The Facts on Suzuki Cylinder Heads! - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Brand Specific Tech > Suzuki
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-14-2007, 11:54 AM   #1 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Exclamation The Facts on Suzuki Cylinder Heads!

This information should be worthwhile for many of you. After searching the web and the world over, I have found that Samurai enthusiasts know neither Jack nor $hit about 1.3 and 1.6L 8V cylinder head flow, camshafts, or combustion chamber volume. I felt the need to know these things, since I would like to squeeze as much torque as I can out of the little aluminum 1.6 on my engine stand. I choose to stay with the easy 1.6 TBI swap, for weight, simplicity, and cost. I figure with the amount of parasitic drag I’m subjecting my driveline to with reduced gearing throughout, GM alternator, and T/C pump it would be wise to find some “free” ways to get the power back, using a little bit of educated attention to detail during the buildup.

First order of business is combustion chamber volume. Searches led me to nothing but BS and hearsay, and what I ended up with was a list of numbers that looked like a lotto ticket of “true” combustion chamber volumes. We know that the 1.3 and 1.6 are 8.5:1 engines, and the displaced volume varies a bit. It doesn’t take much math to figure that my stock 75mm bore x 90mm stroke block has a total chamber volume of about 53cc. This says nothing about the combustion chamber cast into the head, nor what that means when it comes to machining for increased compression.

There is also this myth about how bolting a 1.3 head on a 1.6 block will increase compression. While this may work with some zero-deck V8’s, it is totally false with the Suzuki. I put a 1.6 head and a 1.3 head side by side on my bench, and measured the combustion chambers, below:

1.6 head:


1.3 head, 1.6 in background:


The two combustion chambers are for all intents and purposes the same: 33cc. Machining variations on my heads varied about .005” end to end.

A note on splitting hairs with significant digits: When aiming for a specific compression ratio, such as my goal of 9.5:1, a few decimals precision is unimportant. The effective behavior of the increased compression ratio depends on too many factors to say a certain number does this-or-that. An aluminum head with good heat control such as polished piston tops and polished combustion chambers should be able to handle 9.5:1 on 89 octane if everything works right, but that's no guarantee. (I do most of my driving around 6000 ft elevation, lowering compression pressure before the burn, and still have the option to run preeemium, should I have the need.)

Next, a note on gasket volume. A factory head gasket has a bore of 77mm, and a typical crush thickness of 1.25mm, yielding 5.82cc in volume. This is important. The Suzuki Swift guys (mainly Europe and Canada) have pushed copper head gaskets into production, allowing you to really toy with that number should you need to. Copper gaskets are available for our engines in a half-dozen thicknesses- to increase compression, or to lower it for boost. This gives us some choice, if we fawk up or want to spend over a hundred dollars on a gasket…

Planimetric combustion chamber profiling was next on my agenda. The combustion chamber is mostly open, with a small flat on the exhaust side. There is a quench area on the rearward side that has a ridge averaging .015” off of the deck face (keeping in mind the machining variations of +/- .005” on my examples). The first ~.015 machined closes this factory-cast "squish space", and changes the volumetric profile of the chamber after that. The first .015” of grind subtracts 1.68cc of combustion chamber volume. Each .010” machined afterwards subtracts 0.90cc. This is the golden egg here, giving you something to go off of when sending your head to the machine shop! Remember to calculate deck volume from your measured deck height, valve reliefs, piston to bore tolerance, and ring height. The factory 1.6 is about 14.18cc deck volume.

Here is a planimetric profile of the combustion chamber, quench volume, and gasket volume, a’la SolidWorks:



I would like to go on to discuss deshrouding the intake valve, intake and exhaust porting, flow rates, and camshaft profiles. I also have info on crankshaft types that were available, and their suitability. So far, I’ve found a *theoretical* gain of ~20 ft-lbs torque for head and cam work alone. More to follow…

-L.B.S.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 12:42 PM   #2 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Valley Auto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Member # 78079
Location: Carmel Valley Ca
Posts: 2,912
Sweet write up keep the good info coming
__________________

Master of the wire Wheel!Apprentice human clamp

Coastal Fabrication the " best damn shop in town"
Poly Performance

Pacific Fabrication
http://www.pacificfab.net/
Right Gear &Axle
Valley Auto is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-14-2007, 04:05 PM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Member # 24386
Location: Catskill Mts., NY
Posts: 555
Glad to see that there isn't a difference in volume between the 1.3 and 1.6 head. I put a 1.6 head on my 1.3 Fuely. Did the hybrid TBI, added a properly port matched Calmini header, and a mid range cam. Some said I would lose a bunch of compression and it wouldn't work (Zooky did it so I knew it would). In all, added quite a bit of punch. Very noticable.

