I question his gains. I've tested some of his assertions such as the hollowed upper intake manifold. It doesn't help at all. In fact, every time I put one of his claims to the dyno it gets proven wrong. He has to claim that his motor (of which he has "lost" the dyno chart) makes huge power to match the huge money spent, but there's absolutely no substance to it.
Keith Tanner wrote: With the recipe you've posted, it really comes down to what you do with the cams. Bill Schenker's legal CSP engine was built with similar specs (including a "stock" cam) and it pulled a maximum of 160 rwhp on our dyno on 91 octane. That engine had an enormous amount of dyno time on it testing things like the length of the intake tract pre-TB.
Is anyone selling any "off-the-shelf" cams for the VVT motors? I know there are the usual "overnight parts from Japan" suspects, but anyone reputable, on this continent, and reputable? (yes, that was intentional)
I'm surprised Schenker is dynoing on 91, does the jump to 93 make no difference?
I'd ask about the "stock" cam, but I probably don't want to know 
Keith Tanner wrote:z31maniac wrote: Keith, any "build" would likely include cams, slight headwork, +1mm pistons with upped compression, aftermarket rods, and a standalone ECU for a proper 91 octane tune and the requisite intake/header/exhaust. Does the 160-170whp number sound reasonable with the above information? I figured that's approaching a $10k motor, but also figure an FM turbo, with the proper cooling setup for the radiator and oil cooler is basically $8k, plus a basic refresh on the current engine. The turbo would make more power, no doubt, but I think I'd really rather avoid that route. And I think a V8 Miata is just more power than I really want.I'm not sure I agree with your math for the FM turbo. For the power levels we're discussing, you're talking about a Voodoo II. $3345. Add in a clutch, fans and a radiator and you're still under $5k. With the recipe you've posted, it really comes down to what you do with the cams. Bill Schenker's legal CSP engine was built with similar specs (including a "stock" cam) and it pulled a maximum of 160 rwhp on our dyno on 91 octane. That engine had an enormous amount of dyno time on it testing things like the length of the intake tract pre-TB. I'm one of the few people who has actually owned a 1.6 Voodoo II and a high compression 2.0 at the same time. They made pretty similar peak numbers, but the naturally aspirated mill had more torque. Definitely a different feel to each of them and I miss my high compression engine. But we pulled it apart for a refresh after a couple of seasons and it looked like a tired race motor. Wasn't showing any signs of low power or low oil pressure, but the bearings and rings were not long for this world.
If I went turbo, I'd go with your I'd go with the Hydra kit. So $5300, add in the clutch happy meal, we are at $6k. Crossflow, fans/shroud, oil cooler, we are now just over $7k..................add in a refresh of the tired 1.6 that's in the car, maybe another $1k.
If I was going to go turbo, I'd go over the top to make sure it was going to be reliable. Reliability while being thrashed on is absolutely paramount. And all the cooling would be needed for our June/July/August track days here.
So if I were going to swap a 1.8, I'd like to increase the power as much as reliably possible as well. Although with what I'm reading a late-model block, with I/H/E and proper tune would still be a HUGE step up over the 1.6 in there now. A 50% increase in power would be substantial.
Keith Tanner wrote: I question his gains. I've tested some of his assertions such as the hollowed upper intake manifold. It doesn't help at all. In fact, every time I put one of his claims to the dyno it gets proven wrong. He has to claim that his motor (of which he has "lost" the dyno chart) makes huge power to match the huge money spent, but there's absolutely no substance to it.
I can tell by the tone of his posts to ignore him.
I was mostly looking at what emilio had to say in the NA Power thread.
peter wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: With the recipe you've posted, it really comes down to what you do with the cams. Bill Schenker's legal CSP engine was built with similar specs (including a "stock" cam) and it pulled a maximum of 160 rwhp on our dyno on 91 octane. That engine had an enormous amount of dyno time on it testing things like the length of the intake tract pre-TB.Is anyone selling any "off-the-shelf" cams for the VVT motors? I know there are the usual "overnight parts from Japan" suspects, but anyone reputable, on this continent, and reputable? (yes, that was intentional) I'm surprised Schenker is dynoing on 91, does the jump to 93 make no difference? I'd ask about the "stock" cam, but I probably don't want to know
I didn't post the E85 and race gas numbers, the question was about 91 so that's what I posted He is from California, so 91 is what comes out of the pump.
I think his cam was built by Integral. They're out of business now, but they did sell their grind database to someone else. The googles would probably help.
Z31, you're not doing a direct comparison with the FM II. Sure, it'll be more money than a 150 rwhp naturally aspirated engine (maybe). But it would also make an extra 80 hp. That's hard to gloss over.
