174 replies to this topic

[trimless]

Well, then you were in a very small minority.

No, not really.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I have an open book policy so here is my last Dyno on my car.
Let me also add that I have not cleaned the welds on the header yet

Attached Files

•  MVIMG_20180727_180251.jpg   78.91KB   4 downloads

[OrangeCrush86]

I have an open book policy so here is my last Dyno on my car.
Let me also add that I have not cleaned the welds on the header yet

 

Thanks for that. My car supposedly has the header cleaned up. I have not looked myself yet. It also looks like I can afford to go a little leaner by looking at your AFR and the one from Dave.

[davew]

When you lean the car, you make more power, a little extra fuel will make more torque. You have to pick the compromise you want. Worry more about what the motor wants, and not what the number is.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Dave is correct, you have to find the sweet spot. Lean is mean and will burn a motor up quickly. I built my motor to last a long time. My last motor had more than 20k race miles on it. I did a Dyno on it before I torn in apart and it only lost 1/2 hp and had less than 5% leak down on it.

It lasted me from 2008 until 2017 I just hope the new one lasts half as long

[38bfast]

I have had several 1.6 that will make the same peak power as a good 99. I have also had 2 that were +2 than a good 99. Of course those 2 were all out assaults at achieving the very best. lots of parts swapping and hand picking components to get it there. -3hp off of a 99 is very easy to get and I would say the average of a lack luster attempt. Of course the torque is way lower but so is the weight.

 

Kuches rookie kid showed what could be done with a worn out tired 1.6 against some top names in the game. Sorry Kuch but its not a top prep attempt. If you were a good dad you would sharpen the knife for your son to do battle with.

 

Bottom line is a 1.6 fast and extremely competitive in the proper hands. The internet says many things to the contrary, but I call BS. If your losing in a 1.6 its not due to car potential. 

 

if a 1.6 does not win Sonoma it has left something on the table, car or driver. That track has 1.6 written all over it. 

[Richard Astacio]

I have had several 1.6 that will make the same peak power as a good 99. I have also had 2 that were +2 than a good 99. Of course those 2 were all out assaults at achieving the very best. lots of parts swapping and hand picking components to get it there. -3hp off of a 99 is very easy to get and I would say the average of a lack luster attempt. Of course the torque is way lower but so is the weight.

 

Kuches rookie kid showed what could be done with a worn out tired 1.6 against some top names in the game. Sorry Kuch but its not a top prep attempt. If you were a good dad you would sharpen the knife for your son to do battle with.

 

Bottom line is a 1.6 fast and extremely competitive in the proper hands. The internet says many things to the contrary, but I call BS. If your losing in a 1.6 its not due to car potential. 

 

if a 1.6 does not win Sonoma it has left something on the table, car or driver. That track has 1.6 written all over it. 

 

What about road america? How would a 1.6 fair on that track in your opinion vs a top shelf vvt or 99

[38bfast]

That track is the opposite of a 1.6 track. Probably the worst in the country for a 1.6. Not enough sustained turning to take advantage of the light weight. Also the 1.6 falls on its face when shifting to 5th due to aero disadvantage. If you look at a data trace of time spent turning vs WOT vs speed its the worst case for a 1.6. That being said Burras kicked some serious butt there years back before the new rules. So it has proven it can be done. I would say looking at data that the 1.6 is on par with the 99s and VVTs there in lap time. An average 1.6 would not cut the mustard there. You would need a best of the best to pull it off or be on par. 

 

Its still a drivers track butt its also a HP war track as well. So whatever year you bring HP makes it easier. 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I have had several 1.6 that will make the same peak power as a good 99. I have also had 2 that were +2 than a good 99. Of course those 2 were all out assaults at achieving the very best. lots of parts swapping and hand picking components to get it there. -3hp off of a 99 is very easy to get and I would say the average of a lack luster attempt. Of course the torque is way lower but so is the weight.
 
Kuches rookie kid showed what could be done with a worn out tired 1.6 against some top names in the game. Sorry Kuch but its not a top prep attempt. If you were a good dad you would sharpen the knife for your son to do battle with.
 
Bottom line is a 1.6 fast and extremely competitive in the proper hands. The internet says many things to the contrary, but I call BS. If your losing in a 1.6 its not due to car potential. 
 
if a 1.6 does not win Sonoma it has left something on the table, car or driver. That track has 1.6 written all over it.

You don't have to apologize it's an 11 year old race car. I plan on "sharpening the knife" on old blue for myself for next year but also building him a new car for next year.

That being said how much more do you think he would have benefited from being in a top prepped car?

[38bfast]

Kuch I think he would have had fastest lap. By a few tents. The race craft stuff the car wouldn’t of helped much.

[OrangeCrush86]

Aren't the hills at Sonoma a problem for 1.6Ls?

[38bfast]

Aren't the hills at Sonoma a problem for 1.6Ls?

