The 1.4 L Ecotecs must be pretty good because several top SCCA competitors are ditching their tried and true engines and switching to turbocharged 1.4 GM engines. Jeff Kiesel is switching from Wankel to 1.4 Ecotec and his car has around 20 National Championships. Peter Raymond has pulled out his Cosworth and is putting in a 1.4 Ecotec. Del Long's cars have around 15 National Championships and he's a huge fan of the 1.4 and I think is getting around 300 hp/300 ft/lbs with just an upgraded turbo. Bad News Racing is heavily involved in 1.4 tuning.
bobzilla said:
In reply to FSP_ZX2 :
BTR tune alone puts these little motors at 220 to the front wheels from the 180 they put down stock. Add in the supporting mods and you’re going to be pushing 250whp out of their 1.6. I understand that is about the limit with stock internals and turbo though. I also know they have rods and turbos to push them over 300whp.
I am curious what the BTR tune is. Is it all the boost? Or mostly other stuff?
I'd love to do a tune, if mostly just to fix the throttle mapping, but I'm enjoying this warranty thing for a while.
In reply to ProDarwin :
More boost, more timing and a little leaner on the map because stock is stupid fat rich. They also make the throttle mapping muuuuch better.
Does the GM 1.4l turbo come with a manual trans at all? I wonder if that is small enough to fit into the back of an X1/9... That would be a good powertrain if it's small. On a previous thread, someone posted that many of the DM guys are going boost with the intake restrictor and are happy with the results.
In reply to alfadriver :
Yes it has a manual on both the sonic and cruise
I know the fiat 1.4 is immensely tunable. The factory has a 190hp version in europe (the 695 BiPosto) and some tuners here in the states are getting double the HP of the stock US spec engine.
Opti
HalfDork
1/19/19 8:06 p.m.
Any been mated in a RWD configuration?
In reply to Opti :
The DM/EM guys are using the GM 1.4 in a rear wheel drive configuration. I'm not sure what they are using for bellhousing/transmission
Vigo
UltimaDork
1/19/19 11:43 p.m.
I guess I forgot to account for the fact that once you go away from the stock turbos that have fairly low limits, the question changes from 'how much power can a stock setup make' to 'how much money do you have'. Sounds like all of those autocross swaps fall well under my 2000 lb criteria.
Opti said:
Any been mated in a RWD configuration?
The Fiat 124 is the same 1.4 mounted to a Miata Chassis with sexy italian bodywork.
Opti
HalfDork
1/20/19 10:19 p.m.
In reply to mad_machine :
I really liked the idea of the flat 1.4 in stuff like the dart and 500, but the first one I drove was in a 124 abarth before I bought my ND,and absolutely hated the way it drove and the aftermarket was looking pretty bleak so I passed
Don't see much point in messing with the baby turbos when the larger, usually c. 2-2.5 liter engines are around. The LNF 2.0 Ecotec is easy to get over 400 bhp crank from with more available according to the capabilities of your wallet. Ditto the turbo engines from Subaru, Volvo, Ford, VW, Honda, Mustang, etc. 2.0 is the sweet spot.
Opti said:
In reply to mad_machine :
I really liked the idea of the flat 1.4 in stuff like the dart and 500, but the first one I drove was in a 124 abarth before I bought my ND,and absolutely hated the way it drove and the aftermarket was looking pretty bleak so I passed
bleak? I am seeing a lot of hop up parts for the 1.4 turbo engines.
Opti
HalfDork
1/23/19 9:08 p.m.
In reply to mad_machine :
At the time there wasn't much outside of the diverter valve, that was actually showing improvements.
I know eurocompulsion (or something like that) was doing alot with them in the 500s and darts but I hadn't seen anything but claims from manufacturers for the 124. There was talk that the newer ecms would readjust even after changes were made, and until that was solved there was no additional power to be made.
The ND was faster and there was already two turbo kits and 1 sc kit available, so I have an ND in my driveway.
