Malone's 1.6/1.9 Frankenmotor

[VWRacer]

I thought I'd start a new thread to collate the known info about the frankenmotor in Malone's car, as this sounds like a combo I could get interested in building. Hope you and Dave don't mind!  

1.6 hydraulic block(? - are there different blocks?)
1.9 hydraulic head, ported and polished with the 'head mod' (any pics?)
1.9 hydraulic cam (Stage ?)
GT20 turbo (how does this differ to a KK24?)
Big downpipe and open exhaust

Pros - 143 hp and 165 ft-lbs of torque

Cons - misses and smokes off idle in present state of tune
        - 5250 RPM appears to be effective limit with 1.6 IP

Any gotchas to building this or important factors I've missed?  

One last (initial) question...why build it as a 1.6 instead of simply hopping up a 1.9?

TIA!

[935racer]

I don't mind! I am quite proud of the motor, as soon as I can get rid of the smoke at idle issue I think this will really be the combo of choice. Cam is stock right now, hopefully gonna get some #'s with the stage 2 cam this weekend. The gt20 will likely stay, but hopefully soon in the new year it will be accompanied by another larger turbo up top. The motor is seriously underfueled at this point, there is soooo much potential left here. I can say confidently that we can hit 200WHP and beyond no problem as soon as we get the adequete fueling and an extra turbo :twisted:

As far as why not just use a 1.9 bottom end thats a good question, a lot of people seem to think the 1.9 bottom end is heavy and is not a keen "rever" Seeing as how I have 2  1.9 engines geting the crank fix in the shop now would be a good time to measure the weights of the cranks, between the 1.6, and 1.9's, as well as the mains and the rod caps. As some of you know the 1.9 rod caps have counter weights on them. This weekend I will take the weights of these things and see how much they differ. Maybe the best thing to do for a high performance vw IDI would be removing the weights on the rod caps.

[VWRacer]

I thought of a few more questions.  :wink:

Does the head use 1.6 or 1.9 injectors? Or does it matter?

Do you have any feel for the power potential of the 1.6 head treated to the same mods? Doesn't the 1.9 have bigger valves and a better port design? If that's true then a prepared 1.6 isn't going to have potential proportional to a 1.9...i.e, 1.6/1.9=.842*143=120 hp, right?

At 5250 RPM the 1.6 motor has a mean piston velocity of a little over 15 meters per second (mps), while the 1.9's speed is 16.7 mps. Both of these are well within the limits usually applied to stock engines used for road racing, where 20 mps is often used as the limit for stock rods and pistons. Adding forged parts will raise that by a mps or two, while a full-blown racing engine based on top-notch preparation and parts can go as high as 25 mps. (F1 engines go as high as 28 mps. The forces exerted on the reciprocating parts grow proportional to the square of the mean piston velocity, so each mps faster one spins the motor creates enormously greater forces on the moving parts.)

Dave have you tried to modify the tops of the pistons for high-speed operation, as outlined in the Toyota patent that fspGTD posted a while back?

Keep up the good work!  

[malone]

I'm using 1.6TD injectors. So far I tried new OEM 1.6TD injectors and 1.6TD injectors retrofitted with GTD style nozzles. I might try dual spring injectors - it may result in a different torque curve (see fspGTD's past single spring vs. dual spring GTech comparision).

The intake valves in the 1.9L head are 1mm bigger vs. the 1.6's intake valves. Exhaust valves IIRC are the same size. I can't say as to what the performance differences are when considering the small 1.6TD prechamber cups to the larger 1.9TD cups.

Anyway, chances are that a heavily modified 1.6 head won't be too far behind a heavily modified 1.9 head in terms of flow. It will be interesting if 935racer will have time to kill and modify one of the few 1.6TD heads he has in the shop, then compare it in a flow bench.

[vwmike]

I think it would be difficult to make a 1.6 head flow like a 1.9 head....if not impossible. The ports in the 1.9 are vastly improved. The ports are basically a straight shot down to the valve, but in the earlier heads they almost turned 90 degrees to get to the back of the valve. I don't think you could cut the short radius down far enough or enlarge it to the dimensions of the 1.9 head without hitting a water jacket. Modifying a 1.6 head in this fashion just seems like a waste of time when you consider that half the battle will be just getting the head to flow as well as the 1.9 head...nevermind surpassing it.

[malone]

That's true, vwmike. Anyway AAZ heads are becoming hard to find and some people have a limited budget so it'd be interesting to see the hard flow #s from a worked 1.6TD head.

The HP potential is still nice with a stock & inexpensive 1.6 block. Based on my current torque vs. HP difference, I could possibly go up to 250whp (not that it may happen, but who knows :twisted:) before the stock rods have a chance to bend at 290wtq. Or the powerband can be altered with more HP and a bit less peak torque, depending on the turbo setup & fueling curve.

If we achieve 200whp with the nearly stock 1.6 block I'll be pleased. Achieving 200whp or above that (50 more whp?) with a 1.9 block may be costly (something has to be done with the major block internals) and the entire block is not easily replaceable in the case of damage. Just something to consider.

