2l 16v with throttle bodies

Early 16V Ibiza's (pre 96/97) had an 1.8L ADL engine - this is essentially a KR with digifant ECU management and a dizzy but I suspect with milder cams than the KR as it was Kat equipped - 129bhp I seem to remember was factory figs.

About 97, the ibiza 16V went to 2L with the ABF engine (150bhp)

The ibiza was never fitted with the 9A unless its been retrofitted - like with mine that was originally an ADL.

Rob

 

Vince can't map the fuelling side of an ABF or a least he couldn't last time i talked to him, just the timing

but he may have some new kit now

GVK Claire probably loses you as the 16v box is a bit lower than yours i think, and maybe the abfs clever management makes a bit more torque?

totally agree with chrisp

276s will drop you down to 1.8l torque levels below 6k so i would stay away from them for road use, unless you are a bit mad like RobT and Barney

 

Vince has used Geoff Everett to map ABF engined stock ecu'd cars.

Why can't the ABF's ecu be adjusted for fueling? Its a glorified digifart ecu is'nt it.

bill

 

Not on a 2L with throttle bodies and a decent ECU they dont - plenty torque.

Rob

 

Prof - My peak torque is still higher than Claires by a few lb/ft - she has more mid-range torque though ( mine has a stoopdid dip between 2-4k )

 

easy tigers

Bill for some reason Vince only had the codes for the timing side last time i spoke to him, but he did suggest that geoff could do it. ABF is totally remappable but is a bit different from a stock digi with it's t-pot etc

Gary Does claires still have the CAT? and has it been fully remapped or just the timing advanced a bit? otherwise i guess the kr cam/vs ABF cam thing might show a few differences, the ABF was more emmissions orientated setup, hence less duration but more lift.


Rob back to back tests on a k-jet fuelled ABF with 276s lost 10lbft below 6k but made 194+ at the top end..

t-bodies from what i have seen do up the torque quite a bit, do you have a graph of yours on the original inlet and on the t-bodies....seem to think it was on Bills site somewhere. On vortex they reckon that the stock t/body is way too small on a kr, not sure how an ABF one stacks up.

Not trying to be an authority here by the way, just trying to pass on what i have learned so far

 

LOwer trace is on plenum with pair of 276's and Lumenition ECU - >130ftlb above 4.5K

Upper trace same but with TB's - 170ftlb at 6K - thats VR6 torque with 276's !

Thats the beauty of TB's and a decent ECU over Kjet

This was with a std exhaust manifold also - just in process of fitting a 4-branch so will be interesting what I get at Stealth in Jan

Rob
Edited by: RobT

 

great figures there rob

shows what a mapped ecu can do over the k-jet eh!

170ft/lb is fantastic

 

on k-jet fuelled plot I have here very similar spec but

5200 = 128lb/ft and that felt seriously rapid,

whereas yours is on 142lb/ft on the plenham and 160 on the bodies.....jesus thats a hell of a good case for mapping and t-bodies

just need to rob the post office again to pay for it
Edited by: prof

 

Can't remember exactly what my torque was, but I think it was around the 170kb/ft mark, and again that's with specific ECU and proper mapping.

That said, it's not that great when you compare it to the 1.8T's which are getting torque figures in the high 200's!!!

I still get left for dust all the time, so if you want speed go the 1.8T route.

 

As far as we know it's standard 'cept for a Jetex cat back system and K+N panel filter, the mods gained about 3bhp (!!) at the top but the mid range torque was far better. The graph had a dip on the standard exhaust, filled in with the Jetex.

 

cheers for your help. didnt realise how much headwork could give

 

and another one... Kent Rally cams in this one. MK2 Rally car. V.Quick @ Kames Sprints.

Edited by: badger-bill

 

Not really a good example... turbo vs 16v atmo..
Had both.. very different types of driving..
One is instant response and very drivable one is less reactive but more potent.

Turbo engine are given a 1.4 multiplier in competition use so its a bit like comparing a 2.0 16v with a 2.5ltr 20V.... Sill favours the 20v for outright grunt... But think of the sound of an atmo on t'bodies

 

The debate on cam profiles will go on forever..

It's all about budget and your requirements on a personal level.

