373 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

topgear, use the address below, page 3, scroll down to post #51 by Jim Drago for 1.6, 99 and 02 dyno graph overlays. Posted in as an educational helpful post, nothing more, nothing less. Read the entire twenty some pages, this has been beat to death many times. The graph clearly shows the disparency of torque at lower rpm's. Read

 

http://mazdaracers.c...ead-2034/page-3

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Why can't we just get a supplier for a ecu ?

I was looking at a couple other sites and they are claiming 15-20 more TQ at the low end (1500-3000 rpm) right where we need it and they had the dyno chart on the site. One of them was a megasquirt ecu.

Does anyone know if this is true,or has anyone tried it on a dyno ?

[MPR22]

"Your point four, no facts but will guess the dyno difference between a MazdaComp LS and a Torsen will be dyno noise. Nothing sigifigant other than a couple pound of static weight."

I agree, my Mazdacomp exploded this year so I swapped to a Torsen. There was a noticeable difference in the feel of the car, but I didn't notice a difference in speed. I just threw the dyno comparison in out of curiosity.

 

Its superiority isn't weight related, it certainly wouldn't show on the dyno.  Its superiority lies in that it is a true limited slip diff.   The Torsen acts like an open diff when one or the other of the rear wheels is unloaded.  If you notice the difference between and Torsen and Mazda comp, you are not driving the car hard enough.

[Steve Scheifler]

Not true. There is more rotating mass in a Torsen, and it seems to be less mechanically efficient. On a dyno such as ours where the rate of acceleration is controlled, you can compare fast & slow pulls, which gives a pretty good indication of the losses due to rotating mass. I've also swapped between sessions at the track and the difference was clear, less acceleration and more heat.

[Steve Scheifler]

Why can't we just get a supplier for a ecu ?

I was looking at a couple other sites and they are claiming 15-20 more TQ at the low end (1500-3000 rpm) right where we need it and they had the dyno chart on the site. One of them was a megasquirt ecu.

Does anyone know if this is true,or has anyone tried it on a dyno ?

"Claiming" is the key here. No, actually 1500-3000 is the key. If you are able to use power in that range then you have much bigger issues! 😉

I have a complete Squirt new in the box with test bench and the works. Perhaps I'll mess with it when I get a 1.6 back together. However, it is difficult to "bolt on" just torque. Any combination of header, CR and ECU will increase power across the board and be too much area under the curve before you get the torque where you want it. Then you need to limit peak HP with a plate on the 1.6 or open up the 1.8 a bit. Not sure you will ever get them as similar as you want.

[FTodaro]

Making a specific class for the 1.6's is a slap in the face to the history of this class and just plain laziness.  

 

There are several sanctioning bodies who have figured out how to maintain parity between multiple cars and manufacturers.  The ONLY reason that the 1.6L hasn't gotten any love in the past is because the powers that be didn't care about it.  They all moved on to 99-05's and really didn't care.  I'm telling you, for the future of this class the 1.6L needs to be addressed and addressed immediately.  Scrap the no rule changes for the 1.6L and use this season to make adjustments to get it back in the game.  As long as there are 1.6's that get rented and driven then there will be more cars of all years being built which will keep the class growing and attracting new people.  1.8L Motor swaps/upgrades is also not the answer...... Its ridiculous.  The time, expense and workload involved is an insult. 

There are too many 1.6L cars that are sitting and now with the shenanigans on the other cars, I keep hearing more and more people say they are just going to park their car.  Not good for SCCA or even NASA for that matter.  

 

Quit trying to fracture the class into multiple smaller classes..... If you are the 99-05 guys that are ok with the class fracturing now, just remember you will be on the short end of that stick in the very near future as newer model cars come into the equation.  Do you not want to race as many cars as possible on a level playing field?

 

Steve.... I like everything you are doing and saying for the class, but none of my 1.6L cars have the issues you speak of relative to the 1.6 falling off after time, so let's please not make that gospel without some science from multiple sources behind it.  I'm happy to discuss our cars offline if you wish.

