Anyone converted their 16v from k jet to digifant from a mk3

[aposegil 0]

yeah you could make that but each engine different so you might make more or you might make less until uve got it in there u dont know

 

Make sure u put a metal head gasket in there its a must :D

[flusted 0]

Ok nice 1!

Have we learnt anything from this thread yet?

[aposegil 0]

yeah should have never sold my 16v lump and i shouldnt be selling my corrado :cry:

[rmn 0]

@Alex, we always learn too late :lol:

What i have seen is that the there is a massive difference of opinions.

I rekon that k jet is limited and will need to be modded for the moment, then i will fire in the digi pants maybe and give a definitive answer.

From My reading of specs and the like, the use of digipants and a different set of injectors with a chip and fpr will make more bhp with a nicely modded engine

[chrismc 0]

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..

[rmn 0]

Interesting Reading there Chrismc

What your saying seems to make sense to me.

Electronic injection, like your t bodies, will leave more scope for more power but the cost of doing so means that some internal work may be needed on the bottom end.

 

200bhp seems to be the limit of the k jet and as a result when things are running at their upper limit they need constant tweeking to maintain a good result.

With Efi it is not as difficult to maintain a high bhp as there are various sensors that will adjust the variables to maintain the power.

 

So for me, or someone else to get a reliable 170-180 bhp, then k jet should be ok, but for more its time to get into the efi areas.

Anyone agree?

[aposegil 0]

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.

 

Thank you thats all I wanted to hear :)

 

this is were the proper power comes from balancing that bottom end hence why mine would just scream smoothly and no standard 9A will go to 7800rpm mine was built for 8000rpm hence why i could achive the 156mph i could get :) oh and the 126mph in 4th hitting the limiter ;) and all the time its was so smooth in the car :)

 

this has been entirely my point all the way through there is no way in hell a standard engine will make that much power doesnt matter what you bolt onto it you need to get these things done right balancing is the biggest issue when creating these race lumps

 

chrismc - again thank you for clearing that up for me :)

[aposegil 0]

also mate get that bottom end balanced so you can achieve this higher rpms and turst me youll realise power like you wouldnt believe

 

And yes I agree with you about the magnex hence why its more of a quiet system a good flowing system will sound deep as its got the right enough back preasure to pull the fumes out and dont get deep confused with nove fart sounds i mean deep as in on idle youll wake everyone up on ur road and set of car alarms as you go past :D and yes I was proud of it lol

 

 

easiet example was mine against rmn's corrado (when my mate used to own it) in first we were both the same but once i started to pick up speek i would just start to leave him behind :) (sorry rmn mate lol )

[aposegil 0]

also i posted this on another thread but might be usefully for some off you guys?

 

http://cgi.ebay.de/Vw-1-8-2-0-16V-Ansau ... dZViewItem

[rmn 0]

Where would people recomend to get stuff balanced?

I am in ireland, but would not mind getting a crank and flywheel sent over to be done.

Thanks

 

Nice setup there on Ebay!

[chrismc 0]

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..

[aposegil 0]

sorry but dont agree with u entirely

 

First off all VW engines arent that well balance, Jap one's seem to be the best balance from factory hence why they dont need alot of re-balancing and balancing does affect the power out put as if you cant get a engine to rev smoothly at these high rpm youll get vibrations through the engine which mean loss of energy and motion i.e loss of power or youll have to compensate but putting in more higher fuel grade etc

 

Just looking at my 16v motorsport pistons ive got sitting at home after balancing you can see how much material they removed in the right places to make this happen

 

I do agree having a fully balanced engine means you can happly sit on the limiter all day long and still have a engine that starts up and purs the next day I know that as ive been there done it for four years with my lump.

 

As for Graham im guessing he got lucky as its a block out of a passat meaning that the previous owner was one carefull person and that engine got the best run in possible and we all know the longer the engine is run in nicely the longer it will last and the better it will perform and to be truefull he is the first person Ive heard to be running a standard bottom end making those figures

 

Also how you removing the limiters on the K-jets?

 

Out of interest as well what flywheels you all running?

[olly elworthy 0]

on a K jet you change the crystal in the ECU to raise the rev limit,, all cars are using TSR spec lightened flywheels which to be honest are not lightened that much they take about 7mm maybe 8mm neve meausred but its not allot,, off of the weight behind the starter ring gear that is all,,

[aposegil 0]

so if they all have tsr flywheels they balanced aswell?

[olly elworthy 0]

Tsr sell the flywheels seperateley, they do not balance them to the crank like some companies do,, they seem to machine them back to the centre of the factory balancing marks to overcome this,,

i am unsure as to wether or not this is a good idea :roll:

having said this i have had no problems running one or heard of problems with them,,

 

Out of chioce i would have the crank and the flywheel balanced together,,

[aposegil 0]

yeah well i dont believe in lightening factory flywheels mine was only balanced and thats it still has the same mass weight

 

when i did go superchaged I did put a billet item there as you still have the mass volume but not the mass weight which IMO is the only right way of doing it. Only prob is used to rev like mad and hit limiter quicker than what I was used to and sometimes when cold stall due to the quick drop but you get used to that

 

any how thanx for you replies

[chrismc 0]

sorry but dont agree with u entirely

 

First off all VW engines arent that well balance, Jap one's seem to be the best balance from factory hence why they dont need alot of re-balancing and balancing does affect the power out put as if you cant get a engine to rev smoothly at these high rpm youll get vibrations through the engine which mean loss of energy and motion i.e loss of power or youll have to compensate but putting in more higher fuel grade etc

 

 

As for Graham im guessing he got lucky as its a block out of a passat meaning that the previous owner was one carefull person and that engine got the best run in possible and we all know the longer the engine is run in nicely the longer it will last and the better it will perform and to be truefull he is the first person Ive heard to be running a standard bottom end making those figures

 

 

: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..