Up until recently when my ECU began to act up, now it's a turd burning rich and sputtering. Guess I need new caps.

Keep it coming. Great tech!
__________________
Yankee Tim
www.rok-freekz.com

Last edited by Yankee Tim; 12-14-2007 at 04:07 PM. Reason: I attended a public skool.
Yankee Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 05:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Member # 93886
Location: Lake Stevens WA
Posts: 322
Did you use the 1.3 timing belt and pulley. Does the 1.3 dist. also work on it? I got a 1.6 head laying around and I run the ZUKS off road MY fi injection so that might be fun to try out.
zuk1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 06:03 PM   #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ShaunO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Member # 74314
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 149
Quote:
It doesn’t take much math to figure that my stock 75mm bore x 90mm stroke block has a total chamber volume of about 53cc.
Not too nitpick on your thread, but that would be surface area of a square. The volume of a cylinder with those dimensions is ~397cc's.

P.S. Did you know that Google is a calculator? Type in the equation for the volume in the search window "pi*37.5^2*90"
__________________
Bubbles: Do you want to see a rocket go, Randy?
Randy: Does it really launch, Bubbles?
Bubbles: Does it really launch? Does the tin man have a sheet metal cock?
ShaunO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 07:37 PM   #6 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuk1988 View Post
Did you use the 1.3 timing belt and pulley. Does the 1.3 dist. also work on it? I got a 1.6 head laying around and I run the ZUKS off road MY fi injection so that might be fun to try out.
the 1.6 distributor housing must be used with a 1.6 cam, regardless of which head it is in. the gears engage a bit differently... also, if you run a 1.3-grind cam (most of what's out there- has fuel pump lobe) you need to run the 1.3 distributor housing.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 07:41 PM   #7 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaunO View Post
Not too nitpick on your thread, but that would be surface area of a square. The volume of a cylinder with those dimensions is ~397cc's.

P.S. Did you know that Google is a calculator? Type in the equation for the volume in the search window "pi*37.5^2*90"
that is an engine dimension, not a formula. piston bores are not measured by radius.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 11:53 PM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ShaunO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Member # 74314
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 149
Quote:
that is an engine dimension, not a formula. piston bores are not measured by radius
This is true - bore vs. stroke. I assumed that you took the bore and stroke dimensions to get the 53cc's you mention earlier.

Anyways... back on track. Great research!!!
__________________
Bubbles: Do you want to see a rocket go, Randy?
Randy: Does it really launch, Bubbles?
Bubbles: Does it really launch? Does the tin man have a sheet metal cock?
ShaunO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2007, 01:50 AM   #9 (permalink)
Skandinavisk pirat
 
ShuDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Member # 30288
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,176
That is good to finally get some numbers. There are many myths of the zukiengines. one example; I believed my 1.6 16v block with 1.3 8v head was an interfearance engine. cause that was what everyone said. But when I tore it down i checked just to be sure. And guess what, no contact and that was with as shaved head BTW
ShuDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2007, 09:28 AM   #10 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuDuck View Post
That is good to finally get some numbers. There are many myths of the zukiengines. one example; I believed my 1.6 16v block with 1.3 8v head was an interfearance engine. cause that was what everyone said. But when I tore it down i checked just to be sure. And guess what, no contact and that was with as shaved head BTW
i'm planning on doing and interference test after shaving my head about .030 (depends on the deck volume, i plan on performing that measurement on monday afternoon). i've shaved the deck .010 inches without measuring wrist pin height on my new pistons. they came in a rebuild kit to my bore spec, i assumed (there's that word...) they would deck the same, but a sticker on the box from D&J Rock said (cryptically) "deck std 2", and the machine shop , who is a rock dealer, could not find published specs to calc that out. i 'm doing my rod balance and prep myself, and wouldn't pay them to assemble my bottom end just to measure it, and did not take a deck measurement prior to teardown, so they didn't have the info they needed. so i may end up with a less-than-ideal deck height. by shaving the squeeze space out of my head and having a zero deck, i would be a lot closer to the ideal .040 quench space. the quench area is small enough to question whether or not it provides enough turbulence to matter. (i'll ignore the thermal processes of quench space with this engine, the build isn't to be like my pontiac drag motors.) anyway, i think i will have too much deck volume to get any benefit out of quench. the point of this ramble is that i will be doing a valve interference test, and i'll let you guys know how that works out after bringing my valves more than a millimeter closer to the cuts with all that milling. i expect to still have plenty of room, my hypothesis being that the suzuki has a huge amount of deck volume to begin with, it has deeply recessed valves in the combustion chamber (higher than anything else i've worked on) and that the idea of ruining a non-interference engine is hype. my particular pistons will be a variable that will affect my test on other engine builders, but it may be slight. i will do #1 and #4 at the same time, #1 with a clay test at my ~.500 lift, and #4 to measure distance to valve crash at TDC. so we'll see about that.

