1.6 head on 1.3i block - 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 08-03-2008, 08:44 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member # 109216
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 16
1.6 head on 1.3i block

Hello!
Its my first time thata I write here, But I have time to be turning hereabouts, many things I have learned!


I want to put the 1.6 head on my 1.3i block, I read like 35-36 post, but I have some questions, some one can help me?
Number that I have:
Compresion Chambers:
1.3i: 30.20cc
1.6: 50.33cc

Relation of compression
1.3i: 9.5:1
1.6: 8.9:1

Then, If I put the 1.6 head on the 1.3i block whitout shaving I have a relation of compression of 7.45:1
If I shave the head 2.76mm I have again a Compresion relation of 9.5:1 like stock.
My questions: if I shave the head 2.76mm the valves would hit the piston? whats the maximun that I can shave the head whitout problems

Thanks!
SamuraiCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 08:47 PM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 48911
Location: acworth, ga
Posts: 1,945
I never had a problem with mine when I did it. never shaved the head, just bolted it on and all good.
also, a header and large exhaust.
cajunsuzukispider is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-04-2008, 06:01 AM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member # 109216
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cajunsuzukispider View Post
I never had a problem with mine when I did it. never shaved the head, just bolted it on and all good.
also, a header and large exhaust.
A header is my future, but before I want to have a beter relation of compression, 7.45:1 is bad!
__________________
Costa Rica
Samurai JL, 93
SamuraiCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 03:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
augeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Member # 107174
Location: Nevada
Posts: 13
1.6 Cr?

1600cc/4=400cc per cylinder. 400/50.33=7.94 compression ratio.
1324cc/4=306cc per cylinder. 306/50.33=6.04 compression ratio.
1324cc/4=306cc per cylinder. 306/30.2=10.6 compression ratio.
I calculated the CR's using your #'s. Something is wrong. One of us does not know how to calculate compression ratio or your #'s are crap.
This has been done by many people with very good results when combined with
match porting the intake and using a 2" exhaust system.
I do not believe you can make improved HP if the CR is 6.04.
Every post I have ever read said they did not mill the 1.6 head and it improved performance!
I would cc my combustion chambers myself to determine the CR before I relied on some BOGUS figures.
If I am wrong, let me know. You are never too old to learn.
augeter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 06:16 AM   #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member # 109216
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by augeter View Post
1600cc/4=400cc per cylinder. 400/50.33=7.94 compression ratio.
1324cc/4=306cc per cylinder. 306/50.33=6.04 compression ratio.
1324cc/4=306cc per cylinder. 306/30.2=10.6 compression ratio.
I calculated the CR's using your #'s. Something is wrong. One of us does not know how to calculate compression ratio or your #'s are crap.
This has been done by many people with very good results when combined with
match porting the intake and using a 2" exhaust system.
I do not believe you can make improved HP if the CR is 6.04.
Every post I have ever read said they did not mill the 1.6 head and it improved performance!
I would cc my combustion chambers myself to determine the CR before I relied on some BOGUS figures.
If I am wrong, let me know. You are never too old to learn.
1.6:
It is not realy 1600cc it is 1590cc
1590/4: 397.6cc per cylinder. (397.6+50.33)/50.33: 8.89 compression ratio

1.3i (fuel inyected)
It is not realy 1300 it is 1298cc
1298/4: 324.7cc per cylinder. (324.71+38.20)/38.20: 9.5 compresion ratio

1.6 head + 13i block
(324.71+50.33)/50.33: 7.45:1


Compresion Ratio: (Cylinder+Compresssion Chamber)/Compression Chamber
__________________
Costa Rica
Samurai JL, 93
SamuraiCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 09:17 AM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Member # 24386
Location: Catskill Mts., NY
Posts: 555
Insteresting, especially since I have a 1.6 head on a 1.3 TBI.

Where did you get the CC values? I remember a post on here where someone CC'd the two head and found no real difference in the values. If that is the case, then little would change in the CR. But if his research was wrong, then you are right and my compression is off from the 9.5:1 its looking for.

