but you need to tell them there are many cams.
and you can pick any grind you want.
The good shops have computer modelling so you can pick what you want.
and can be selected for low end torque and high end torque.
both ? is IFFY.
I've been lurking these here forums for about a year now (how long my wife has had her '96 Tracker 1.6 16v) and something I've noticed is that many people vaguely ask for "more power" without any "why" or "how much" i.e. the power you need for hillclimbing is not the same as the power I need for keeping it sane on the highway.
Also it amazes me how much engineering Suzuki put into this motor only to get 2 digits' worth of power out of it (95 HP in my case).
It does kind of boggle the mind, doesn't it? I mean, look at one of the modern most hated vehicles on the road - the Dodge Neon. It's only 2.0L, but stock they came with 132bhp in 1995. And if you got the 16V'er it was 150bhp. And you can't exactly tell me the Neon engine is high strung. It's not a high revver.
So if you take off the 400cc's difference between the Zuk's engine and the Neon's engine as a percentage you get a 20% reduction in engine size. Take 20% off 132bhp and you get 105.6bhp. So where did the extra loss of 25bhp go? And it's even MORE glaring when you stick 8 more valves in it...
__________________
1991 US Geo Tracker 1.6L 8V TBI 4X4 hardtop
I've been lurking these here forums for about a year now (how long my wife has had her '96 Tracker 1.6 16v) and something I've noticed is that many people vaguely ask for "more power" without any "why" or "how much" i.e. the power you need for hillclimbing is not the same as the power I need for keeping it sane on the highway.
Also it amazes me how much engineering Suzuki put into this motor only to get 2 digits' worth of power out of it (95 HP in my case).
Hi, you are quite right on all points. There is a differance in what "power " is used for. And people are always asking for more. One of the main probs is that most people want bolt on power. In the old days ,you could get away with bolt on power (making the engine breath better) but todays most small engines are breathing better than ever. So what you are left with is internal mods.Yes you can get a heavyer crank . custom pistons, custom rods,diff valves and spings, cam,ect. But at what cost, $3,000 -$5,000 and up. Its a matter of money and how much do you want to spend?
The tracker/suki is actully quite amazing and that it is desined for working in all envirements and is sold in every civalized country in the world. In reality the tracker/suki is not a suv but a true 4X4 truck. It is or was a no frills get there and back 4X4 transportation. There are more trackers/sukis in cuba and the dominican republic than all other 4X4s put together.
Getting back to HP , there is a happy medium in engine life (250,000 miles) and reliablity and MPG. Now throw in the emition equipment and this is what you end up with. If you change any of the above mentioned then yes you can get a lot more HP. But remember ,there is always a price to pay. And that price will be MPG or shorter engine life or less reliablity or out right braking the law in regaurds the emition controls. So yes if there is a will then there is a way, but at what cost?
In reality the tracker/suki is not a suv but a true 4X4 truck.
Actually I disagree; I've never gone with the insurance industry's definition of SUV. To me, there were only 3 SUVs ever made in/for the U.S.: The original Jeep, the Sammy, and the SideTrack (I suppose you could throw in the Isuzu Amigo and Kia Sportage). All the oversized dino-hogs jamming the roads today are trucks, whether their owners want to admit it or not.
Be that as it may, with all the "crossover" utes running around (Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, most Subarus etc), I still have a hard time seeing why an automaker couldn't find some profit margin in something similar, only with a ragtop and some ground-clearance. An ultra-efficient 4 banger in the ~130 HP range and a high-output alternator for all the electronics is easily done...or maybe I'm looking for logic in the wrong place again.
Hi, you are quite right on all points. There is a differance in what "power " is used for. And people are always asking for more. One of the main probs is that most people want bolt on power. In the old days ,you could get away with bolt on power (making the engine breath better) but todays most small engines are breathing better than ever. So what you are left with is internal mods.Yes you can get a heavyer crank . custom pistons, custom rods,diff valves and spings, cam,ect. But at what cost, $3,000 -$5,000 and up. Its a matter of money and how much do you want to spend?
Soooo, my hope for an extra, say, 20 HP for the highway for $500 is out?
neon and a tiny 1.6L 8v valve motor. , your kidding right.?
if you want 20hp drop in an 1.6L
or better the 1.8,
or better the 2.0L now you can compare apples to apples. they sell a kit , but your a little short. of $ $500 .
see , you need an ECU tuned for the motor and exhaust.
its not like in the olden days,
mod everything, cam, porting, hearder, turbo exh. then tune carb. jets. (gone)
you see, there is this little thing called EFI , the ECU, must be tuned to the car.
the stock ECU , can adapt. the O2 sensor is like, a 2.5% adjustment. narrow band.
so unplug the o2 and tune the ECU by :
making or buying a piggy back.
then you can lie to the ECU by about 10%, before ECU nails you.
if you cant tune it , you will be unhappy. (it will run like crap)
if you want 20hp drop in an 1.6L
or better the 1.8,
or better the 2.0L now you can compare apples to apples. they sell a kit , but your a little short. of $ $500 .
5 bills was just ballpark...I would do this to my own (not yet purchased, looking at '96 or later), my wife's commute is bicycle-distance. 2.0/2.5 swap sounds like a natural fit but everything else I've found (both here and elsewhere) says otherwise. 1.8 would be a lot of work for not much gain (~5HP?) Also I hear the 1.8 has timing chain issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgh
you see, there is this little thing called EFI , the ECU, must be tuned to the car.
Every motor swap into any vehicle made after about '85 or so is going to require ECU work; just a fact of life. Rule-of-thumb is use the black box from the motor you're putting in, not the original one in your vehicle; then kludge the rest. I've helped do this on a lot of cars; it's tedious but as long as you're not trying something too disparate i.e. a Honda motor in a Ford, it can be done without an Engineering degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgh
so unplug the o2 and tune the ECU by :
making or buying a piggy back.
then you can lie to the ECU by about 10%, before ECU nails you.
10% in my case = 9.5 HP, halfway there.
I realize that, ultimately, it's about having the right tool (vehicle) for the job. I've yet to find a vehicle that can do it all, but the Zuk is the closest I've found yet. What I haven't found is anyone else who has gone to the trouble of engineering any motor swaps for these except the VW diesel (expensive) or the Chevy 4.3 (WAY overkill for my needs), and I've looked. Asking a motor to do significantly more than it was designed for is dicey, therefore a 2.0/2.5 swap seems to make the most sense...then again I think someone putting these (or something similar) back into production makes sense too, so what do I know?
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
cam
Linear Mode