[aposegil 0]

were just going round and round on this as far as I can put it down to if Grahams is standard bottom end its a freak one off as Ive never seen another one and if you dont think can you prove it ?

 

In the ned of the day yours is running on throttle bodies which allow it to rev that ruther, hence my comment about you have compensate in your case your not restricted from a long standard inlet that would could the extra drag

 

Im going to leave it at this as Ive mad my point I even just showed this thread to another mate who works for Ford motorsport building their motorsports cars they sell on or use themselves etc and he agrees with me but he wanted to know whats the figures for these cars at the wheels and how much loss is being qouted and if there is printouts etc, but weve gone over this point anyhow and i dont want to really carry on

 

if you fancy a good read, read through this:-

 

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/gentune.htm

[olly elworthy 0]

I am currently building another engine with a 9A bottom end, shricks etc same spec as grahams and ians,, so in a few months we shall see if we have another 185 - 190 - 200 bhp valver or not,,,

 

watch this space,,

 

we have talked about our experiences and you of yours,,,,

 

cant say fairer than that :roll:

[davidwort 0]

been reading this thread and can't hold back any longer!

 

I too have a 6A block (brand new VAG part not re-conned, it was surplus stock bought from VAG MK warehouse in 1992), before that I had a 'balanced' TSR 2L conversion. Now the VW block is just as smooth as the old TSR one with exactly the same head, cams etc. despite not having the balanced rods and crank.

I understand that on the old Slick 50 race cars anything up to 20 or more ponies could be freed up by blueprinting but as chrismc says balancing alone doesn't affect the power.

 

When it comes to torque and power it's about capacity and head flow characteristics/cams respectively, one inlet system over another, e.g K-jet over digifant etc... doesn't make a massive amount of difference unless it's massively restrictive, except perhaps prevent leaning out at certain rpms loads etc..

I've got 180 brake from a home built engine with no blueprinting and standard VAG parts apart from the headwork, just a good RR setup when it was run-in.

 

What I'd say makes the power on a vw 16v (in fact any modern NA 4cyl engine) is revs and the head and cams to develop the power at those revs.

 

Even with Variable valve timing and lift engines with cray-like processing power in the ECU's, there's little difference in the torque from any fairly modern NA 16v head given the same CC's.

You only have to look at the Torque from V-tecs to see this.

 

I just think that for price v performance, throttle bodies, stand alone ECU's and the like are a huge waste of cash, if you wan't a torque monster go for a V6, 1.8T or an oil burner.

 

Perhaps it's just my requirements, but for a road car, particularly the weight of a C (more than a golf or rocco) K-jet, standard 2L bottom end, headwork, KR cams and a bit of RR time and I have a smooth, reliable, torquey, revvy, fuel efficient and quick motor that hasn't cost me the earth :)

 

David.

[olly elworthy 0]

sounds like you have an excellent engine ther david and you too have proved that you can get good power out of these engines on a relatively low budget :D

[chrismc 0]

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...?

[aposegil 0]

Well i wish you all the best but saying form square one that K-jet is good for 200bhp when you only have one engine thats standard thats hit it i dont think qualifies in my book as in any old perosn out there can get 200bhp form a 9A 2L 16v

 

Also I know David engine is good powered i built one aswell RMN was driving it and all it had was standard 170K bottom end 9A head with KR cams and K&N and exhuast so i know what can be done for doing it cheap but to try achieve those extra horse you have to give the engine what it needs to be able to achieve it. But i dont think that engine could ever achieve 200bhp

 

Also balancing does make a difference Ive already mention that when me and my mate went up against each other and having the extra power due to I could rev high (doesnt mean i can rev to these levels but the power start to tail off 2000rpm ago) proves it

 

In the end fo the day If im still about i the scene next year ill be hunting down these cars are rolling roads etc to have a look at their figures etc and at tracks to see how they go

[davidwort 0]

sounds like you have an excellent engine ther david and you too have proved that you can get good power out of these engines on a relatively low budget :D

 

I know it's got completely different characteristics but 140bhp ATW isn't far off VR6 peak power and with 154lb/ft It goes very well! - thanks to Stealth for the last 8 or 9bhp :)

Last few tankfuls of fuel (33mpg) and it's only 3 or 4 mpg off my 1.6 mk4 golf!

[aposegil 0]

ok then according to your theories and calcuations means if i get a vr lump do the cams portig exhaust fueling etc etc i should be acheiving 257bhp form N/A? and so on with every other enigne in the vw range?