You can be (reasonably) sure that you can drive home in a built motor after an accidental mechanical overrev. Not so much with a stocker.

 

Normally I drive the car to the track, but if I'm expecting it to blow up, then I'd hire a trailer at £50 a go, that way I could guarantee getting home again. AA cover in the UK are getting wise and refuse to pick up kit cars from outside race tracks. What I'm getting at is I'd rather over build the engine and know it will be reliable. It also leaves room for the inevitable "I want more power so I'll put a bigger turbo on it" that will probably happen at some point.

 

That makes sense. i was just confused because it wouldn't make sense to trailer it every time just for the one time it might go pop.

If you think you might go for more power later, and you're going to have the engine apart anyways, by all means... Rods and valve springs.

 

once you get above 200-220tq you start running into transmission stuff, even bigger injectors, new turbo, maybe a new 3" exhaust instead of 2.5", possibly a new clutch, boundry oil pump (not a bad idea to have on a track car regardless), maybe new wheels and tires, maybe a new manifold/dp.

You can keep it really simple @ ~200. cost low fun factor high.

I don't know if it's just me or if anyone else has experienced this but with my last car the higher the power got the more paranoid i'd get. All the little sounds and feels of the car I was much more hypersensitive to.

 

Since this car is half the weight of a Miata, in theory the tranny should be good for more than the ~250wtq it handles in our heavy *** cars right? How much more I don't know.

 

200 will be perfect, I've probably not got the driving talent to cope with more than that. The rear axle will be on its limit at that point too. Perhaps I'll employ the KISS principle, run a stock motor with low boost and see if I get upgrade-itis at a later date.

Thanks.

 

In theory yes, but I don't think a 5-speed would handle 250 wtq in a miata on the track for very long, so 220 ish wtq should be safe but not too much higher it seems to me.

 

Sounds like a good plan. Save that cash for proper management/injectors/tuning and you will be MILES leagues ahead of a lot of the turbo s

 

Sweet car, can you touch the ground from the drivers seat?

 

Ha, not quite, but that's because you have to reach around the bodywork. In the Sylva Striker (the same chassis, but minimal bodywork) you can touch the ground. The car sits 4 inches off the ground, but that's for clearance on the road, i.e. speed bumps. I've seen hillclimb and track cars running as low a 2 inches with modified suspension mounts, but these are full-on race cars and would get torn to pieces out on real roads.

 

Update, I've decided to go with the 1.6 motor, based on a few reasons:

1) from calculations picked up online, the forces at work inside the 1.6 are significantly lower than the 1.8 (piston acceleration and force on the crankshaft roughly 2/3 compared to the 1.8)
2) apparently they rev better due to the over square bore to stroke ratio
3) they are LUDICROUSLY cheap. I spoke to a mazda salvage specialist yesterday and he quoted, for a complete engine, transmission, clutch pedal, prop shaft, wiring harness, ECU and exhaust - £175!!!

I spent more than that on gaskets the last time I rebuilt my old Ford Xflow motor.

Is the GT2554 still the right turbo for the smaller displacement B6ZE unit?

 

2554/2560 on a 1.6? I don't see why not? That car is so damn light weight that I honestly don't know if the additional 0.2l will make that much difference. £175 is like $285~is US... thats like Braineack cheap!

I'm sure the super mod 1.6 crew will be in here shortly to chime in. Would be interesting to see how your 1600 Ford stacks up against the DOHC 1600 Mazda.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


WORST CHOICE ever.


I'd rather run a motor made entirely of formed ****. it's inferior in every way. no one will disagree*




* people who claim they like the 1.6L better because it's "revvy" dont count as people, just morons, therefore their input doesn't count.

 

^^ and there you have it!

 

The 1.8 really is better in every way. Check to find out how much one of those will run you. If the 1.6 is still too good of a deal, well that's what boost is for.

 

lol @ Scott.

I've killed two 1.6's. From my personal experience they feel less torquie. I finally switched to the 1.8. I should have done it after motor #1. I've also watched Brain have 1.8 envy for the last 4 years i've been here.. maybe more so in the last 3 years. They are still good for your goals though. I wouldn't base my decision on any of the reasons you listed other than budgetary stuffs. The reasons you suggested are really a bunch of crappy rationality to trick yourself into being ok with something cheaper! Sorry to call you out but none of them are really legit.

 

Hmm, looks like I need to reconsider the 1.8. Honestly the cost isn't much more for a 1.8, the engine management will be by far the biggest cost involved. I need to make a decision before I commit to making a manifold though as they have different exhaust headers. My gut says 1.8, but I've been advised by a few people that the 1.6 is a better engine and easier to tune. Perhaps that's just because more people with a 1.6 decided they needed to tune it as it lacked power in the first place. Obedience plenty of time to decide as I'll have to sell my current engine to fund the project and nobody will have the cash until February. It's traditional in the UK to massively overspend at Christmas and then live like a caveman through January.

 

Those people are idiots whoever they are, the two engines are as easy as each other to tune. As for the better that's entirely subjective, they rev the same** but one has 200cc more displacement.

Hell if anything the 1.8 is slightly easier assuming your ECU of choice supports sequential injection as the stock 1.8 ECU does. Makes tuning idle that much easier.

** Some people think the 1.6 revs better in the UK, but that's a misconception. In the UK the 1.8 engine cars had a longer final drive which made the 1.6 feel peppier and the 1.8 a bit more leggy.

 

1.8L vs my 1.6L

I'm running about 13psi and he's running about 8-9psi.

Very similar setup



notice how mine's a POS.



The 1.6L is a bastard child motor. It's not any easier to tune; they are essentially the same motor. It's easier to make less power with it, so it's easier to be slower with it.

Please stop taking advice from 70 year old grandpas that enjoy chrome accents and luggage racks and actively engage in discussions about the best all-season tire for driving in parades with costumes on.