Saxo Engine/Performance If you're interested in tuning Saxo engines, or if you need to know something which is engine related... this is the place for you. |
|
|
1st June 2012, 10:07
|
#41
|
Saxperience Forum Bum
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 2,627
Car(s): Fabia VRS, mk1 fiesta + some others
|
vtr is more torquey but the vts engine produces more power high up.
becuase of this the vtr feels quicker round town.
my vtr with a toyosport manifold, supersprint, K&N panel filter and a good service made 109bhp at 60,000miles.
doubt you have 120 but good luck if thats what your going for
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 10:50
|
#42
|
Frequent Poster
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Thorne+Grimsby
Posts: 717
Car(s): S2GTi / Megane cc
|
But when it comes to cost why bother NA tuning an 8 valve as for a quarter of the money it would cost to get 120brake, you just just drop a 16 valve engine for the same power?
I'd only use an 8 valve to go boost. Anything other tuning is a waste of money.
__________________
GTI resto
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 11:18
|
#43
|
Established Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: south essex!!
Posts: 2,442
Car(s): posi blue vtrs race car
|
For cost just go 8v turbo most value for money but n/a cast efficient 16v lump agreed 100% money no object... I dunno tbf n/a tho... Prob 16v because can get a higher hp overall...
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 11:35
|
#44
|
Saxperience Hardcore!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Birtley
Posts: 22,253
Car(s): VTR Turbo, 106 xsi track slag, Transit recovery, B
|
Steve has got the nail on the head tbh
The 8v responds very well to a littl boost and is very driven able, other then that I'd just save or 16v
You can make enough power to justify tuning the 8v without boost
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stissy
EDIT: i give up on you.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giraffe
FUCK YES. I won on the internet.
|
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 11:36
|
#45
|
Established Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,148
Car(s): Rover BRM, Rover 800 Coupe, Mk6 golf.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyjasper51
In all honestly id rather drive a 120hp vtr than a 120hp vts because there more forgiving with a mistake and you dont have to have them screaming their tits off to make power, the 8v is more progressive... What ive found anyway
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
Couldnt agree more. The toruqe on the VTS doesnt really kick in until you're revving the titties off it, I preffer to have a bit of power low down for daily driving, i very rarely take my car above 3-4k which wouldnt be easy if it was a VTS
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 11:46
|
#46
|
Saxperience Post Whore
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,100
Car(s): Amazon green VTR 16v, Inferno RS clio 182
|
you adapt your driving style with a 16v engine though, besides its not like the VTS doesnt have enough torque lower down the range for town driving
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 12:13
|
#47
|
Frequent Poster
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Thorne+Grimsby
Posts: 717
Car(s): S2GTi / Megane cc
|
Probably more a case of 16 valve envy lol!
Its the best of both worlds with the S engine. No problem at low revs and when they come on cam they just pull and pull. They love to rev. Its not like thrashing a wheazy 8 valve. Its no effort for the engine.
__________________
GTI resto
|
|
|
1st June 2012, 12:18
|
#48
|
Saxperience Post Whore
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,100
Car(s): Amazon green VTR 16v, Inferno RS clio 182
|
Depends on the 8v and its mapping though, the higher spec 8vs will rev out like a VTS does if not more. However it wont be "peaky" as a VTS or any other 16v hatch really
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 04:28
|
#49
|
Infrequent Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: milton keynes
Posts: 164
Car(s): saxo vtr (mk 2)
|
i have a vtr with a straight through exhaust and a carbon fiber induction and believe me id be lucky to be getting 85-90bhp? what you need to remember is its 98bhp when it comes out factory u have engine deteration to take into consideration
im gunna get it rolling roaded before i overhaul the engine and gearbox but that aint gunna be for a while yet
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 17:11
|
#50
|
Saxperience Post Whore
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ringwood
Posts: 6,305
Car(s): suzuki swift 1.2 sz3
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobers4
i have a vtr with a straight through exhaust and a carbon fiber induction and believe me id be lucky to be getting 85-90bhp? what you need to remember is its 98bhp when it comes out factory u have engine deteration to take into consideration
im gunna get it rolling roaded before i overhaul the engine and gearbox but that aint gunna be for a while yet
|
Any rolling road tech will say unless your car has a serious problem then it will be give or take standard.
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 17:17
|
#51
|
Infrequent Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: milton keynes
Posts: 164
Car(s): saxo vtr (mk 2)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadoryu
Any rolling road tech will say unless your car has a serious problem then it will be give or take standard.
|
im just guessing lol it is on 96k but but i tell everyone its 90bhp coz i dont wanna big it up or try get people racing me i enjoy my car low revs not making scream for me to change gear it probabally is running about standard bhp tbh
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 18:43
|
#52
|
Saxperience Forum Bum
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Down't road from Sheffield
Posts: 4,641
Car(s): Was:16v 106 XS ..... Now: Import 1.8 MX5
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyjasper51
In all honestly id rather drive a 120hp vtr than a 120hp vts because there more forgiving with a mistake and you dont have to have them screaming their tits off to make power, the 8v is more progressive... What ive found anyway
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
To get an 8v to 120bhp, it needs to be pretty tuned. A 16v...? Standard. So the 16v is going to be less stressed, and less prone to problems.
And, an 8v at that power needs a pretty lairy cam, which means the power's going to be as high, if not higher than on a standard 16v.