Your only thinking power and not taking in account weight. Hike a mountain with a full sack on your back and hike it without.

[Richard Astacio]

Your only thinking power and not taking in account weight. Hike a mountain with a full sack on your back and hike it without.

 

Agreed, at Road America this weekend I was on average about 2-3 mph faster in certain corners than Voytek. I was also using a front runner (sprint winner track notes and I was braking about 30 - 50 feet deeper in some corners...however whatever I would gain in the corners I would loose in the long straights...Lap after lap but if I made one small mistake I was done and loose the draft...you have to be very consistent which I was not.

 

What I did enjoy how easy it was to turn in and the car was a bit more predictable, meaning I can feel the car moving and predict what is was doing.

It was certainly fun and challenging, very nibble..

 

A 1.6 chassis with a VVT motor would be beast. 

[LarryKing]

 

By a few tents

 

Da Kuch yute wooda ben fasta by a few tents.

[Steve Scheifler]

Aren't the hills at Sonoma a problem for 1.6Ls?

There is a lot of give & take between the cars and how much difference a hill makes depends in part on the RPM range used. I have no idea what the hills are like at Sonoma.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Da Kuch yute wooda ben fasta by a few tents.

Lol !!!!

[Ron Alan]

"Hills" at Sonoma are not a factor...when you are doing most of your climbing you are actually starting to decelerated...using the hill to scrub speed at turn 2 and 3A. Very short up hill to 5 and a longer uphill to 7...but neither seem like you are going uphill...very small grade. Rest is all downhill. Usually the best drivers in the field with good cars/set ups and tires will finish up front...no matter which car they are driving! I think Sonoma is a very neutral track. Lack of power and aero doesnt show up like some tracks.

 

Aren't the hills at Sonoma a problem for 1.6Ls?

[Ron Alan]

Agreed, at Road America this weekend I was on average about 2-3 mph faster in certain corners than Voytek. I was also using a front runner (sprint winner track notes and I was braking about 30 - 50 feet deeper in some corners...however whatever I would gain in the corners I would loose in the long straights...Lap after lap but if I made one small mistake I was done and loose the draft...you have to be very consistent which I was not.

 

What I did enjoy how easy it was to turn in and the car was a bit more predictable, meaning I can feel the car moving and predict what is was doing.

It was certainly fun and challenging, very nibble..

 

A 1.6 chassis with a VVT motor would be beast. 

Your first comment is a great lesson in why data doesn'tk lie(all things being equal). You may be faster in the corners but is that good? And of course this all depends on the type of corner and what follows! BUT... 

 

I'm going to use my own example that involved the same car and 2 different drivers with different approaches. Slow 180 degree corner leading onto a long section of corners and acceleration. 1st driver braked later and carried more speed into and through the corner...min speed was 3 mph faster...in this 300' feet of track he was .8 sec faster. 2nd driver braked earlier and slowed more...but by the end of the next 3 corners(all acceleration for the most part)he had gained back that .8 sec loss and gained another .8 sec! This was the entire difference in the total lap!

 

Sorry for the side track...back to building 1.6 motors!

[Steve Scheifler]

Faster through a corner by 2-3 moh seems like a LOT. Without trying to crunch numbers I would gladly wager that it is not primarily the 5% difference in weight.

As Ron describes above, even with data in front of you it can require more than a glance to fully understand the differences. At a place like Road America corner exit is particularly critical and even if you create a segment which extends a bit beyond where the lateral Gs end it is easy to misinterpret the difference from there as being power when it’s actually scrub. A 1mph advantage mid-corner in T3 is nice but not if you are still fighting to stay on track at exit where the other guy has all his power pushing him forward.

[Pat Mcg]

In the hands of a better driver i do believe my 1.6 is a podium car at a Majors event..  It is well prepped and i consistently tune for the track and conditions.  I am still learning the best set up per track so I am probably loosing a little bit there.  But, I have never felt like the car was the reason i could not get there.   The car isn't the issue..  it's the absolute consistent flawless execution of the race.  And I mean FLAWLESS to get there.  To be fast you really are hanging the car out there..  You have to know the strengths of the 1.6 vs 99 and newer.. you have advantages in some places and you don't in others...   Just more to making the 1.6 fast then others..   Jim's quote really explains it best and I have never forgot it...   Bottom line..  I don't have 60K to have the car at the front...  probably would not cost that much..but.  it's not a car you can just throw tires and and bitch about being slow without spending the time   I don't believe it would be money well spent.  Spend your money on becoming a better driver. 

 

Jims Quote:

 

 "" For the last time, I don't drive 1.6 car b/c I would be 50+ lbs over weight. If I was at weight, this would have already been a forgone conclusion, if for no other reason than competitive juices and shutting two people up that do a lot of talking, but little driving or preparation. It if cost me 60k, it would be the fastest car on the planet, most should be thankful I am not at weight or I would make it my life's mission. ""