Good news if I want to turbo it.
__________________
Yankee Tim
www.rok-freekz.com
Yankee Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 12:15 PM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member # 109216
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee Tim View Post
Insteresting, especially since I have a 1.6 head on a 1.3 TBI.

Where did you get the CC values? I remember a post on here where someone CC'd the two head and found no real difference in the values. If that is the case, then little would change in the CR. But if his research was wrong, then you are right and my compression is off from the 9.5:1 its looking for.

Good news if I want to turbo it.
CC: V1/(E-1)

CC: compression chamber
V1: Volumen of de piston
E: Compression ratio

1.3i
CC: 324.71/ (9.5-1)
CC: 324.71/ 8.5
CC: 38.20cc

1.6
CC: 397.6/ (8.9-1)
CC: 397.6/ 7.9
CC: 50.33cc

If yoy dont undertand my let my now and I will tray to write it beter, english is not may native lenguaje..
__________________
Costa Rica
Samurai JL, 93

Last edited by SamuraiCR; 08-05-2008 at 12:22 PM.
SamuraiCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 04:41 PM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Member # 8284
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee Tim View Post
..... I remember a post on here where someone CC'd the two head and found no real difference in the values. If that is the case, then little would change in the CR. But if his research was wrong, then you are right and my compression is off from the 9.5:1 its looking for......
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...274&highlight=
DemoMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008, 07:06 AM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member # 109216
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoMike View Post
Interesting...
How to motors whit differente volumens and the same copression ratio (1.6 and 1.3carb) can have the same combusstion chamber?
__________________
Costa Rica
Samurai JL, 93
SamuraiCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008, 01:06 PM   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member # 88570
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 414
Send a message via Yahoo to TurboNerd
Manufacturer lied?
__________________
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8529965#post8529965
TurboNerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008, 01:08 PM   #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Member # 106586
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 685
I thought the two engines had the same head which is why all of the intake and exhaust equipment is interchangeable on the 1.3 and 1.6 8Valve engines. I thought it was the bottom that had more volume not top. I know the cylinder diameter difference is only about 1mm between the two engines so wouldn't the difference in volume be from a longer stroke?
__________________
You can only smell fear if the fearfull have loose bowels.
Baratacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008, 03:10 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member # 109216
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baratacus View Post
I thought the two engines had the same head which is why all of the intake and exhaust equipment is interchangeable on the 1.3 and 1.6 8Valve engines. I thought it was the bottom that had more volume not top. I know the cylinder diameter difference is only about 1mm between the two engines so wouldn't the difference in volume be from a longer stroke?
------Bore Stroke
1.6: 75mm 90mm

1.3: 74mm 77mm

1.3i:
74mm 75.5mm
__________________
Costa Rica
Samurai JL, 93

Last edited by SamuraiCR; 08-06-2008 at 03:12 PM.
SamuraiCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008, 05:39 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Member # 50557
Location: Medford, Oregon
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee Tim View Post
Insteresting, especially since I have a 1.6 head on a 1.3 TBI.

Where did you get the CC values? I remember a post on here where someone CC'd the two head and found no real difference in the values. If that is the case, then little would change in the CR. But if his research was wrong, then you are right and my compression is off from the 9.5:1 its looking for.

Good news if I want to turbo it.
The difference is the 1.3 head (carb'd... I don't know about FI) has a smaller compression chamber thus giving it a higher CR. I heard it's a bad idea to put a 1.6 head on a 1.3 block because of the bigger chamber.
__________________
Sounds like bay, not ass.
Bass Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008, 05:44 PM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Member # 50557
Location: Medford, Oregon
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiCR View Post
------Bore Stroke
1.6: 75mm 90mm

1.3: 74mm 77mm

1.3i:
74mm 75.5mm
That is why the 90+ FI and the Suzuki Swift GTI engines (G13B) has 1298cc and the carbed Sammy's (G13A) are 1324cc.
__________________
Sounds like bay, not ass.

