[vet 180]

The Saint of Killers wrote:

fordem wrote:

The Saint of Killers wrote:

.....And I still wouldn't mind a fricken cam recommendation from someone hahaha

Do a google search on "Samurai Torquer cam" - make sure to read the reviews.

Thanks Fordem, I've been looking for more information on it's highway manners, most I've found discuss the instant torque.


As a real zany idea, I've pondered fitting an adjustable cam gear with suitable cam grind. The idea was to adjust the cam to suit higher speed or move the torque curve lower for 4wding.
I would mount a suitable spanner in the engine bay and mark the different settings on the timing cover.
I could have one pressed easily enough but there are so many unknowns beyond that.

That being said, I understand the principle of varying cam gears but I'm quite naïve as I've never done it before.

Things to consider would be tuning and timing to suit which would be a pain I imagine without an ECU sorting it out for me.

Just a fun thought.

The gains are too minimal on a small NA engine for it to be worth the hassle

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

[The Saint of Killers]

vet 180 wrote:

The 272 would be closer to a stock cam in terms of powerband from what I have read. The 260 is purely to get more torque than stock for offroad, but then runs out of puff much earlier.
But keep in mind these are very minimal gains. For example a G16a with the big 272 wont even conpare with a stock G16b. So your G13ba wont even come close to a G16a. Hence why the G16b engine is such a good swap for the coin.
I still vote get a G13bb and supercharge it if you want to keep it a 1.3L. Even a small turbo that spoils very early may be cool maybe there is something out there from a 2-2.5 diesel engine that may work. Nothing beats forced fed induction on a small displacement engine.

Thanks for your input Vet 180, very helpful and I agree, the BB Supercharged sounds quite good also haha

[The Saint of Killers]

Okay everyone, the results from my first run are in. This was more so a trial in order to familiarize myself with the equipment.

I kept things pretty casual so the things to consider with this run:

1) Outside temperature was 32 C
2) Tyre Pressures were set to 16 PSI
3) Cylinder Compression is Low (that will be the case for a quite a while )
4) The 1/4 mile started on a short up-hill incline (not ideal for my times but was the best opportunity in traffic)
5) 2 inch lift - increased Drag
6) Toyo Open Country Tyres - increased roll resistance
7) Fuel was half full
8.) Engine temperature was just below 1/4

My Time
1/4 mile time: 20.59
0-100kph: 19.5

Standard times online (cross referencing multiple sites)
21.03 or 21.5 second 1/4 mile
20.2 (0-100 kph)
This would obviously be standard car height, tyres and conditions.

The power figures are not correct, it's calculated based on my inputs for weight (can measure) and drag coefficient (difficult to measure).
Either the inputs are incorrect or I am not initiating the HP/Torque pull correctly (it's a separate method from the starting 1/4 drag)

My HP
28.8 KW @ 7178 RPM
63.7 Nm @ 3338 RPM

Standard HP Online
47 kW
100 Nm

I don't see how it would be possible to beat factory times while being down 20kW but I've placed them here anyway for transparency.
This is also why it's a shame I couldn't test before fitting the exhaust, extractors and tuning, as I am comparing against the theoretical.

[Gwagensteve]

So what was your weight estimate?

[MrRocky]

I would expect a 1.6 efi swapped sierra real world scenario to pull over 20+ sec 1/4.
Closer to a 22 even

[The Saint of Killers]

Gwagensteve wrote:

So what was your weight estimate?

Weight: 950KG - this is low, I haven't factored in myself or the fuel.
Frontal Area: 2.41m2
Drag Coefficient: 0.41
Driveline Loss: 15% this is low, I'd say 25% minimum on a manual 4WD.

[The Saint of Killers]

MrRocky wrote:

I would expect a 1.6 efi swapped sierra real world scenario to pull over 20+ sec 1/4.
Closer to a 22 even

Never having been in one I wouldn't know. If anyone is in South Australia I'm happy to set it up, at great risk to myself I might add for I very well might end up abandoning the thread once I experience the drivability of the 1.6

A small caveat for myself, I'm conscious that straight line speed is not the measure of success in a Sierra.
I'd like to perform some more tests, cooler weather and more pressure in the tyres. Headwinds seem to be a frustrating thing to predict, although over 80kph feels like a massive head wind in these damn boxy tents on wheels .
This could potentially indicate that a full exhaust and some tuning can go quite some way all things considered, a healthier motor better still.