Emilio is a good guy to listen to. I suspect, based on track performance, that our dyno tends to under-report power below 200 hp so that's why our numbers sit lower than his. But he's definitely put a lot of effort and money into naturally aspirated power. The engine in "Crusher" is the first one I've seen that had trouble getting up to temperature in an enduro! You don't want to know what that one cost though.
Not that it matters. Sounds like you've made up your mind and you're doing the math to support your decision. Enjoy it!
Definitely have not made my mind up, that's why I'm asking for info here.
Although it seems what would be best is just do a 1.8 VVT engine, I/H/E and tune, and enjoy another 40-50whp over a stock 1.6. And that leaves alot more money for gas/tires/brakes and trackdays.
Would be substantially cheaper as well. 
OK, changing this around. 1.6’s don’t have a couple of advantages of the later engines as there’s no In/Ex cam swap or cheap Mazdaspeed cam upgrade, sticking with cheap and cheerful, what would a mild re-fresh of a 1.6 with bolt ons give?
Say:
Strip and rebuild with new seals, rings, bearings.
Original pistons
Hone
Balance crank
Alloy F wheel and new clutch
Healthy head skim, port match, 3-5 angle seats, clean-up of casting.
Clean up and port match intake.
Header, free flowing cat and light 2.25-2.5” exhaust
a) Above with stock or RX7 AFM
b) Above with MSPNP
Basically a decent home rebuild plus bolt ons.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
Speaking of the VVT- have you ever recorded what the VVT does on a power run? It would be interesting to see what it does..... Fun to discuss it with people around here, since a lot of VVT action is as much for other thing (knock, temps) as much as it is for power.
Something I've wondered about.
Well, the "exhintake" swap also doesn't give quite the same results for most people as the legend says. The MSM cam is worth a few
I think the little engine responds better than the bigger one, I have a 148 rwhp 1.6 that is an absolute riot to drive. It has a set of Web Cam 505s in it, high compression, mild headwork, IRTBs and a custom header with a Link ECU. It's in my Locost and has been run hard over the years, the only failure was a collapsed lifter from an 8000 rpm redline and my tendency to let the valves float occasionally. A new set of valve springs solved that problem.
One of my other cars has a 1.6 with an untouched stock bottom end and some amateur headwork including a 0.030" shave. RB header, FM exhaust and cat, various intakes before the throttle body, stock intake manifold, Link ECU. 118 rwhp, which is about 30 more than we usually saw on that dyno for a stock 1.6.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: Speaking of the VVT- have you ever recorded what the VVT does on a power run? It would be interesting to see what it does..... Fun to discuss it with people around here, since a lot of VVT action is as much for other thing (knock, temps) as much as it is for power. Something I've wondered about.
We'll set up the VVT by holding the engine at a particular RPM and changing the valve timing to get peak power. Then move to the next step. I'm not sure exactly what the current "good" curve looks like, I'll have to ask Jeremy.
It is interesting to note that Mazda didn't really see any power gains with the VVT engine, but they did manage to get rid of a cat AND meet tougher emissions regs with it. The 1999 federal engine couldn't meet 1998 California regulations, the VVT version could meet 2005 regulations.
Mazda did bump the compression by half a point when they added the VVT, so I think that gets confused a bit with the VVT itself.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
The emissions reasons for VVT are a totally different story, one that I know quite a bit about- and it's not actually a stretch to know why the duratec motor was developed in the first place (over whatever Mazda family this is and the ZTEC). And the CR basically says that they fixed the HC enough that NOx is not an issue, so go with the CR (and let the customers eat cake, I mean buy premium.... 
)
But I'm more interested in knowing what Mazda does with the VVT. Yes, could "steal" one off you- but that's not my 'goal'- more of a what stock looks like, and compare that to what I know about VVT.
I'll see if we have that map. I think we may have logged it at one time. (edit - Jeremy says we have not)
The Duratec is an MZR. The Zetec never made it into a Miata, and the Mazda BP engine didn't see use in many Fords other than the Escort GT..
Keith Tanner wrote: I'll see if we have that map. I think we may have logged it at one time. (edit - Jeremy says we have not) The Duratec is an MZR. The Zetec never made it into a Miata, and the Mazda BP engine didn't see use in many Fords other than the Escort GT..
Both the BP and the ZTEC were not all that capable in terms of emissions, so the joint venture made the Duratec/MZR family. It helps a lot that both engines are much lighter, as well.
But all in all, the newer family is a really good motor- very easy to make PZEV, whereas the ZTEC took some work, and you can see by the iVCT on the BP that it had considerable emissions issues, as well.
More power, lighter motor, and better emissions- win-win-win for the new over both the old.