Last edited by Bass Man; 08-06-2008 at 05:45 PM.
Bass Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 04:05 AM   #15 (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 SamuraiCR View Post
Interesting...
How to motors whit differente volumens and the same copression ratio (1.6 and 1.3carb) can have the same combusstion chamber?
Thanks for pointing to the head thread, YankeeTim.

to answer this question... drum roll... deck space! tah-dah!
__________________
thanks for the compliment, but it's not a jeep.
LittleBlackSambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 12:00 PM   #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Member # 106586
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 685
If the heads of the two engines ARE DIFFERENT and the Combustion chamber is larger because of a larger volume in the head on the 1.6 and you shave the head down to be the same compression as the 1.3, wouldn't you have just created a 1.3 head from a 1.6 head?

If the heads of the two engines ARE the SAME and the difference in compression ratios are from a lower position of the piston in the cylinder at combustion, then shaving a 1.6 head (being the same as a 1.3) would result in smashing your piston into your valves.

My understanding is that they share the same head, and the compression ratio on the 1.6 needs to be lower because compressing the volume from the 1.6 cylinder into a head the same size as the 1.3 head at a 9.5:1 ratio would blow your engine. The 1.3i's had F.I. and in some cases turbos, but they lowered the cylinder volume and shortened the stroke to accomodate for the higher compression.

You can increase compression with domed pistons, higher lift cams and head shaving. If you wan't to get more volume out of your engine I don't think you can do it with a 1.6 head. You would need a turbo or supercharger, or a stacked head gasket. OR a 1.6 block to go with your 1.6 head.
__________________
You can only smell fear if the fearfull have loose bowels.
Baratacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 01:00 PM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Member # 50557
Location: Medford, Oregon
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baratacus View Post
If the heads of the two engines ARE DIFFERENT and the Combustion chamber is larger because of a larger volume in the head on the 1.6 and you shave the head down to be the same compression as the 1.3, wouldn't you have just created a 1.3 head from a 1.6 head?

If the heads of the two engines ARE the SAME and the difference in compression ratios are from a lower position of the piston in the cylinder at combustion, then shaving a 1.6 head (being the same as a 1.3) would result in smashing your piston into your valves.

My understanding is that they share the same head, and the compression ratio on the 1.6 needs to be lower because compressing the volume from the 1.6 cylinder into a head the same size as the 1.3 head at a 9.5:1 ratio would blow your engine. The 1.3i's had F.I. and in some cases turbos, but they lowered the cylinder volume and shortened the stroke to accomodate for the higher compression.

You can increase compression with domed pistons, higher lift cams and head shaving. If you wan't to get more volume out of your engine I don't think you can do it with a 1.6 head. You would need a turbo or supercharger, or a stacked head gasket. OR a 1.6 block to go with your 1.6 head.
If you put a G13A head on a G16-G16B block, there is a noticeable power from the increased compression.

If you shave/mill the 1.3 head once and leave it on the 1.3 block, there is a big increase in power. If you shave/mill it a SECOND time, there is an increadible increase of power, but that will only last a couple days and you will be buying a new head gasket.


I never seen a factory turbo Samurai.
__________________
Sounds like bay, not ass.
Bass Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 01:07 PM   #18 (permalink)
Skandinavisk pirat
 
ShuDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Member # 30288
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baratacus View Post
If the heads of the two engines ARE the SAME and the difference in compression ratios are from a lower position of the piston in the cylinder at combustion, then shaving a 1.6 head (being the same as a 1.3) would result in smashing your piston into your valves.
I had a 1.6 16v block with a shaved 1.3 head. not an interference engine

where are these numbers from?
ShuDuck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 03:03 PM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Member # 50557
Location: Medford, Oregon
Posts: 976
Wait... What?? I didn't think you could put an 8v head on a 16v block.

And the 16v is an interfence motor.

Now, if you didn't realize you put a 16v in there instead of an 8v, and had an 8v 1.6 with a shaved 1.3 head with the 1.6 FI.... That's gonna have insane power! Upwards of 85-90hp.
__________________
Sounds like bay, not ass.