again, main idea of this thread is to put out information that hasn't been available to those of us who run 8V motors, and to clear up any conflicting info that is out there.

next installment: crankshafts! suzuki used two designs, and what that means to us... with pics, so you can compare your stuff when it's your time to rebuild!
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2007, 09:36 AM   #11 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
ShuDuck- i will look into the flow balance on the 1.6 and 1.3 heads. i have a feeling that the 1.3 is cammed to a more ideal flow balance for its valve sizes (assuming ports are the same as 1.6). the 1.6 has a 89% valve ratio, where the samurai has an 83%. i believe the 1.6 cam has the wrong timing, robbing its efficiency. the 1.3 flow balance and camming may be the reason people are feeling more torque with that head swap. and don't get me started on the aftermarket cam selection...
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2007, 10:07 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 20888
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 50
Here are some of the engine specs as supplied by Suzuki and some piston info from ACL

1.3 G13BA
Bore x Stroke 74mm x 75.5mm
Compression Ratio 9.5:1
Cylinder Block Deck Height 186.8mm
Deck Clearance 0.2mm (above)
Cylinder Head Volume 32.2cc
Head Gasket Thickness (compressed) 1.2mm
Minimum Combustion Chamber Volume 38.2cc
Intake Valve O.D. 36mm
Exhaust Valve O.D. 30mm
Connecting Rod Length (between centers) 120mm
Piston Comp Height 28.90mm
Piston Clearance & Position (from Crown) 0.200 @ 45.80

1.6 G16A
Bore x Stroke 75mm x 90mm
Compression Ratio 8.9:1
Cylinder Block Deck Height 213.8mm
Deck Clearance 0.9mm (below)
Cylinder Head Volume 32.2cc
Head Gasket Thickness (compressed) 1.2mm
Minimum Combustion Chamber Volume 50.6cc
Intake Valve O.D. 36.6mm
Exhaust Valve O.D. 32.5mm
Connecting Rod Length (between centers) 139.6mm
Piston Comp Height 28.10mm
Piston Clearance & Position (from Crown) 0.200 @ 48.00
cj_zuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2007, 11:43 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Member # 84361
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 647
It is very good to finally see some of these numbers come to light.

I run a 16v but have always had suspisions about the chamber volumes on the 8v motors when people said that you could change compression buy swapping the heads.

If you could come up with some chamber volumes for a 16v that would be awesome as I am about to pop my head and try to chase down some compression to the tune of 10:1. If not maybe I'll cc mine and add it to this thread when I pop it.
__________________
Zuk, 16v, 39.5s, Links, Air shocks, 104WB Gone. :(
Toy, 4.3 CPI, 4l60e, dana 300, Tons, Trail slut
crazybluerider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 04:42 AM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 20888
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 50
1.6 G16B
Bore x Stroke 75mm x 90mm
Compression Ratio 9.5:1
Cylinder Block Deck Height 213.8mm
Deck Clearance 0.9mm (below)
Cylinder Head Volume 25.5cc
Head Gasket Thickness (compressed) 1.2mm
Minimum Combustion Chamber Volume 46.8cc
Intake Valve O.D. 29.2mm
Exhaust Valve O.D. 25.0mm
Connecting Rod Length (between centers) 139.6mm
Piston Comp Height 28.55mm
Piston Clearance & Position (from Crown) 0.300 @ 53.00
cj_zuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 06:29 AM   #15 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Member # 103227
Location: Ohio, 43516
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBlackSambo View Post
the 1.6 distributor housing must be used with a 1.6 cam, regardless of which head it is in. the gears engage a bit differently... also, if you run a 1.3-grind cam (most of what's out there- has fuel pump lobe) you need to run the 1.3 distributor housing.
I'm getting ready to put a 1.6 head on my 1.3 block. I am going with a Isky Cam, so with that I can use my 1.3 disty? Also do you think I should have the head shaved?