[MrRocky]

If you put 45psi in a set of stock tyres you will shave 1 sec

[kubes222]

Where about in SA are you?

[Gwagensteve]

I know you’re trying to bring a scientific approach to this endeavour, but you can see when you present the data you’ve collected, there are so many caveats and compromises no meaningful comparison can be made.

You need to weigh the car as tested.
You need a flat surface
You need to understand the difference between a 1/4 mile time gained from a track vs a gps/inertia box. (Reaction time, rollout etc)

The fact you’re matching factory numbers but your calculations come up with 28Kw is demonstrating how far out your assumptions and testing conditions are from stock.

Trying to derive horsepower from acceleration is fraught- the margin of error is enormous.

None of this matters if all you subsequently intend to do is track progress on performance, but you’ll need to keep things like tyre pressure and weight the same between runs to assess the outcome for power.

However if you’re trying to baseline the car compared to stock to understand how much power you’re down, the lift, tyres, and assumptions on weight etc are very important.

[The Saint of Killers]

kubes222 wrote:

Where about in SA are you?

Near the CBD mate - you can PM me if you like

[The Saint of Killers]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I know you’re trying to bring a scientific approach to this endeavour, but you can see when you present the data you’ve collected, there are so many caveats and compromises no meaningful comparison can be made.

You need to weigh the car as tested.
You need a flat surface
You need to understand the difference between a 1/4 mile time gained from a track vs a gps/inertia box. (Reaction time, rollout etc)

The fact you’re matching factory numbers but your calculations come up with 28Kw is demonstrating how far out your assumptions and testing conditions are from stock.

Trying to derive horsepower from acceleration is fraught- the margin of error is enormous.

None of this matters if all you subsequently intend to do is track progress on performance, but you’ll need to keep things like tyre pressure and weight the same between runs to assess the outcome for power.

However if you’re trying to baseline the car compared to stock to understand how much power you’re down, the lift, tyres, and assumptions on weight etc are very important.

HP & Torque yes, I agree. Although as stated, it may be because I have performed the HP/Torque pull incorrectly - I'll need to read the instructions.
1/4 mile times are quite accurate on this device, rolling vs stationary are all accounted for. 0-100 times are also quite accurate on this device.

I agree that I will need to keep testing under similar conditions and I agree that it's not perfect.
It's the best I can do without funding a dyno and I won't be funding a dyno on this particular car
Really it's to keep the project relatively honest and see if any of the modifications have a noticeable effect on acceleration rather than me getting to the end and saying to everyone, "it's faster because I say it's faster."

[MrRocky]

Does adelaide have a dragstrip ?
In perth its pretty cheap to squirt down the track multiple times, might provide a better baseline.

[The Saint of Killers]

MrRocky wrote:

Does adelaide have a dragstrip ?
In perth its pretty cheap to squirt down the track multiple times, might provide a better baseline.

We have AIR (although I'm not sure if it's still in operation) and The Bend.
I imagine entry to be somewhere around the $80 mark.

While track sensors are the most accurate, the onboard technology really can deliver the same result nowadays.
The meter I use is a later edition than what I've used previously. The earlier model was bang on when we tested it and compared against AIR. - this is 16 years ago for the older model.

The same can be said with Kart racing, these new GPS/G sensors are incredible. They are perfectly aligned to the track sensors/transponders without having any magnetic pickup. The Karting bodies won't officially recognize them yet, you still need a transponder.

[MrRocky]

The Saint of Killers wrote:

onboard technology really can deliver the same result nowadays

110% disagree

Ive spent many seasons down the track in perth and theres no way you ever get the same et with the onboard gizzmos.
Its like saying 2 cars with identical weight and hp will run the same time its just not how it works in the real world

A g-tech pro 10 sec car and an actual proven 1/4 10 sec car can be 3 secs apart

[vet 180]

Meh I see no issue as long as everything remains consistent. Its just a shame an electonic run wasnt done on the stock set up as the method used is good enough to track progress

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

[Gwagensteve]

But this is my whole point about this thread. It's effectively the Seinfeld of threads - a thread about nothing. Seven pages in and about the most we've learned is that electronic performance meters tell lies in proportion to the lies they are told about the parameters of the car. Oh, and the OP has learned that his engine is down on compression.