Last edited by Bass Man; 08-09-2008 at 03:08 PM.
Bass Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 03:37 AM   #20 (permalink)
Skandinavisk pirat
 
ShuDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Member # 30288
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,175
the 8v and 16v blocks are the same cast. 1.6 16v isn't an interference engine either

ran this setup for a good while; 1.6 16v block, shaved 1.3 8v head and swift TBI
Attached Images
 

Last edited by ShuDuck; 08-10-2008 at 03:38 AM.
ShuDuck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 12:38 PM   #21 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Member # 106586
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 685
other than the compression ratios and the stroke and bore size which are listed in the manual, I have no Idea how the other numbers calculated can be accurate. I can't see how they can be computing cylinder head chamber size without taking into consideration the position of the piston in the cylinder. Going on the compression ratio numbers and the piston size does allow you calculate the volume of the compression chamber when the cylinder is at TDC, but it doesn't tell us if the 1.3 engine block pushes the piston further into the head to give higher compression, or if the chamber just isn't as deep.

Bass man's claims of power increase from 1.3 head on a 1.6 block would indicate a smaller chamber size in the 1.3 head. Some numbers would be good reference though. Cylinder pressure, and H.P. comparrisons.

If there is a spec sheet where this has been done that would be a good reference. If someone has actually checked the volume in the cylinder heads that would be cool too.... turn the head upside down, close the valves, fill the thing with fluid and measure the ammount of fluid it takes to top off a chamber.

I know it's not an interferance engine. I was pointing out that if you start shaving the head too much (especially if you're not sure how much to shave) you can make it an interferance engine. Your timing would have to be way off to actually smash the piston into the valves though.... that was just some dramatic flare.



I don't think there were ever any stock turbo sami's either, but the swifts that used the 1.3i came with a turbo model. I was speaking more about the engine dynamics than the vehicle application. On a side note, If you wan't higher compression on a 1.3i, you might look into an aftermarket low boost turbo or supercharger... they were built with them in mind.
__________________
You can only smell fear if the fearfull have loose bowels.
Baratacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 05:00 PM   #22 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member # 88570
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 414
Send a message via Yahoo to TurboNerd
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoMike View Post
Have those of you commenting on the differences in compression chambers read the above link?

I've always read 16V is not an interference engine.
__________________
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8529965#post8529965
TurboNerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 07:48 PM   #23 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Member # 117949
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, OZ
Posts: 1
Here is my page with changes between 1298 and 1324 motors.
http://ironbark.bendigo.latrobe.edu....ff/compres.htm

It looks like suzuki can change the CR: between 8.x and 9.x ( carb' or an EFI) by changing the piston to/from A or B.

I ran G13A heads on my g16a(b) block and now run a 8v g16a head and pistons in a g16b block.

I do have CC volumes of all my heads ( done with kerosine) that i will look for.
zukjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 02:43 PM   #24 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Member # 106586
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 685
I forgot about the PDF's and the engine data in Sambo's thread. That pretty much puts to rest any discussion of the heads being different.

Possible alternative solution to Bass Man's observation of power differences in engines that have had head swaps.
Putting a 1.3L 8v cam on a 1.6L 8v engine will have a slight difference in output power, and putting an 8v head on the 16v engine will definitely give you better low rpm torque. Not because of head volume though, but because of the valve timing.

None of these engines (G13a/b or G16a/b) are interferance engines. The Valves clear the pistons by .2 mm on the 8 valve engines and .3mm on the G16b 16 valve engine. Now if you shaved the 8v head by .25mm, you would have an interferance engine.
__________________
You can only smell fear if the fearfull have loose bowels.
Baratacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 02:57 PM   #25 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member # 88570
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 414
Send a message via Yahoo to TurboNerd
If the valves are different sizes between the 1.3 and 1.6 8v, that could explain some power differences too. Note I said "if". The only one I know that knew a lot about the cam's was Hawk, but I don't think he works at Hawk's anymore???
__________________
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8529965#post8529965
TurboNerd 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 03:30 PM.


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