 

Everyone who is racing for a National Championship abandoned the 1.6L a while ago.  So.... It won't threaten any of them one bit to give the 1.6L a header.  It may not make up the difference, but I can guarantee you doing nothing won't make up that difference either, and it's certainly not going to make a 1.6L faster than a NB.

 

So... Give the 1.6L an open header and lets start there and see what happens.

 

Steve.... Why can't we unfreeze the rules for the 1.6L for 2015 and use it as a development year?  No one in their right mind right now would say the 1.6L car is capable of winning at ANY track with top flight drivers in NB's in attendance.  Let's pull our heads out of the sand and fix this.

 

Sean

Sean, a couple of points, the next two years may see a change up front on running the 1.6. The next two runoffs will favor the 1.6 in some respects. At Daytona there is a contingent who feel that the 1.6 is the car as it has a higher top end, I know of guys thinking that through.

 

The following year, is Mid Ohio. I know from personal experience that the 1.6 can be a serious weapon there. Two of my best buddies have 1.6 and they are good there. 

 

On the heat soak issue, i have witnessed that first hand. We have tried a Springfield dyno rad and played with thermostats. In the high temps of summer they do back off, at least from what i see by me being able to catch them after about 7 to 10 laps in the race.

 

I would say that the parity adjustments and the head adjustments coming this year could really mix things up, up front and you may see much more development going on for the 1.6 over the next two years. We do not know what is coming but i suspect that the 99-05 cars will be hit the hardest. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Maybe we should talk, because we simply don't see that in either sprint race format or endurance format.

Sean, that's very interesting. Certainly it is "common knowledge" that the 1.6 looses power a few hard laps into a race, especially on hot days. But we also know what common knowledge is worth! And of course there can be other reasons, such as the ECU responding to high coolant temps, HLAs going soft as the oil thins, "heat soak", etc. Although I haven't done a lot of data gathering under the hood I did spend one weekend moving a temp probe around and watching as I ran each session. The temp around the master cylinders, which is where our air filter sits, did come up well above ambient during the first 10 minutes or so then level off. I no longer have the exact numbers, but clearly any increase in IAT results in a decrease in power (unless a high pressure area provides more total air to get in). So as long as my under-hood temps are above ambient, I don't really need other proof.

That said, I am always ready to learn something by being proved wrong!

[Steve Scheifler]

...
Steve.... Why can't we unfreeze the rules for the 1.6L for 2015 and use it as a development year? No one in their right mind right now would say the 1.6L car is capable of winning at ANY track with top flight drivers in NB's in attendance. Let's pull our heads out of the sand and fix this.

Sean

Hey, I'm game!! Wish we made the decisions, but if you want to push for it I'm on board.

[JRHille]

So try out the 1.6 as an "overdog" on the top end to make up for its loss on the bottom end. Should be pretty interesting, kind of like the 99 vs 01.

[Ron Alan]

3000 rpm torque issue?? Now that is funny Kuch!!

Matt....there are a couple local 1.6 motors that have 105-110 torque! Maybe we can get those builders to share their torque secrets?

I think I'm going to start a NA1.8 support group for the few of us that still try and win with these cars...we get no love! And for the most part no one comes on and complains If no help is given next month and maybe very little to the 1.6...I'm still standing by my prediction for the future of the class(2016). NC will join unrestricted NB. NA cars will still be a great regional class! Trust me...I want to be way off on this!

[Bruce Wilson]

Why don't we just have 3 classes, 1) 1.6, 2) 1.8, and 3) NC with NB unrestricted, NO!!!

[ECOBRAP]

3000 rpm torque issue?? Now that is funny Kuch!!

Matt....there are a couple local 1.6 motors that have 105-110 torque! Maybe we can get those builders to share their torque secrets?