Thanks
__________________
1994 Zuk 1.3EFI, 1.6 Head, Isky Cam, Header, 5.14:1 t-case, 4:57 axles Locked, SPOA, 33" TSLs
stomperz71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 11:58 AM   #16 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by stomperz71 View Post
I'm getting ready to put a 1.6 head on my 1.3 block. I am going with a Isky Cam, so with that I can use my 1.3 disty? Also do you think I should have the head shaved?

Thanks
the isky cam will require you to use your 1.3 distributor housing. personally, i would up compression. there is plenty of room to play, if you are comfortable with tuning your combination to take advantage of it.

melbourne, are those specs for jdm, usa, or holden models? the piston to bore number seems wrong, and the compression numbers don't match the US specs. also, "g16a" is not a set of exact specs, it is a family of engines with some variation in combination. where did you get that data? i'd like to paruse through it.

for 16 valve info, temswift.net is where it's at. those guys have tweaked the sohc/dohc 16v's to the limit. of course, they call the 1.6 a "big block"... the 1300 and 3cyl info crosses over pretty well. check that site out, it's pretty good.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 01:45 PM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Member # 103227
Location: Ohio, 43516
Posts: 30
With shaving the head or decking the block to get more compression, would I have to go with an adjustable cam sprocket to get the timing dialed in?? Is their a limit you can go on shaving the head?
__________________
1994 Zuk 1.3EFI, 1.6 Head, Isky Cam, Header, 5.14:1 t-case, 4:57 axles Locked, SPOA, 33" TSLs
stomperz71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 03:05 PM   #18 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
according to Geofry at Colt Cams in British Coloumbia, the formula for cam timing is -1.5 degrees for every .010 cut. i have not checked the geometry, but decking does retard cam timing. Geofry says he grinds enough advance into his torque cams (meaning intake centerline) that he thinks i should try running my custom grind at the stock timing marks initially, and adjusting with a pulley after driving for a few weeks if i think my powerband is too high.

I will report on tuesday evening on the decking limit without valve crash (method as stated above). i'm doing this my damn self because there is so much garbage information out there (see? already getting conflicting posts: this-is-the-way-it-is-because-i-read-it-somewhere statements) and taking lots of pictures and measurements for your benefit along the way. your mileage may vary, but at least i can cite my references and back them up with photos of the tools and methods used.

edit: oh, and another thing- i can change a spark plug and make up the difference between my measured 33 cc chambers and the 32.2 cc number. as far as i'm concerned, my heads cc to 33 with the plugs in 'em. i've noted the variance in machining, and stand by my math skills and instrument techniques.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.

Last edited by LittleBlackSambo; 12-16-2007 at 03:10 PM.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 03:40 PM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Member # 103227
Location: Ohio, 43516
Posts: 30
I can tell you definitely know more about this then I do so I'll keep reading this topic to get edge-u-ma-cated. I was going to try it with out the adjustable cam sprocket and see how it goes. This is one of my winter projects so it may be awhile before I see the results.
__________________
1994 Zuk 1.3EFI, 1.6 Head, Isky Cam, Header, 5.14:1 t-case, 4:57 axles Locked, SPOA, 33" TSLs
stomperz71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 03:55 AM   #20 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 20888
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBlackSambo View Post
melbourne, are those specs for jdm, usa, or holden models? the piston to bore number seems wrong, and the compression numbers don't match the US specs. also, "g16a" is not a set of exact specs, it is a family of engines with some variation in combination. where did you get that data? i'd like to paruse through it.
They are U.S. specs for 1994 models of the Samurai, Tracker and 4dr Sidekick. The specs are in PDF format and about 1.2Mb per file.
cj_zuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 07:25 AM   #21 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj_zuki View Post
They are U.S. specs for 1994 models of the Samurai, Tracker and 4dr Sidekick. The specs are in PDF format and about 1.2Mb per file.
Link? or you can PM me and i'll host a link.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 07:52 AM   #22 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Member # 53193
Location: Vegas
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBlackSambo View Post
next installment: crankshafts! suzuki used two designs, and what that means to us... with pics, so you can compare your stuff when it's your time to rebuild!
when do you suspect you'll be doing a write up on the cranks?

