So I suddenly have a 1.9L Caddy...

[wolf_walker]

It's a long story.

I picked up my old 82 that no longer has the 1.6TD but has a 1.9L un-turbo'd with a newer NA pump, NA injectors I'm pretty sure,
and a NA intake and gasser dual outlet exhaust manifold and downpipe.  And drove it half way across the country last week, nearly sight unseen.
It was an adventure, and not completely pleasant at 6K feet, but we did cross the Mojave with the AC on @75mph.  The huge Fluidyne cooler paid off.

Anyway, the motor is solid with about 140K on it and I plan to re-turbo the thing.  I have the stock 1.6 turbo but I suspect there is something better to be had these days.
I'm not especially interested in fabbing stuff, the thing as it sits at sea level has what feels like stock 1.6TD power in NA form, it's plenty liveable but it really ought to have a turbo, so.  My first question I guess is am I shooting myself in the foot putting 1.6TD parts on it? Pump, injectors, turbo, etc?  I plan a larger downpipe and good exhaust and a nice intake tract, be it stock intake mani or a gasser conversion.  Thoughts?  And any other points of interest on the 1.9?

I will note that in the last 140K since new, the thing has never turned in more than 38mpg at any elevation, with forced induction or no, three different injection pumps, etc, etc.  And it got about 38 despite my having it on the floor for minutes at a time climbing 6% grade after grade at altitude on this recent trip.  Is this normal on the 1.9?  I've had a ton of 1.6's and always managed to get them into the low 40's even if they were half worn out.  It has a pretty tall 5th geared trans, but I forget the code.  It'll run 80 without too much effort at sea level but I didn't push it past that, brakes and suspension are rough too.

[ORCoaster]

Had me looking at that Fluidyneoil cooler.  I thought it was something much different that what it really is.  I must be thinking aliens or something these days.  Didn't think to put a space in that word to make more sense of it all.  Ahh, just an oil cooler is that all?  Nothing weird that produces cool air from sunshine? 

I would start with the good exhaust to get it to breathe better.  But shouldn't it be doing that anyway with the dual downpipe?  Maybe increase the inflow first. 

Not sure why you are not hitting the high 40s with the engine/transmission combo you have.  Those things were meant to get good mileage and 38 is not VW good.  Timing, IP pressure, IP adjustments good and tweaked?  You notice any black or blue smoke pouring out the tail pipe on those extend 6% grades?  Compression check?  Injector check?  Double check that tranny code.  It might be tall and it might not.  Give you a sense of 50 mpg or 42 as best available mileage.

[wolf_walker]

Sorry bout that, fluidyne, not fluidoil..  spellcheck... 

Let's see, the intake is stock from some sort of NA motor, though I've never seen a breather made quite like this one, it still takes the regular old panel filter they all do and breathes from a inlet hose on the pass side of the airbox like the A2 one I had on my 81 Caddy.

The exhaust is indeed the better dual mani and downpipe, the rest of the exhaust is a little raggy and likely stock 1.6L NA Caddy.
I'm pretty sure the trans is a tall 5th, I'll check the code later but I had the PO check it awhile ago when we were trying to figure why his MPG was low all this time.

The pump has been a stock 1.6TD pump, a stock A2 NA pump, and now is a new, not rebuilt, NA pump from something later with no mechanical cold start on the front, but a little single wire solenoid that I'm not convinced is actually a cold start but some other timing altering device.  I'll dig up the Bosch number later but we researched it and found it was for a NA 1.6L but I don't think I ever found the original application.  The truck has been in Oklahoma for the life of this motor and starts fine in the winter there without the cold start, and it rev's clean and does not smoke vissably at all at sea level, and not much at elevation even, and it isn't clattering badly.  Off the cuff I'd call it under fueled a bit if anything.  If I go back to the turbo I have a TD pump that needs a rebuild to use.  PO said he has run the static timing up and down the spectrum with not much change, I plan to fiddle with it some, I do have the timing tools.

Injector's are stock rebuild NA that went in when this pump did a few years ago.

It's kinda strange.  I've had half a dozen VW diesels over the years and put a lot of miles on them, my semi-worn out 1.6NA in my 640K 81 Caddy I left back east knocked down a solid 42 after I got it tuned a bit, and that was with a worn pump with 400K on it and questionable compression even.  This 1.9 has really good power and runs and starts great, it's been a daily driver for years with perfect reliability. 

The cooler was a suggestion I made when this motor went in as a TD still.  It's 20" long or therebouts and fits inside the front bumper, we cut an oval opening in the face of the bumper for it to breathe and put heavy wire mesh over it for protection.  Used I think a Volvo remote cooler adapter with a thermostat in it, and remote mounted the oil filter as well.  I'm not happy with the oil hoses hanging under the bumper, they need to be at least braided stainless, but he's run it this way for years.
I don't think a stock cooler-less NA would have maintained such perfect and steady oil temps on this trip without it, and I'm sure a TD with the stock sandwhich cooler wouldn't have.


So, is bumping the max fuel screw up a bit to compensate for the increased displacement suffecient for a 1.6 pump on a 1.9?  I've read the 1.9 had two stage injectors and I know the pump was different but I don't know more than that.

[JamesT]

The 1.9 had slightly lower CR than the 1.6, but I doubt it would account for the huge discrepancy in fuel economy. AAZ also came with dual lift injectors. You can tell the difference between the dual and single lift by the space between the lower body hex portion and the upper body wrench spots is over an inch on the dual lift and not even half an inch on the single lift.  Also the delivery valves were longer on the AAZ.

[R.O.R-2.0]

1.6 pump and injectors should run fine on a 1.9, even with stock fueling..

[wolf_walker]

Deff has 1.6 injectors, the delivery valves I think were from the last 1.6L pump.

[wolf_walker]

The pump is a 0460484108
I never found much info on it other than it was a NA 1.6 of some sort, and not an industrial one or such.

[8v-of-fury]

I have seen the 108 number on AAZ pumps. 107 on early 1.6 NA pumps, and 081 on 1.6 TD pumps.

[wolf_walker]

Interesting, was there ever a NA AAZ anywhere?

[Wayland]

Interesting, was there ever a NA AAZ anywhere?

Not in a car AFAIK, but they sold quite a few as industrial motors.

[wolf_walker]

Who knows, it's deff not an ind pump.

Let me ask a different direction, anyone think un-turboing thing thing could kill the MPG?

[Wayland]

It shouldn't. I've found pump timing can make a fairly big difference to MPGs, but 38mpg does seem really low.

[wolf_walker]

I might should point out this was at 70+ mph crossing from Oklahoma to California, much of it spent at a fair bit of altitude.  The 1.9 held it's own overall, I think I only downshifted once coming out of Needles into the mojave.  AC was on half the time and two people and four hundred pounds of stuff in the back.  I can't imagine what a run of the mill 1.6 would have been like.  I mention the MPG thing because the PO has been monitoring it off and on since the 1.9 went in and it's always been around 38 or so according to him.  Frankly I wouldn't trade four MPG for the additional NA power it has as it sits, but it'd be nice to have my cake and eat it too.

[745 turbogreasel]

I'd not be surprised  to see a 2 MPG gain with a turbo.

What about aero and tires?

[wolf_walker]

Alignment felt OK, tires are stock 13's, new in front, something generic the PO put on there.  Stock aero-wise.

Most annoying part, or two parts, is I just moved and have no shop to work in for the first time in fifteen years, and I'm hardly driving at all.
At this rate it'd take two months or more to run a tank of fuel through it.  sigh