Everything else is inconsequential. The people that know the OP will waste their time pouring money into a G13BA still know it. Everyone still knows a G13BB/G16B swap is by far the best solution if the OP wants a better driving car.

All the other talk about "charm" and fiddling with little things here and there are just filler. Unless the car (or ideally, engine) goes on a dyno the numbers are pretty meaningless and it's all going to come down to "I've expended effort on my car, therefore it was worth it" Which is just fine, so long as it's understood that that's what is being done, but that's not a 100hp car. I'd actually forgotten that was your goal and had to go back to the first post to read it.

You're not going to get 100hp without much narrower and much higher power band. That's not what a 260 cam is going to give you. It's not what messing with the timing or plug leads or whatever is going to give you, The engine is going to need to be rebuilt and the end result will be quite aggressive with a high idle with low vacuum and very little torque below ~3000rpm. It's extremely unlikely to make 100hp with stock compression, so you're going to be up for pistons and perhaps rods. Someone like Dion at Dyno-Mite performance in Melbourne can probably reel off had flow numbers for the GTi which is what you're going to need to achieve with your 8V head, so that's lots of valve lift and duration and probably bigger valves along with porting. He can probably tell you what compression ratio you're going to need, again, the GTi was 10-11.5:1 up from 8.3:1. I don't know if you've driven a GTi but they have a really nice top end but next to nothing below 3K in comparison. the head flow compromises of the 8V head are going to make that transition even more dramatic. You'll be launching it at higher RPM and you'll be changing gear more often as the engine will fall off a torque cliff below maybe 3K. In short it will be a pig and hard work to drive.

If you think I'm being overly dramatic about the work required, consider what a 40% power increase means to other N/A engines and what it takes to get there. The most obvious example is the LS1. I'll use this because it's a two valve per cylinder design but much more modern combustion chambers ect. It makes 220Kw stock +40% = 308kw, to achieve (slightly under that, 304Kw) that, GM built a whole new motor, the LS3. with a 0.5 litre capacity increase. Fun fact, the stock LS1 and the stock G13BA both make the same HP/L at ~51.XX, so it's not like either engine is already highly developed. That extra 38% power of the LS3 saw hp/l run out to 64.7. This is in an all alloy engine with every sophisticated management. Let's look at the highest production power from an atmo LS motor - the LS7. That's 500hp from 7.0 litres, so that's 71.4 hp/l That's still below your HP/L goal - that'd be a 92hp G13BA. Sure, it's possible to build higher power atmo LS motors, at the expense of drivability. The take out here is that yes, you're going to need to build the motor for much higher VE at high revs which is a big job, and it's going to be piggy out at 77hp/l on carbs.

If that's what you're going for put a GTi in and put side draft carbs on it. You'll get your 100hp with enough drama and noise and messing about with jetting and distributor advance and timing and a choppy idle - it will be super "charming" a a comparable price to putting an EFI motor in and having a car that runs properly.

[sideways]

MrRocky wrote:

I would expect a 1.6 efi swapped sierra real world scenario to pull over 20+ sec 1/4.
Closer to a 22 even

Nah no way, 22 is stock g13 pace. At one of the Suzuki days at whoopass the 2 G16 sierras ran 17 and 18. Also Boostedbricks G16b ran a 17.78 from memory.

[MrRocky]

Sounds optimistic

[The Saint of Killers]

Gwagensteve wrote:

But this is my whole point about this thread. It's effectively the Seinfeld of threads - a thread about nothing. Seven pages in and about the most we've learned is that electronic performance meters tell lies in proportion to the lies they are told about the parameters of the car. Oh, and the OP has learned that his engine is down on compression.

Everything else is inconsequential. The people that know the OP will waste their time pouring money into a G13BA still know it. Everyone still knows a G13BB/G16B swap is by far the best solution if the OP wants a better driving car.

All the other talk about "charm" and fiddling with little things here and there are just filler. Unless the car (or ideally, engine) goes on a dyno the numbers are pretty meaningless and it's all going to come down to "I've expended effort on my car, therefore it was worth it" Which is just fine, so long as it's understood that that's what is being done, but that's not a 100hp car. I'd actually forgotten that was your goal and had to go back to the first post to read it.