ProDarwin said:
wspohn said:
Don't see much point in messing with the baby turbos when the larger, usually c. 2-2.5 liter engines are around. The LNF 2.0 Ecotec is easy to get over 400 bhp crank from with more available according to the capabilities of your wallet. Ditto the turbo engines from Subaru, Volvo, Ford, VW, Honda, Mustang, etc. 2.0 is the sweet spot.
Classing/minimum weight
A turbo 1.4l with all the stuff on it does not save weight over a N/A 2.0 or 2.5l that is simple.
And the NA is a LOT cheaper.
That whole think makes me want to drink, and more look forward to late 2022.
As for the various turbos- well... just because. The real lighter version is the turbo 1.5 that has 3 cyl instead of 4. Which is actually theoretically identical to the 2.0l but at 3/4 weight.
alfadriver said:
ProDarwin said:
wspohn said:
Don't see much point in messing with the baby turbos when the larger, usually c. 2-2.5 liter engines are around. The LNF 2.0 Ecotec is easy to get over 400 bhp crank from with more available according to the capabilities of your wallet. Ditto the turbo engines from Subaru, Volvo, Ford, VW, Honda, Mustang, etc. 2.0 is the sweet spot.
Classing/minimum weight
A turbo 1.4l with all the stuff on it does not save weight over a N/A 2.0 or 2.5l that is simple.
He's talking about a 2.0-2.5 Turbo.
Min weight in DMod is 1380lb with <2000cc turbo. >2L isn't allowed
I don't know how the 1.4t compares with a 2.0t, but its possible that would push one over the edge? They have to run restrictor plates anyway, so its possible the displacement increase isn't really worth it.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Ah... Where there's also the space thing. A 1.4 will surely be smaller than a 2.0l. When I've done the mental exercise of that- I keep coming up with a 2.0l would be able to run up on the restrictor a lot more often than a 1.4, making it's whole power curve nicer to use. But people choose the 1.4 for a reason.
Still, there are a number of N/A 2.0l's that would make a lot of power in DM trim- some starting well ahead of a 1.4 turbo.
Based on the 1.4 trend, my new mental exercise is a 1.4l motor from an Abarth, put into an X1/9. Full mid engine, full fiat, etc. But I know I'll never make that- its just daydreaming.
wspohn
Dork
1/24/19 12:24 p.m.
"Min weight in DMod is 1380lb with <2000cc turbo. >2L isn't allowed"
If turbo engines under 2.0 are allowed, the Ecotec is 1998 cc.....
Agree that the weight saving between a 2.0 and similar 1.4 isn't that great. I like the idea of the 3 cylinder engine.
With a restrictor, smaller engines might give a wider powerband. One of the WRC teams used to run ~1800cc engines for this reason, in the 2 liter days.
Knurled. said:
With a restrictor, smaller engines might give a wider powerband. One of the WRC teams used to run ~1800cc engines for this reason, in the 2 liter days.
How so? A larger engine would be capable of running at the restricted engine for a much wider RPM band. Essentially, since the restrictor is a air limiter (you can't get past the sonic wave, thus you are flow limited), it's basically a torque limiter. Since a larger engine can move more air, it would be easier for a larger engine to hit the pumping limit than a smaller one. So you can also use a smaller turbo, that spools up faster- as you the boost would be limited by airflow, too.
In reply to alfadriver :
I suspect that more modern engine management is able to be finely controlled enough that the turbo speed can be kept just below the restrictor's choke point (.3 Mach or somesuch), either through extensive testing/mapping, or just directly measuring turbo speed.
But, at the time, and for those of us who don't have those resources, the engine hits a wall and larger engines hit that wall earlier, so it becomes more dependent on the driver to keep the engine in its narrow powerband to extract the most. I'd like to say it was Citroen that was running the smaller engines, figuring that a more flexible engine was worth it.
