Some more Miata thoughts...

I had previously completely ruled out doing any tuning to the stock 1.6 engine in my '90 track rat. I decided saving that money to put toward an NB engine would be better.

However, I'm starting to consider doing an intake/header/exhaust/standalone ECU/lightweight flywheel........my thoughts being:

1. The lightweight flywheel will transfer to the later engine.
2. I could get some experience with the standalone ECU (and from what I understand I can run the 99+ motors on the '90 harness with a few modifications)
3. Raceland header isn't a RB/Maxim piece,but maybe worth something?
4. A decent intake to replace what I have now.

I figure with a good tune these modifications would get me 15-20whp? Is that reasonable?

Paging Keith Tanner....

In my experience, with a 91 1.6, you're probably looking at a 5-10hp increase tops with those mods, excluding the standalone.

I would only do what can, or would, transfer to the newer motor.

Are you that bored with the power output already?! LOL. Of are you just looking for a reason to spend some time in the garage? Haha.

I'm currently dabbling in an engine conversion on my 94. The only thing I'll touch on is your aftermarket ECU idea. If you go with the 99/00 engine down the road and keep your aftermarket ECU from the 1.6, you can just put your 1.6 CAS on the exhaust cam and call it a day. But if you go to the 2001+ motor with the VVT, you'll have to use the cam + crank sensors from the new motor, which may be an issue depending on your ECU. That's next on my "to figure out" list - what changes I need to make to my MegaSquirt to make that happen. Incidentally, if you think you'll want to go VVT down the road, go with the MS3 over any other MS version - it will do the VVT control without needing VVTuner. About the same price as the VVTuner, IIRC.

Maybe MadScientistMatt will chime in and tell us both what needs to change between the Miata CAS MegaSquirt build and the NB MegaSquirt build

Good thinking on the first two in particular. They'll transfer over to whatever engine you choose and you'll pick up power. A good ECU will be worth 10-15 hp if well tuned.

Intake and header? Don't get your hopes up too high. The 5-10 hp estimate is pretty realistic.

It shouldn't be too much effort to adapt VVT with a good ECU on the 1990-93 harness. You'll have to run a couple of extra wires, but the majority of it is the same. Remember that while the VVT engines might have more options on sensors, they're not necessarily required.

HunterJP wrote: I would only do what can, or would, transfer to the newer motor. Are you that bored with the power output already?! LOL. Of are you just looking for a reason to spend some time in the garage? Haha.

Both? I was bored of the power when I bought the car! But knew it was the right one to actually learn to drive with.

The clutch started slipping on the way home from the track, so the clutch has to be changed anyway, figure might as well upgrade, especially since I can use it on the next motor.

The ECU stuff would be fun to learn, my buddy will build the exhaust so it can be used on the later swap.......so really the only extra I'm out is the Raceland header which is pretty cheap.

Keith Tanner wrote: Good thinking on the first two in particular. They'll transfer over to whatever engine you choose and you'll pick up power. A good ECU will be worth 10-15 hp if well tuned. Intake and header? Don't get your hopes up too high. The 5-10 hp estimate is pretty realistic. It shouldn't be too much effort to adapt VVT with a good ECU on the 1990-93 harness. You'll have to run a couple of extra wires, but the majority of it is the same. Remember that while the VVT engines might have more options on sensors, they're not necessarily required.

So then my 15-20whp estimate is fairly reasonable?

I don't expect big things, but with most of the stuff being able to be reused (and the 1.6 seemingly a bit healthier than I previously though) I thought it might be a fun exercise.

FC RX7 air flow meter is pretty cheap and flows more.

15-20 hp more with those mods would come out to about 105-110 rwhp on our dyno. My old 1.6 with some amateur headwork, a 0.030" shave, a Link, Racing Beat header and a home-built cold air intake spun the rollers at 118. So yes, I'd call those numbers reasonable. The head shave and the Link were probably the primary contributors.

^Good to know!

Next track day won't be until sometime in March, so I'm going to need something to mess with over the winter.

The Mustang is staying stock.

DaveEstey wrote: FC RX7 air flow meter is pretty cheap and flows more.

The ECU would let me ditch and go MAP/IAT.

Will just need to decide between AEM and MS.

If you're going to use a local shop to tune, check with them to see which standalone they are more familiar with. If you're going to do it yourself then read up on their respective forums. MS has a great support group.