If you have the budget ultimately T/B's a mapped engine will be the ultimate choice.

If you want to go the next step up for ATMOS 16V Power then a solid lifter head and perhaps 304 cams on T/B's and a steel bottom end will give ultimate top end power but at a cost.

If you want a torquey 2 litre 16V on a tight budget I'd stick with a 2 litre on standard cams or perhaps a slightly mild set of cams eg 264's.More dosh available then flow the head

Personally I have the 268/276 combo on stock K jet and flowed head and manifold with no management.
It's a nice Fast Road compromise as it doesn't cost the earth if done properly and gives a nice combination of torque low down and top end punch for a reasonable outlay.It's not too far away from the same spec engines on T/B's but I cannot pass judgement on torque figures as I have no up to date figures. Obviously it won't be 170lbs but more like 150 - 155lbs at a guess I'll have to get it measured at Stealth.
For flat out driving on track in the top end on the spectrum I don't think you would see that much difference between a 190bhp car and one with 2-210bhp and 10-15lbs of torque

I have a MKIV 1.8T and it is amazingly quick in the gears with over 240lbs from 2000 onwards but it needs it because it is so heavy. Driving the two side by side if you were caught sleeping in the valver the MKIV would leave it for dead....but the point is it's cheap HP and twist for minimal outlay.

My advice is to drive a few cars or sit in them to experience the differences.

Ianb

 

From the few instances where I have been out on race circuits with 'similar' spec cars, this would seem to be true to an extent - never done 'official' timing on a trackday though (as its not allowed )

The real difference comes when you want to sprint / hillclimb / rally the car where the mid-to-top transition is very very important - the only cars to beat me in this arena have been tuned 1.8T's, Nick Wilson's awesomely fast polo, bill and chris eyre's 16V's (both on throttle bodies and over 2.0L I believe, chris's with a very special engine) and daz ashby's VR6 corrado at blyton - when the timing gears been out, never been pipped by a Kjet car. Make of that what you will - and thats with an ibiza, not exactly a lightweight car when compared with early VW cars.

Yes you will get more 'speed' from a 1.8T but you will also be in the class above 2.0L if you do any competition, and this is a scarey class - big V8s, GPA rally tackle etc etc. If you cannot persuade the scrutineer that the 1.8T block is a derivative of the original block fitted to the car, you would be in sports libra and up against space framed specials - you would have no chance.

TB's / management also make the car a joy to drive on the road, hot or cold weather, - I drive mine to and from events for eg. and went to the nurburgring last summer.

Hopefully this explains my logic for TB fitment

Rob
Edited by: RobT

 

i was amazed at the difference after seeing RobTs graph.

shows that although K-jet can still provide the goods, a properly mapped engine is way way superior, even when Robs was on the original intake, the proper mapping makes a huge difference.

but the it also costs a packet, the old speed costs clique again

 

You're right Rob mapping is the best way to get the best from your engine but at a cost. I've run out of dosh as our MKIV is now receiving some cash.

Rob you may have seen my car at Coombe but basically I know all of the people you have mentioned quite well except Nick Wilson.All of their cars are in the upper end of speed rating for track days not forgetting Mad20V and Maurice.

As a benchmark my car now is on par with Bill's old Jetta on power and times...well nearly except I've never run it on cut slicks.
I remember Nick's Polo at Coombe last year and yes it is a very quick Polo and takes alot of other people by surprise.

K jet works well for a crude system and for me it's been 100 per cent reliable and adaptable for my spec engine.

The last time it was at a group RR day at TSR it gave almost identical power as Bill's old Jetta and was one of the higher 16V's on the day.

If only I had more bunce.

Ianb

 

k-jey seems to give similar power figures, but it loses out loads in the mid range to a proper ecu

 

Cut slicks Ian? You imagining things now mate? Road legal tyres mate... You're just slower

My old Jetta was not built for outright power but for spread ot power and torque. (something not shown on TSR's rollers) Power delivery and spec is mild. Reason? Cos thats whats quicker on sprint tracks, not top end power like is more usefull at Combe.

Best ever Jetta time was 1m22.8s @ Combe (Ibiza is 1m18s now)
regards
bill