...BTW your Bieber avatar is awesome.-Malone
Funny, because the 1.9s are close to 3$3000 down here.. How much did you think I was going to spend on my lil 1.6?
The 1V was the Eco and the worst engine to compare. I agree there is no replacement for displacement though. If you want to build an engine and don't want to put a ton into it the 1.6 rods are probably the last thing I would ever replace. They are very robust, same with the crankshaft. On a 1.9 they are what I would replace first as they are not as thick as the 1.6 and they are longer, and the 1.9 has more force going to them.To make a 1.6 a faster car you should look at all of the forum. It is quite easy, but we would really need to know your goals.
If u do a 1.6 up with a ported head and upgraded intake with a modern turbo and performance injection pump, u may see impressive results
Anyone ever thought about an HE211 sucking from an eaton MP45?I want this setup in a 85 MR2
But anything bigger is way out of the 1.6Ls efficiency. Unless others have used an HX35. That would be the next step up from the HE2xx size.
Quote from: dodger21 on July 28, 2013, 08:49:18 pmBut anything bigger is way out of the 1.6Ls efficiency. Unless others have used an HX35. That would be the next step up from the HE2xx size.HX35 series is WAAAAAY too big, even for a 1.9 diesel; there just isn't enough flow to spool the huge turbine. This of course is speaking of the turbo by itself, since I know of literally no one in the country who has made a super-turbodiesel.