I don't have any aftermarket ECU, but the FM supplied Hydra interests me due to being able to easily handle E85(for a price). That, and FM answers all of my stupid questions.

mistanfo wrote: I don't have any aftermarket ECU, but the FM supplied Hydra interests me due to being able to easily handle E85(for a price). That, and FM answers all of my stupid questions.

Nothing against FM, I have a ton of their stuff on my car, but even MS will handle the GM Flex Fuel sensor.

I wouldn't be surprised if MS would do it just as well if not better, either... There's quite a few more people that i'm aware of using/working on the flex fuel thing with MS than i'm aware with Hydra.

Flex fuel is pretty damn cool, though. I'm glad it's becoming common in the standalone world.

Not a concern for me with the lack of E85 availability.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

Me too. It's available less than a mile from my house.

So with e85 does your tank need to be empty before you fill up and switch over your map to the e85?

Jaynen wrote: So with e85 does your tank need to be empty before you fill up and switch over your map to the e85?

If you have the sensor, no. It will adjust for anything between E0 and E100.

Otherwise, I'd think you'd want to get as much of the E10 out to put in E85.

Flex fuel is really well integrated into the Hydra. Basically, you set the car up for E0 and E85. Plug in the sensor, the Hydra recognizes it and it automatically interpolates fuel,timing, AFRs, cold start and boost levels based on the ethanol content.

Not much "working on" required, it just works. I don't think I've ever seen a feature integrated so quickly or seamlessly. Hydra development isn't done in public the way that MS development is, so it's easy to get the wrong impression about how much work is being done.

z31maniac wrote: 3. Raceland header isn't a RB/Maxim piece,but maybe worth something?

The Raceland header is what I have on my 1.6. I've gone through three because I was driving a lot of miles through salted interstates. They replaced each one under warranty and didn't give me a hard time about it. http://www.sentimentalmechanic.com/2010/12/warranty-honored-on-raceland-header.html

So if you don't burn a ton of miles or drive it in the winter, it should hold up fine, but it won't look great after a while; mine's starting to show corrosion even here in Florida. I put down 110 horsepower on my dyno day last week with basically the mods you're suggesting minus standalone, but I hear that's on the high end of what to expect. I'm running the stock ECU.

^Good to know!

Yeah, mine is a nice weather driver/HPDE toy. So no salted roads, or really even water for that matter (I've completely removed the soft top).

I just need to decide between MS and AEM (as mentioned a talk with local tuners is a good idea). I like the Hydra, but that's a bit of my budget.

Keith Tanner wrote: Flex fuel is really well integrated into the Hydra. Basically, you set the car up for E0 and E85. Plug in the sensor, the Hydra recognizes it and it automatically interpolates fuel,timing, AFRs, cold start and boost levels based on the ethanol content. Not much "working on" required, it just works. I don't think I've ever seen a feature integrated so quickly or seamlessly. Hydra development isn't done in public the way that MS development is, so it's easy to get the wrong impression about how much work is being done.

So does this mean that cold start works well AND boost control finally works on the new Hydras?

I haven't seen anyone post success stories of boost control working correctly on 2.7 yet...

If all of this stuff works awesome on 2.7, that may push me to upgrade, because my car is pretty much undriveable with 2.5, but the inconsistent reviews are keeping me a bit gun-shy.

DaveEstey wrote: FC RX7 air flow meter is pretty cheap and flows more.

There's no air flow meter like no air flow meter. We've seen 1.6 Miatas pick up 5 horsepower from removing the air flow meter outright.

With MS2 and MS3, switching between the NA CAS and NB sensors is just a matter of changing a setting in the tune file. MS1 would need to stick to the NA CAS.

I once installed a Link on a 1995 without even taking it off the dyno. Immediate 7 hp without any tuning and with the MAF still in the system. So yeah, an upgraded ECU can make a big difference.

Celica, I knew you'd post some sort of shot at the Hydra. Yes, cold start works well if it's tuned properly but it is a pain to set up - partly because you only get one attempt per day. I don't know why the 2.7 is more of a hassle in that regard than the earlier ones. Hydra's never been good at boost control, although the 2.7 version is starting to come in to focus. I had a 2.5 in the Targa Miata, "undriveable" was never part of the description of that car.