However.. let's say we want to go past the 300lb-ft (or 290wtq) barrier, which is the limit of stock 1.6 rods (from what I gathered from a not-so-credible source). For the 1.6 block I'll need custom rods. The same can be considered for a 1.9 block without counter-weights attached. The 1.9 crank can also be knife-edged to further reduce weight. Then the 1.9 may become a decent revver. At the 300lb-ft+ stage the costs of modifying a 1.6 block vs. a 1.9 block are probably going to be close, a bit less for the 1.6.

If it's possible to install ALH TDI rods in a AAZ block then you can put down at least 365wtq before the rods bend. This is nice! But will revability and max. HP potential still be there? Different strokes for different folks I guess. BTW the torque my 1.6L makes during low RPM is already pushing FWD traction limits in daily driving condition.

When you keep up with a 200whp VR6 or 1.8T, imagine the looks on people's faces when you say your car runs on diesel... not only that, the displacement's also only 1.6L Not 1.9 where some people may begin to compare it to the common 1.8L or 2.0L turbocharged gas motors that are easy to get tons of HP out of.  Imagine a 1.6L gas engine putting down 200whp!! How many have we seen those? People would be stoked. It's different.

A fully worked 1.9 block could give more potential for peak HP... if my budget allows 935racer could help build a 1.9 block with fully worked internals and then attach it to my existing 1.9TD head & see how it performs.. but that's gonna cost a lot more money than my present setup, which still consists of a nearly stock & inexpensive 1.6L block. Efficient!

I've thought about the SAE paper fspGTD posted regarding alternative piston top design to improve cumbustion during higher RPM.. it's interesting. Perhaps that's something to do to pistons before ceramic coating.

Just when I thought I had everything...  :twisted:

BTW my current downpipe diameter is only 2 1/4" because of the narrow turbine flange supplied with the GT20 turbo. Next time (i.e. during a turbo upgrade) a larger downpipe will be preferred, 2.5" minimum.

[VWRacer]

Awesome stuff, Mike and Mark. Thanks for the thought-provoking replies...!  

[malone]

By the way my 1.6 vs. 1.9 block comparision (regarding power potential) doesn't hold much value until we finish tuning my frankenmotor and someone else experiments with his 1.9 a little more.

To recap my 140nhp (Gtech) result; non-intercooled, stock cam, 9mm pump head, zero smoke, 2 1/4" downpipe.

I wonder if I can get ~160nhp after all of these are addressed, which will (if accurate) translate to approximately 180whp.

Forgot to mention that the fuel pump's also incomplete (camplate skips at just above 5k RPM... I wanted around 6.5K RPM, max 7K). This may not be until the turbo upgrade though for the 200whp goal. For now a 10mm or 11mm pump head upgrade & perhaps higher flowing injector nozzles will do.

[malone]

Audi80 from Finland, can you please enlighten us on the 254whp and ~360wtq 1.6TD you claimed in another forum? Since the owner of that TD also owns a dyno, can you ask him for a copy of his dyno charts?

Cheers,
Mark

[935racer]

There is not a chance a 1.6 head will flow like a 1.9 head, trust me I've looked into it. That said you can make a 1.6 head flow a signifgantly more than stock.

I would like to try building a full 1.9 IDI motor with some lightened pieces. Mark I can build you a 1.9 bottom end, and swap it in place of your 1.6 bottom end. I think that, and custom rods are necessary to go over the 250whp mark.

I seemed to have missed this paper about the piston mods by toyota... Anyone wanna post upa link for me?

Marks setup with the gt 20 and such has much more potential the way it is than it currently does, one of my performance cams, much much more fuel and more head work (yes there is much more that can be done :twisted: ), and a intercooler. I think it would be easy to see 180whp. But heck if you are gonna go to the trouble of getting more fuel might as get way more fuel, to support 50 psi.

[malone]

I wonder if it's possible to de-stroke a 1.9 block. To what extent? Any good crank options? I suppose that longer custom rods could be used with a smaller crank to retain sufficient piston protrusion (TDC) without needing to deck the block.

I have no doubts about 180whp either while retaining the GT20 :twisted: I just tend to avoid appearing too optimistic in public forums until wheel dyno charts are posted.

[935racer]

Oh also thought I would mention you do NOT want to knife edge a diesel crank, first of all these engines aren't going to rev high enough to make it worth while and second of all have any of you ever built or driven a engine with a knife edged crank??? Holy smokes they shake, and with the diesel I can't even imagine the vibration :shock:

Crank weights should be up this weekend between the 1.9 and 1.6

[malone]

Oh also thought I would mention you do NOT want to knife edge a diesel crank, first of all these engines aren't going to rev high enough to make it worth while and second of all have any of you ever built or driven a engine with a knife edged crank??? Holy smokes they shake, and with the diesel I can't even imagine the vibration :shock:

Crank weights should be up this weekend between the 1.9 and 1.6

If the internals are fully ballanced, from crank pulley to every reciprocating parts can the vibration from a knife-edged crank be reduced?

Could it have been a poorly balanced crank after knife-edging that caused the vibration? Or is the vibration normally expected? BTW I don't recall having driven a car with a knife edged crank before.

[VWRacer]

Dave,

I don't know if Jake still has them up on his website, so I emailed the Toyota diesel piston patent pages to you at the address in your signature block. If you can post them to the web that would be great, or I can later if that's not convenient.

[fspGTD]

Here's the relevant thread, guys.  The document can be downloaded from the US patent office.
http://www.vwdiesel.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=630