Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Heavensheros]

so the engine is you russ?

[Chicken]

Thats a visual man.

I'm not a pro engine builder.  In an effort to defend a good design (not perfect, not anemic) the increase from 31-33mm doesn't equate a 60% increase in size, curtain, or flow.  Mazda is very smart and I'm sure they know too large a valve will rob your torque.

In engines, there is waaaay more to getting more than adding more.

Too much duration, lift, valve, relief, etc etc etc (again) won't help anymore than too much piston, fuel, air.

There are flow charts for anyone who cares to find them (and please share the links).  There is also a long time line in experiences in the aquisition of ability to apply aside from the tools and the numbers alone.

I am not astute enough to serve justice towards this matter in detail.  I like the Capri, and believe the motor may be the best engineered feature of the car.  There are far more technical forums than this which clarify that opinion very well.

[Rocketman]

You mentioned Russ's cars were putting down good numbers - I built Russ's Cars  

Here's some stock for stock numbers:

The N/A 1.6 Makes 116hp
The Turbo 1.6 Makes 132 hp

The N/A 1.8 makes 127hp
The Turbo 1.8 Makes 180hp (GTX version) or 210hp (GTR version)

And we all know how well even the 1.6 responds to modifications... now imagine that + more on a larger displacement motor  

The valves are not 60% larger...(russ! Stop talkin out yo ass!) But they are larger, I don't have numbers offhand. To give you an idea how well the 1.8 breathes here's some pictures comparing the intake ports:

 

 

The 1.6 port is 43mm wide & the 1.8 port is 49mm wide.

You're entitled to your opinion - But my opinion: the 1.8 is better in nearly every way  

-Rocket

[Chicken]

I have no issue with considering the 1.8 to be a better performance engine in general.  I don't believe I implied otherwise.

I will stand in my opinion that the Mazda B6 is not anemic.  Nothing has been presented to justify the concept.  A comparisom of a engine which displaces a different volume highlights the given concept that a engine must have more air in the area displaced to be effective.  It does not establish that a motor of a different displacement acquires or discharges its volumetric equivilent with any difference in efficiency.

When measuring flow it is good to measure the flow.  Refering to a gasket, or a port, or a valve is good when refering to a gasket, or a port, or a valve.  Any valve control is another intricate topic aside from the others.

The B6dohc puts out numbers in a predictable corelation to the BP as does the narrow 16valve and less than 16valve versions of all displacement variants of the B series motors.

With all the manifolds, gaskets, valves, and even the cams ...Quick math puts the difference between a 115hp/1600 and a 132hp/1800 to be a efficiency increase in favor of the 1800 to approximate 2%.  Which in my opinion is unremarkable.

As I understand it the SuperRoo is quite the respectable challenger capable of holding it's own very well.  I don't know the output, of course I'd like to.  If the owner were to permit, the builder of that motor could comment on its features and abilites .

There are a number of respectable builds finished by members of this board and I commend us all to that end.  There is much to undrstand about automotive powerplants and sometimes the excitement we feel can ignite some off handed statements.  Right or wrong.

I'm damn near $1 in .02pinions aren't I?

[bhazard]

Ill take on the SuperPoo anyday  

Except if I remember correctly it was being retired/dismantled... :/