I think I'm going to start a NA1.8 support group for the few of us that still try and win with these cars...we get no love! And for the most part no one comes on and complains If no help is given next month and maybe very little to the 1.6...I'm still standing by my prediction for the future of the class(2016). NC will join unrestricted NB. NA cars will still be a great regional class! Trust me...I want to be way off on this!

 

Lol I was looking at Drago's dyno graphs that Bench Racer posted above, 125hp/110ft-lbs for a 1.6?!? Would love to figure out how builders are able to get those numbers. For now I agree with JRHille, it doesn't matter what we do, we will never get 1.8 torque numbers. Let the 1.6 have more hp to make up for it. With this, obviously 1.6's would be better on some tracks and 1.8's would be better on other tracks. It's not ideal, but a lot more reasonable than having a 1.6 be an underdog at every single track..

[Bruce Wilson]

So try out the 1.6 as an "overdog" on the top end to make up for its loss on the bottom end. Should be pretty interesting, kind of like the 99 vs 01.

An overdog at which track?  Won't help at any West coast runoff potential tracks (Sonoma and Laguna)

[Bruce Wilson]

Lol I was looking at Drago's dyno graphs that Bench Racer posted above, 125hp/110ft-lbs for a 1.6?!? Would love to figure out how builders are able to get those numbers. For now I agree with JRHille, it doesn't matter what we do, we will never get 1.8 torque numbers. Let the 1.6 have more hp to make up for it. With this, obviously 1.6's would be better on some tracks and 1.8's would be better on other tracks. It's not ideal, but a lot more reasonable than having a 1.6 be an underdog at every single track..

Yeah, it's much easier to give up (again)

[Ron Alan]

Laguna for sure Bruce. Sonoma would be a toss up with equally prepped and legal cars and drivers of course. Last few years have been all about drivers for the most part...not cars!

[Bruce Wilson]

Regionals aren't that good of an indicator Ron.  Sorry I know you have a lot of fast drivers now days

 

it's just not a good solution.  

 

1.6 is already an "overdog" at a lot of tracks when you look at lap times and track records.  So how much more of an overdog do you make it?  It's not worked in the past, and if everyone would just stop trying to give up maybe we can get something done!

 

Yes, Drago I remember the history where this has gone in the past, but maybe we can educate folks better this time around.

 

1) I don't care about subframe or any other suspension geometry.  I love the way my 1.6 feels and drives (and I hate Torsens)

2) The cold air thing is a red herring

3) Torque is the answer!

 

There are ways to get the 1.6 competitive for Majors/runoffs.  If some 1.6 drivers don't want to spend $500-$1000 bucks to get there, then they can go race in one of the SSM classes that already exists!

[Steve Scheifler]

An overdog at which track? Won't help at any West coast runoff potential tracks (Sonoma and Laguna)

So what? You've had your Runoffs this century!

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

3000 rpm torque issue?? Now that is funny Kuch!!
Matt....there are a couple local 1.6 motors that have 105-110 torque! Maybe we can get those builders to share their torque secrets?
I think I'm going to start a NA1.8 support group for the few of us that still try and win with these cars...we get no love! And for the most part no one comes on and complains If no help is given next month and maybe very little to the 1.6...I'm still standing by my prediction for the future of the class(2016). NC will join unrestricted NB. NA cars will still be a great regional class! Trust me...I want to be way off on this!

Sorry I wrote the wrong numbers down,I'm on a lot of meds from knee surgery !

It was 2,500 to 4,000 rpm and I don't know if it's true or not that is why I was asking !

[Tom Sager]

3000 rpm torque issue?? Now that is funny Kuch!!

Matt....there are a couple local 1.6 motors that have 105-110 torque! Maybe we can get those builders to share their torque secrets?

 

Deep plunge cuts? 

[Todd Green]

It was 2,500 to 4,000 rpm and I don't know if it's true or not that is why I was asking !

Please post a histogram of what track you spend any sort of time at those RPM ranges.  (Leaving the pits and the formation/cool down laps don't count. )  Here is my 1.6 at MMP (look at the orange results):

 

http://mazdaracers.c...e-13#entry52189