Thanks for posting up the head work as well!
2slo4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 09:18 AM   #23 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
Here are some good data sheets for 1.3 8V SPFI, 1.6 8V, and 1.6 16V engines for the 1994 model year. Thanks to CJ for the information!

bear in mind that there are some differences across the model years. the '94 was pretty much the final version for the 8V's, and the arrival of the hot 16's. 1989 and some mixed earlier models (i'll have to find the list again) were different in the crank and pistons. The 1994 california models were 16V, the federal models were the 8V's. 1994 was the year california passed the OBD II requirement, but it was not mandatory until 1996.

Sidekick_4dr_1994.pdf
Geo_Tracker_1994.pdf
Samurai_1994.pdf

also, i've got it on good authority that the 1.3 cams had slightly longer duration than the 1.6, which may account for the perceived power gain from the hybrid head swap. there is a little bit of design history there, so say those who can read japanese. the 1.6 was intended for heavier trucks to fill the gap during the early tracker/vitara runs, since the 1.3 was designed for lighter vehicles like the samurai and swift (us) the longer duration makes sense. as of yet, i have no thorough, citeable stock cam data. i've got one each of 1.3 and 1.6, both regrinds, so no stock cams to degree out. i've got the tools, if i run across some cams i'll measure them out. who knows how many variants are out there.
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.

Last edited by LittleBlackSambo; 12-18-2007 at 09:20 AM.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 01:54 PM   #24 (permalink)
turd-polish-a-go-go
 
LittleBlackSambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49404
Location: Deutschland RP
Posts: 1,023
1.6 Crankshafts

The 8V G16’s can be found with two crank types. The early type is the four counterbalance crank, weighing about 20 lbs on my handy-dandy spring scale. The late type is the eight counterbalance crank, at about 25 lbs. The four counterbalance crank below came out of a ’90 tracker, and is of the early type. The freshly machined eight counterbalance crank below (which I chose for my build) I removed from a 1989 sidekick, which is a mystery. The engine had punch-marked rods, but no machining at all. According to Brent at TT, the eight weight crankshaft was an improvement over the four, and came late in production. I haven’t found any consistent info on this. Either way, I’m happy to have had a choice.



There are a few ways at looking at which design is more suitable. Five pounds (or 25%) increase in rotating weight is a big deal if you are looking for a zippy engine that spools up quickly. The eight counterbalance crank will build a smoother running engine that will have a little less initial bog under a short-duration load, like the beginning of a climb. It would be akin to a heavier flywheel, a’la Newton’s Second Law.

Both cranks are plain cast iron, with hollow connecting rod crankpins. I have not verified it, but I have read that some DOHC 16v G-series engines had forged, solid cranks. (The 1.6 engines all interchange blocks, cranks, and rods should you find one.)





Some say that the hollow pin cranks are a weakness, but most rice racers agree that the crank holds up over 200 HP on nitrous, though they warn about running over 7000 RPM with that kind of power. The thin connecting rods are the main concern for the Fasterer and Furiouserer crowd. For those of us building a little torque into our zuk’s, I think we’ll be juuuust fine.

I pondered doing some oiling mods, like tear-drop chamfering the oil passages to increase the “dwell” time of the flow pulse, or adding a crank scraper and windage tray, but decided to spend my time elsewhere. I really couldn’t justify the extra work for this engine’s purpose. It is easy to get carried away.

I hope this gives you a little more to think about when you tear down that 1.6. If anybody has anything to add, please speak up.

-LBS
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.

Last edited by LittleBlackSambo; 01-03-2009 at 10:57 PM.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2007, 08:16 AM   #25 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Member # 105060
Location: Sarpsborg, Norway
Posts: 5
To help a little om my 1600 8V MPFI project I took a 1300 head and cut out a piece, this shows how much material thich is around the intake and exhaustchannels.

these cylinderheads are also casted to use MPFI technology...

you can see where I have testdrilled an injectorhole at an angle over the intake channel... the testhole does not have quite the right angle though...

exhaustchannel


intakechannel with testchannel for injector


head ready machined to injectors, here you can see where the ready casting to the injectors are


Last edited by sven; 12-22-2007 at 08:21 AM.
sven is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply





Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.