chrismc

Thank you David, that was exactly the point... 200BHP has been achieved with good old K-Jet, regardless of modded/non-modded blocks etc etc so it is Do-able A digifant fuelled car will also need exactly the same level of work (with the possible addition of bigger injectors/mapping) to achieve the same...No real point IMO The easier option is to go megasquirt/ITBs.... Whilst the ITBS have shown not to give any additional power as things stand on my car (over similar spec K-jets) it has superior throttle response, never goes out of tune etc etc... With higher compression, solid lifter head, & steel bottom end the ITBs will come into their own...220+BHP......which the K-Jet wont fuel for

I cant be bothered with this guy anymore Olly... :brickwall: Im off to get my bottom end lightened & balanced because its going to make loads more power if i do.. :notworthy: Maybe it wont just be Cossies I eat for brekky at combe now... :thumb right:

I dont think anyone has said its easy... But, the two "exceptional" cars mentioned, HAVE done it. The 9A "block" is the only standard part of Grahams engine. Everything else is modified.... A standard 136BHP corrado 2L 16v with a 9A is a world away from an engine such as Ians or Grahams..

Its a standard "9A BLOCK" only! Of course the rest of the motor has been highly uprated, flowed head, highly tweaked fuelling, schrick cams with modified timing..but then Graham worked for TSR & had lots of knowledge/time to experiment!!!! I have already stated that Ian & Grahams cars were an exception, with 175-185BHP being more realistic. When did I say anyone can get 200BHP from a 9A 2L 16v? My own car with ITBs doesnt make 200BHP, so im hardly likely to say its a piece of p*ss on K-Jet eh??? :roll: Gladly come & seek out my own or Grahams cars if you are doubtful..

Why is Grahams a freak bottom end?? A bottom end is a bottom end & will rev itself to destruction, given the appropriate breathing mods on the top end, such as bodies/cams blah blah. The trick is to keep it all safe & buttoned up. ChrisP on the CGTi forum used to have a 1800KR with SILLY cams & that revved to 8K.. Lightening/balancing helps keep it safe & smooth, but standard units arent so bad that you will gain 10 or 15BHP from a reduction in out of balance forces I agree Graham has been lucky. No uprated rod bolts, only a TSR flywheel/windage tray & baffled sump & it hasnt had any problems at all. Im just a bit baffled about why a bottom end has to be non-standard in your eyes to make a high power figure...?

:roll: Well my bottom end is essentially standard 9A...standard internals & that revs smoothly to 7600rpm...If it was a race motor & regularly going to 8K+, then of course I would have it balanced in the interests of it not shaking itself to bits. As it stands I have nearly 200BHP, with more to come from a remap, & I wont gain A THING from revving it harder. Peak power is at 6800 & that wont fundementally change without hotter cams/bigger ITBs etc etc If the car had 300deg cams requiring 8K+ revs then of course balancing would be a must. Certainly lightening & balancing is always a help not a hinderance, but I really dont think it affects power output to any great degree..Greater smoothness, & quicker pick up certainly, maybe giving the impression of more top end power?? Graham proved this as his car (with std. 9A block/starship mileage) made more than mine or ians (lightened/balanced/rebuilt) The engines were otherwise very similar....cams/head/exhaust wise? Are you saying that Ians car should have made additional power over mine/Grahams oweing to its lightening/balancing? I agree that Jap engines, such as Hondas are even better balanced as standard. This is really a requirement as they rev harder with VTEC & such like (9K Teg-R, 8.5K Civic-R). VW's certainly arent poor though..

Well just to throw a spanner into the works.... Graham Scotts "bottom end" was a TOTALLY stock 9A from a wrecked Passat in a breakers..& that gets revved to 7800rpm all the time & has been faultless the last time I spoke to him... 202BHP/165lbs/ft@Stealth :wink: Lets be clear that his car only had the 9A block. The rest was heavily modified (head/cams etc) Get the head breathing properly (flow work/cams/4 branch) & the engine as a whole will happily rev harder. The only real issue to allow (safe/sustainable) high revs on the 9A/ABF bottom ends (7200+) is to fit uprated rodbolts as are on mine..Balancing will certainly give smoother engine operation at higher rpms but doesnt affect power in the slightest...VW blocks are known to be pretty well balanced from the factory too! What it does do is permit higher RPMs to be used which, if the appropriate hotter cams are used, will make for more BHP...at the expense of low end torque.. My 268/276 combination makes peak power "only" at 6800, though it will happily rev limit @ 7600. The extra 800rpm above peak allow a gear to be held longer on track, but on the road i rarely go past 7200.... My setup is an excellent compromise between road/track so I see no reason to change anything..

Well I thought id say Hello & add my thoughts as suggested by rradogolfman... Whilst it is possible to get 200BHP on K-Jet, the majority of 2L valvers (be it on a 9A or ABF block) with flowed heads seem to fall into the 175-185BHP area, depending on cam choice... Ian Bartletts ex 2L 16v mk2 did make 200BHP at Stealth as did Graham Scotts car (Ex TSR workshop manager). On the same day my car made 198BHP IIRC.... :) 198BHP gave me 168atw IIRC.. All three cars have the same gearing & Quaife ATB diffs too. Now having convoyed up to Stealth with them on that day, I can fully endorse that their cars are just as fast as my own ITB'd 2L 16v....this was highlighted when we all attended a Golf+ shoot out @ Bruntingthorpe.. Ian was fastest on the day with 6.06 to 60, low 14 1/4m & 14.8 0-100....& 135.5mph flat out. My car managed 133mph & Grahams 132. given variations in suspension setup & geometry, this showed the power outputs to be very similar.... In my opinion their superb K-JET power outputs were down to a lot of RR time & various tweaks by Graham @ TSR. They are both on K-Jet, with Ians on 268/276 cams, 50mm Inlet, flowed head, 4 branch, Remus exhaust. A lot of time was spent on bottom end balancing, & fine tuning/experimenting with the cam timing as well as the fuelling. (May have a motorsport metering head too IIRC??) It also had the entire fuel system replaced with NEW components, which TSR maintain makes a huge difference. The results, & an engine that revs to 7800 speak for themselves. The only downside to Ians car, was the fact that it needed "regular" RR tune-ups to keep it at its peak...as 200BHP is on the limit of the K-Jets ability. On the issue of Magnex exhausts, my own car gained nearly 10BHP at Stealth on the bodies (with the previous owner) when the Magnex was replaced with a Supersprint Gp.A. This was due to the design of the Magnex backbox. It is NOT a straight through design, but a multi-pass, where the exhaust gasses travel back & forth through the backbox in a series of percolator tubes. Very restrictive full stop............ My car as it stands is on a 9A bottom end, standard aside from Raceware rod bolts & lightened flywheel. It has a flowed head, 268/276 cams, Badger5 ITBs & DTA management with a 7600rpm limit. Though it made 199BHP at Stealth, I am confident that it will crack 200BHP with some tweaks to the map, as it is somewhat rich at the moment!! In conclusion, I would say that 200BHP on K-jet is more the exception rather than the rule. 175-185BHP seems more the par for the course given variations in component choice, quality of flow work etc etc. This still a good output given the dated design of these engines compared to modern units. worth considering the variations in Rolling Roads too 200+BHP IMO is for Throttle Bodied cars with higher compression/solid lifter heads & steel bottom ends etc..