You're not going to get 100hp without much narrower and much higher power band. That's not what a 260 cam is going to give you. It's not what messing with the timing or plug leads or whatever is going to give you, The engine is going to need to be rebuilt and the end result will be quite aggressive with a high idle with low vacuum and very little torque below ~3000rpm. It's extremely unlikely to make 100hp with stock compression, so you're going to be up for pistons and perhaps rods. Someone like Dion at Dyno-Mite performance in Melbourne can probably reel off had flow numbers for the GTi which is what you're going to need to achieve with your 8V head, so that's lots of valve lift and duration and probably bigger valves along with porting. He can probably tell you what compression ratio you're going to need, again, the GTi was 10-11.5:1 up from 8.3:1. I don't know if you've driven a GTi but they have a really nice top end but next to nothing below 3K in comparison. the head flow compromises of the 8V head are going to make that transition even more dramatic. You'll be launching it at higher RPM and you'll be changing gear more often as the engine will fall off a torque cliff below maybe 3K. In short it will be a pig and hard work to drive.

If you think I'm being overly dramatic about the work required, consider what a 40% power increase means to other N/A engines and what it takes to get there. The most obvious example is the LS1. I'll use this because it's a two valve per cylinder design but much more modern combustion chambers ect. It makes 220Kw stock +40% = 308kw, to achieve (slightly under that, 304Kw) that, GM built a whole new motor, the LS3. with a 0.5 litre capacity increase. Fun fact, the stock LS1 and the stock G13BA both make the same HP/L at ~51.XX, so it's not like either engine is already highly developed. That extra 38% power of the LS3 saw hp/l run out to 64.7. This is in an all alloy engine with every sophisticated management. Let's look at the highest production power from an atmo LS motor - the LS7. That's 500hp from 7.0 litres, so that's 71.4 hp/l That's still below your HP/L goal - that'd be a 92hp G13BA. Sure, it's possible to build higher power atmo LS motors, at the expense of drivability. The take out here is that yes, you're going to need to build the motor for much higher VE at high revs which is a big job, and it's going to be piggy out at 77hp/l on carbs.

If that's what you're going for put a GTi in and put side draft carbs on it. You'll get your 100hp with enough drama and noise and messing about with jetting and distributor advance and timing and a choppy idle - it will be super "charming" a a comparable price to putting an EFI motor in and having a car that runs properly.

Well I thought I'd check in a year later and we'd be out of a Pandemic, seems that we're still here!.
Good thing I enjoy Seinfeld and this thread is paying homage to it

I appreciate the the explanation that 100hp will not be easily achievable, or lets say, pleasantly drivable, so I can temper my expectations.
I've purchased GSXR 750 carbs for it, they won't be fitted for another 6 months or so. After that we will be rebuilding the engine and picking a camshaft and we can see were this whole thing lands.

I'm not sure what your understanding of my meaning is when I say "charm" so just to clarify. I like seeing the baby 1.3 underpowered engine under the bonnet, I like that it's carby and I like that we all laugh when it's discussed amongst friends or they have a drive.
The build so far has had a positive reaction at car meets, not that it's my sole motivation but it's certainly enjoyable with the engine being such a funny talking point. Car enthusiasts have different interests and for this particular project, mine is not "best option."
I may absolutely hate it and change my mind after a while and that's fine too, it's all supposed to be fun. I'm not trying to be right in all of this, I was always seeking advice on how I could make it work.

I understand your position, for example when the Ford camp want to extract power out of a 302 and they are hoping to modify E7 heads and a Cobra intake, I often explain why it won't work and suggest the alternatives to meet their expectations. Most make the switch but for the person that still wants to walk the path for their own reasons, that's fine, we help them.
You and many others have been helpful throughout this thread, maybe I underestimated the controversy.

I did have to have a little laugh though, I buy a measuring device just for this thread, only to be told it's not good enough (despite it reading accurately for cars with known results). Or all data loggers are blanketed as inaccurate despite me advising that other data loggers using GPS equipment match the transponders accurately.
Was quite baffled that the equipment couldn't even be considered to offer a close enough reading, despite that same device being used for drag racing we're its all on display.
I half expect if I paid for a dyno, it will be condemned as "too generous" if the numbers are higher than expected.