Ironic that once the engine got out in a LOT of cars, the family breaks up, and the new DI engines that are sorta duratec/MZR are pretty different.
Keith Tanner wrote: Well, the "exhintake" swap also doesn't give quite the same results for most people as the legend says. The MSM cam is worth a few I think the little engine responds better than the bigger one, I have a 148 rwhp 1.6 that is an absolute riot to drive. It has a set of Web Cam 505s in it, high compression, mild headwork, IRTBs and a custom header with a Link ECU. It's in my Locost and has been run hard over the years, the only failure was a collapsed lifter from an 8000 rpm redline and my tendency to let the valves float occasionally. A new set of valve springs solved that problem. One of my other cars has a 1.6 with an untouched stock bottom end and some amateur headwork including a 0.030" shave. RB header, FM exhaust and cat, various intakes before the throttle body, stock intake manifold, Link ECU. 118 rwhp, which is about 30 more than we usually saw on that dyno for a stock 1.6.
Warning, extremely risky extrapolation commencing with accuracy to 10 decimal places!
So, this says the ‘average’ stock 1.6 you see is about 88hp, let’s call that 90hp. 1.6’s are rated at 116 hp. Let’s say by the time you saw one miles had taken that down to 110hp. So at your 12 million foot altitude you’re getting about 19% loss with correction factors. If you apply that 19% to the 118hp figure you mention that says that 118whp is something like 145 hp which is pretty good.
Same fuzz logic to your 148whp Web Cams engine says you were/are at 175-180ish range. Damn good.
Even with ‘only’ 145hp in the theoretical 2,000lb Miata street car I was prattling on about last week is 14lb/hp which is moving into fun territory.
Fell free to tell me if im being dumb but with priorities of cheap durable more powerful and relatively bolt in ...
An extremely mild f2t?
Thinking about it more- is there an aftermarket part that fixes the iVVT into a single location? It appears that if you don't connect the VVT, it goes to full retard, and most of the gains are found from advancing it. So it would be interesting to see what would happen if you got it to say, +25deg and kept it there.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: Fell free to tell me if im being dumb but with priorities of cheap durable more powerful and relatively bolt in ... An extremely mild f2t?
IIRC, it's too tall, and the distributor fouls the firewall. Plus all the usual ticky-tack stuff that abounds when you take a FWD engine and put it in a lateral RWD configuration.
With a truck block to fix the ticky tacky fwd stuff the hood and firewall seem like minor issues compared to an mzr swap. Prolly a lot heavier though.
For anyone who NEEDS flywheel numbers, I add 25 hp to the wheel number. It's closer to a fixed number than a percentage, although it's really a bit of a mix. I quote that 148 rwhp engine as 175 crank, and it'll run down the straight with a 300 hp Atom I've had that engine in my 2150 lb (wet) street Miata, it was fun.
The F-series engines aren't quite bolt-in. Not as much as a BP is.
I thought there was something about bolting a B2200 transmission to an F2T to get it in a RWD setup.
alfadriver wrote: Thinking about it more- is there an aftermarket part that fixes the iVVT into a single location? It appears that if you don't connect the VVT, it goes to full retard, and most of the gains are found from advancing it. So it would be interesting to see what would happen if you got it to say, +25deg and kept it there.
There's a Megasquirty VVT controller. You can easily fix the VVT into full advance electronically - I think the crude method is to treat it like VTEC (yo) and switch it at a certain RPM. It's the in-between stuff that's tricky!
Keith Tanner wrote:alfadriver wrote: Thinking about it more- is there an aftermarket part that fixes the iVVT into a single location? It appears that if you don't connect the VVT, it goes to full retard, and most of the gains are found from advancing it. So it would be interesting to see what would happen if you got it to say, +25deg and kept it there.There's a Megasquirty VVT controller. You can easily fix the VVT into full advance electronically - I think the crude method is to treat it like VTEC (yo) and switch it at a certain RPM. It's the in-between stuff that's tricky!
I'm trying to think cheaper. as in no movement. I need to get with the cam people here and talk some more, but there may be a decent compromise.
if the maps I have come across at miata.net actually represent what Mazda did- they didn't go the sophisticated route much, either... 
I'd probably try to lock it in mechanically.
LEEN is getting MUCH closer to having an adapter for the Y16M-D 6 speed(99-05). that would mean you could have 250 crank hp, 160 #/ft @ 9000(+ or -) rpm......
with a Toyota 7AGE 
I wonder what 9000 rpm in a Miata would feel and sound like
and since there is no VVT or other such nonsense... a simple MS should be able to handle the management
Keith do you have any videos of your locost with that setup or build information on that engine? What kind of cost went into building a 1.6 like that NA vs normal FI?
You'll need to log in to post.