That's not to mention that if you start adding any of the normal mods to a 16v that you'd have done to the 8v (even before the cam), the 16v is going to have more power.
Having owned a black top 8v, and a (98bhp) silver top 8v, and having raced a 130bhp 8v in my relatively standard 16v on the 1/4 mile, and properly pwning it, I know which I prefer.
__________________
Form and/or Funtion - A blog in association with CombustionPunks.
Currently: '93 1.8 Eunos Roadster S Special. Does skids and err'ting.
Previously: '96 1.5D Peugeot 106 XLD..... '96 1.6 16v Peugeot 106 XS - 0-60: 6.6s & 1/4m: 14.95s @ 90.14mph
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 19:56
|
#53
|
Established Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: south essex!!
Posts: 2,442
Car(s): posi blue vtrs race car
|
120bhp cam, mani back and igniton... Std everything else! Equal car setup... Will beat a 120bhp 16v on track every time
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:19
|
#54
|
Saxperience Hardcore!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Guantanamo Bay
Posts: 28,700
Car(s): oyster card
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyjasper51
120bhp cam, mani back and igniton... Std everything else! Equal car setup... Will beat a 120bhp 16v on track every time
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
Sorry, a 120bhp VTR will beat a 120bhp VTS?
Put the same driver in both car and the VTS will be ahead very easily, power is there in the corners, you drop the gear and the power is there and still makes power further up the rev range for longer. Unlike a VTR, power drops off easily, drop a gear before the corner and you haven't got power and the power tails off too easily.
16v doesnt just mean more power, its about where the power is and the ability to use the power to better effect than where the 8valve makes its power and range.
VTR for boost, if not then go 16v.
__________________
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:27
|
#55
|
Saxperience Hardcore!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Birtley
Posts: 22,253
Car(s): VTR Turbo, 106 xsi track slag, Transit recovery, B
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mochachino
Sorry, a 120bhp VTR will beat a 120bhp VTS?
Put the same driver in both car and the VTS will be ahead very easily, power is there in the corners, you drop the gear and the power is there and still makes power further up the rev range for longer. Unlike a VTR, power drops off easily, drop a gear before the corner and you haven't got power and the power tails off too easily.
16v doesnt just mean more power, its about where the power is and the ability to use the power to better effect than where the 8valve makes its power and range.
VTR for boost, if not then go 16v.
|
having spent alot on 8v's..this comment is the best way to look at it^^
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stissy
EDIT: i give up on you.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giraffe
FUCK YES. I won on the internet.
|
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:27
|
#56
|
Saxperience Forum Bum
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Down't road from Sheffield
Posts: 4,641
Car(s): Was:16v 106 XS ..... Now: Import 1.8 MX5
|
iLol.
greyjasper,how many times have you compared against a standard VTS on track? I think in the last 4 years of doing track days, i've seen 2 standard Saxos on track. And they were both VTRs.
The only time i've compared against a highly modded 8v on track was on a 1/4 mile. It was a good half a second slower than my 16v.
__________________
Form and/or Funtion - A blog in association with CombustionPunks.
Currently: '93 1.8 Eunos Roadster S Special. Does skids and err'ting.
Previously: '96 1.5D Peugeot 106 XLD..... '96 1.6 16v Peugeot 106 XS - 0-60: 6.6s & 1/4m: 14.95s @ 90.14mph
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to titchster For This Useful Post:
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:29
|
#57
|
Established Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: south essex!!
Posts: 2,442
Car(s): posi blue vtrs race car
|
Straight line... Woopdy woop... Ans thats what i was saying if you could get 200bhp outta a n/a vtr it would be the way dorward but you cant and thats why vts is usually the way forward... Easy cheap power...
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:35
|
#58
|
Saxperience Hardcore!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Guantanamo Bay
Posts: 28,700
Car(s): oyster card
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyjasper51
Straight line... Woopdy woop...
|
if a saxo is slower than another saxo in a straight line with the same chassis then its obviously going to be slower on a track
lol
__________________
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:36
|
#59
|
Established Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: south essex!!
Posts: 2,442
Car(s): posi blue vtrs race car
|
Std 8 vs std 16, 16 wins... Highly modified 8 vs. Highly modified 16, 16 wins, however if power is equal i prefer the 8 as i feel its more forgiving and a better drive obviously alot of people feel differently to me...
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
|
8th June 2012, 22:36
|
#60
|
Saxperience Forum Bum
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Down't road from Sheffield
Posts: 4,641
Car(s): Was:16v 106 XS ..... Now: Import 1.8 MX5
|
VTS is the way forward because it's got more power full stop. Costs more to get an 8v up to 16v power than it does to put a 16v in. Other than that, on a track, the two cars would be the same.
Why is the 8v more forgiving? In what way? And better to drive? It doesn't idle as smoothly, because of the big cam, it's lacking low down, because of the big cam, and the power's as high as the 16v, or higher, because of the big cam. At what point is the 8v better to drive?
__________________
Form and/or Funtion - A blog in association with CombustionPunks.
Currently: '93 1.8 Eunos Roadster S Special. Does skids and err'ting.
Previously: '96 1.5D Peugeot 106 XLD..... '96 1.6 16v Peugeot 106 XS - 0-60: 6.6s & 1/4m: 14.95s @ 90.14mph
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:44.
|