Moving forward, once the intake is made, I'm assuming the carbs will need to be jetted and be an absolute nightmare to tune. Nothing beats that sound, a dying artform right there and only a couple of carb shops left here in SA.
Still undecided with the cam, I'm meeting an engine builder in January for another project, he's highly regarded so may have some out of the box ideas. Slowing down for this project for now while finishing my other project but I'll keep everyone posted as things happen.

[Gwagensteve]

I'm still no closer to understanding where you're deriving "charm" - if it's from an "underpowered" 1.3 then that's great, but you don't seem to want an underpowered 1.3. If people think it's "funny" having a 1.3 in a 4WD then I wouldn't concern myself with their opinion.

I build my Sierra with a "charming" and unsuited engine for the job, but at least it was EFI and had a broad power band. If it was charming but also had a narrow power band and carbs.....

You know as well as I do that the induction noise you're referring to has nothing to do with carbs and everything to do with having an individual throttle body. However, getting enough vacuum with ITB's to feed the brake booster is a potential issue, as is air filtration in an offroad environment. At least there's a fair bit of tech on the 750 carbs from the US.

I wasn't aware that GPS transponders were used in drag racing, only light beams triggering conventional timing gear, but I don't feel like that's the issue as much as the assumptions you're making about the car in order to derive a power figure from the GPS/accelerometer data.

[The Saint of Killers]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I'm still no closer to understanding where you're deriving "charm" - if it's from an "underpowered" 1.3 then that's great, but you don't seem to want an underpowered 1.3. If people think it's "funny" having a 1.3 in a 4WD then I wouldn't concern myself with their opinion.

I build my Sierra with a "charming" and unsuited engine for the job, but at least it was EFI and had a broad power band. If it was charming but also had a narrow power band and carbs.....

You know as well as I do that the induction noise you're referring to has nothing to do with carbs and everything to do with having an individual throttle body. However, getting enough vacuum with ITB's to feed the brake booster is a potential issue, as is air filtration in an offroad environment. At least there's a fair bit of tech on the 750 carbs from the US.

I wasn't aware that GPS transponders were used in drag racing, only light beams triggering conventional timing gear, but I don't feel like that's the issue as much as the assumptions you're making about the car in order to derive a power figure from the GPS/accelerometer data.

I feel I should just do away with the word "charm" all together
Post thread was all about aiming for a carbureted 100hp SOHC 1.3. A somewhat arbitrary number that was half pulled from a pie in the sky and half from the claimed results of a builder in the US.

Maybe my line of questioning was naïve, however I just based it on my other experiences where people could suggest options;

example
"XYZ cam and headwork with ____inch exhaust will net you that but powerband will not be favorable (which is basically what you've mentioned)
alternatively ZYX cam + _____ will have a wider powerband and land you on 70hp or 80hp..

It just hasn't been that simple here unfortunately, which I take responsibility for.

Re, GPS devices, they're not used for any official recognition by the track in either drag racing or go-karting (to my knowledge), they're devices used for unofficial measuring. My point was they were tested against the official results with excellent accuracy.

I agree with you regarding the power measurements, I could put whatever number I wish into the device and it would result in a power difference.
However, I accounted for weight, fuel and drag CO to the best of my knowledge which could be considered close enough to be fair. Even if I'm somehow 30% out, it still creates a baselinee if those variables remain unchanged between tests.
On that point if we factor in the weight of me, the car and the amount of fuel which are all known, can you imagine me being 30% out? Maybe I was, the car came out quite underpowered. Those variables will remain unchanged, except maybe for a small percentage for weight added or removed depending on me ..It is Christmas holidays after all
I even accounted for slope, temperature and wind speeds and will test in the same area once modified.

Maybe I should have been clearer, the experiment was designed to create a baseline for future mods, not to prove the cars power figures from the outset.
For an amateur's test of a mid-90's-4x4, surely it was pretty damn good considering most people use a butt dyno! I am not lying when I say that I've seen less controls on an actual dyno when the tune didn't result in the number as expected so he removed the intake
Even look back to how careful I was making any claims once the tune and exhaust were completed and I only had driving experience (a butt dyno) as a comparison and no device.

Power aside, the 1/4 mile and 0-100 can be considered accurate (or I'll settle for accurate enough for this kind of car and this kind of test)