbers, even dynojet with same correction in our class are meaningless, less compared back to back on the same dyno IMO.

I know not intentional, but this why so many are reluctant to post anything in these threads, it changes nothing, opinions are usually formed and people see only what they want to see, in both directions.

Jim,

  Seems I have struck a nerve. I apologize. Whether its comparing 125/110(which I have seen) to 128/118 or 127-128/110-111 to 130/120, the numbers are comparable. 

 

 Not sure where to go from here, the dynos are just data and so is the race track. This is definitely a perception vs reality thing. The reality is "horses for different courses". The west coast(5 years behind the east coast) is finally dumping the 1.6. Some guys are even talking of keeping their 1.6s AND building a 99. I know I am.

 

Kyle

[Jim Drago]

Whether its comparing 125/110(which I have seen) to 128/118 or 127-128/110-111 to 130/120, the numbers are comparable.

Exactly.
When asked for unbiased and representative numbers, then you provide them, post them and the first guys questions the validity of the numbers, it definitely strikes a nerve with me. Apology accepted.

I have been asked to stay out of this thread so people can come up with their own ideas and opinions, so that is what I am going to do. If you have a direct question PM or email.
One thing you may consider is allowing IT prep in 1.6 engines
Jim

[Tom Sager]

What about '94's and '96's?  Just curious.

The 1.6 is simply a very different car than a '99+ and also different compared to '94-'97.  There are certainly ways to make the engine characteristics more similar to a '99 but it'll cost money.  Torque and power characteristics are one difference but the suspension, weight and weight distribution are other very meaningful differences.  The rules today are an attempt to balance all this.  We're going to continue the balancing act until such time that everything older than a '99 is gone (I think some want that and if you were starting the class today a case could be made).  I think the 1.6 camp needs to decide if they are willing to spend the money for more "sameness" in the rules and if so they can make the requests.  I think allowing the early 1.8 engine in the 1.6 car is a good idea but right now that comes with a 50 pound penalty and that combination has not proved to be a winner in the past couple years.  The suspension difference to me is a big difference that often gets overlooked in this debate.  

 

The '99 and '01 have the same chassis and same weight.  One makes a little more peak power up top and the other makes a little more power down low but they are very similar cars.  The 1.6 and '94-'97 have basically the same chassis.  One makes a little more power up top (1.6) and the other makes a little more power down low ('94-'97).  However, the '94-'97 is penalized 50 pounds.  This is the reason the '94-'97 is the least competitive car.  You could call it the '01 of the NA cars.  It needs to race closer to the 1.6 weight or it needs a bigger plate to allow it to accelerate more like a '99+.    

[Bench Racer]

I have been asked to stay out of this thread so people can come up with their own ideas and opinions, so that is what I am going to do.One thing you may consider is allowing IT prep in 1.6 engines
Jim

Jim, if your refering to our PRIVATE e-mails of today, I didn't suggest you stay out of this thread. I in fact I just responded to your last e-mail suggesting your value added to this thread. I did ask you to drop your threats referencing equaler torque/horsepower versus weight because those threats would keep folks from taking part IMHJ. No masking required in this thread, only open comunication.

 

I'm trying to saty out of this thread other than to answer someones question. I would like to hear everyones input.

 

David

[Jamz14]

Jim,

 

Id PM you if I could. I think your box is full

[Jim Drago]

I have been told thank you.. just emptied box

My comment about additional weight was certainly not meant as a threat. Just pointing out( what I thought would be common sense) that the 1.6 cars are lighter partly because of the TQ differential. If the cars have a similar hp curves, similar tQ curves, the weights would also need to be similar.


I am going to stay out and let this thread take it's course as well, I certainly don't want to curtail the discussion.

[pat slattery]

Of all the SM runoff races at Road America, what was the highest finish for a 1.6 at the runoffs over the 4-5 years that it was there.  

[Ron Alan]

Not sure, but i may have been the one who suggested David post up this thread which was part of another parity thread. I get his desire to find a way to equal the 2 different motors in this area. I'm not an engine builder and unfortunately cant contribute a well thought out solution for this question. But as Tom said, you cant discuss parity without looking at ALL aspects(and this is a parity question)of the 4 different cars...its impossible! 

 

For what its worth, a 94 and a 1.6 won this weekend at Sonoma over 2 very well prepped and driven 99's and  one 2001. 

 

Back to torque parity!

[Johnny D]

Not sure, but i may have been the one who suggested David post up this thread which was part of another parity thread. I get his desire to find a way to equal the 2 different motors in this area. I'm not an engine builder and unfortunately cant contribute a well thought out solution for this question. But as Tom said, you cant discuss parity without looking at ALL aspects(and this is a parity question)of the 4 different cars...its impossible! 

 

For what its worth, a 94 and a 1.6 won this weekend at Sonoma over 2 very well prepped and driven 99's and  one 2001. 

 

Back to torque parity!

 

^^^We only use 4th gear, I'm thinking it's a 5th gear track issue. If it an issue at all.

Miller Runoffs turned out NA winners too, so east coast issue ?

 

Back to

J~