Need More power for 1.6L 8v geo tracker

[grc1]

There is a lot of weird and wonderfull things that can be done. But the main stumbling block is that dam ecu.

The sweetest engine swap I have ever seen from a practical manor is carb model V6 from an old Jeep Comando. (1970 vintage) with the original warner transfer case and trany. It was as close to a drop in as I have ever seen.

The big problem is NO ecu , meaning no emition control. No contols of anykind. Not even a cat-converter.

I think it is still legal to do this in MB. Canada but could be wrong.

You end up with about 125HP and about 22 mpg and you have a lot of room for makeing mods up to 165HP and still have a very reliable tracker.

Yes you can go crazy and get 250Hp but end up with short engine life.

Kinda makes you wonder how people find the time and effert to do this sort of thing.

[jtgh]

that is a sweat swap.

my comments are also to those here that think they can get 25 or more HP (ebay ads)
and takes only 1 hour on Sat to do. 100s a post a year on it.

it would be fun to find out the range of control one can get with a piggyback.
before ECU goes nuts.

O2 removed. Piggy then does:
then 8v , lie to the MAP
then 16v. Lie to the MAF.

turn the knob on Piggy and watch it go lean or rich , do what you wish.
there are lots of Youtube videos of folks doing this.
with wide band (o2 sensor based) AFR guage in view.

there are hidden trip points in the sensor monitors (MAP/MAF)
the book says, it watches RPM, THrottle position sensor and at some point discovers the MAP/MAF is OUT OF RANGE.
this is the point LIMPHOME (failsafe hits) ECU starts using only TPS and retards timing and forces a rich condtion. (lean can wreck many parts)

There are many folks that have played with this on turbo cars, to find out how much they can milk out of a stock ecu.. sadly , many blow up the motor trying.

On some cars, (years) unplugging the O2 , just raises the AFR to 12.5.:1.
others my decide to enter punishment mode. Rich and retarded. 89-95. (varies)
Just unplugging the 02 , will give more power if:
no Limphome
and motor is tuned.
that is ,no air leaks, or bad other sensors., bad motor.

This is the fun part of tuning. IMHO.


The 2.0L swap kit is what well all will do , some day. heheeheheh. In 200k miles.

cheers.

[Mickey_D]

Originally Posted by jtgh

neon and a tiny 1.6L 8v valve motor. , your kidding right.?

Hey, my wife's Neon that's sitting outside right now is only a 2.0L 8 valve engine. That's only a 20% drop to the Zuk engine (or 25% increase FROM the Zuk engine).

I'm just wondering why there's a 66% drop (or 200% increase) between the two engines in terms of horsepower. It's not like the Neon engine is a "tuned" engine. It's as mild mannered as any other "mom mobile" engine.



You know what would be fun? Get an adapter plate and change the engine mounts to drop in an early 80's Mazda RX-7 engine in there!! Not enough torque on the low end to do any damage to the stock Zuk drive train, but Oh. My. Gawd. Rev that little sucker up and you've got more horsepower than you'd know what to do with!!

[jtgh]

is that fly wheel HP? on all ,? or Dyno HP, or No smog HP. who knows?

1.6liters and 2.0 liters, 400cc. ever drive a 400cc yamaha dirt bike.
a rolling rocket.?

as they say in this business.
there is no substitue for displacment.
none? (not turbo, maybe NOS)


neon
155 horse power and about 145 ft/lbs of torque at 6000 rpm... and max rpm is 7300.
The car stinks, but the motor is no MOMS motor. look again and now look from a 50 year perspective.
see cross flow heads.
see cosworth motor, DOHC, ? 4v per cyl. (larger valves? fit in 2.0L)
see EFI. (right foot can ask or anything and get anything you want) unlike a carb.
See free flow headers.
see larger TB. (LOOK IN TB. SEE THAT LARGER BORE)
SEE MPI (note its upper flow rate ability)
now lock at an old 1970 2.0 (or near) see a difference.?

kick 1.6 (see SOHC , its not a sports car motor!)
SOHC. 1.6L 95 hp (71 kW) I4
the DOHC can be turned (timed) for more horse power too. (indepentantly too)

1.8L Sport 1998
1.8L 120 hp (89 kW) I4

option2. 2.0L Sport.
2.0L 130 hp (97 kW) I4 (hummmm displacement rears its ugly head)

SX4 ( as a bench mark motor same CO)

Engine Type: 2.0L No of Cylinders: 4
Displacement: 1995 cc. No Of Valve: 16
Transmission: Manual Horsepower: 143 hp

i think we are at 155 over 143 HP , right? 4.895%

or 155 over 130 we get. 19.23%



take out the A/T and put in a MT and get all the power you need. no motor changes.
A/T's Suck. they suck 20% out of the drive line. (makes tons of heat)

I can see you've never run a 2.0L carb moto?. yes?
or run them on a dyno to find out all the numbers mean nothing at all .
how did Dodge get those nums? hummmm..
(there are lots of tricks on a Dyno. and no mandated standards)

its what hits the rear (or front on neon) that counts.

and if you are motivated you too can get more power out of any 2.0 L motor
just do all the illegal mods to it and it will breath and run.

The list of mods is huge. (some are quite legal) like windage tray, v-cut crank. , smaller carnk pulley. longer intake pipe to widen torque curve a little.
Ram air.

and my favorite , removing parts for car to save weight,!!
max gain, zero money. (no one on earth tells you that because they cant get rich selling you cold are or HHO bs.)


i do not see where you get all your huge % numbs.

not at all, 200% ? huh?


i have the best link of all for Racing a Miata.
the guy weighs the parts one at a time out of car.
then the total weight before and then after (astounding it is) an the the
performance differences.

[jtgh]

HP, its just a number. (a torque and rpm derivative)

and then there is torque.

why fix upon one simplistic number "xxx" HP ,

why not ask you self .?
what power do i need?, and when do it need it? and under what circumstances./?

1: want to pull stumps (me)?
2: want to come out of turn 4 at 85Mph and accererate faster to 150 MPH?
3: want to run 1/8 , 1/4 mile drag faster.?
4: want wider power band. so car is fun to drive on road.?
5: longer list. for sure....

you can tune the motor anyway you want and the HP NUMBER, is the least important aspect of a driving machine.

It's the power delivery/ timing and handling.

for me, id take a wide power band (lower HP) any day over a higher peak HP motor..

cheers.

[Mickey_D]

Oh, I agree with you on all points. BTW, my 200% was me thinking of a different motor. I thought the Zuk 1.6 only developed around 50-55hp. Sorry.

Oh, and I DID get 125hp out of a 1974 2.0L I-4. In 1986. Took quite a lot of engineering and parts, but that poor little Pinto would run with the 5.0 'Stangs any day.

[ZENO0771]

Originally Posted by Mickey_D

Oh, and I DID get 125hp out of a 1974 2.0L I-4. In 1986. Took quite a lot of engineering and parts, but that poor little Pinto would run with the 5.0 'Stangs any day.

IIRC that 4-pot grew by 300cc or so and became the basis for the 2.3 turbo unit in the SVO Stangs and TBird TC, not to be confused with the later Euro-version 2-liter Cosworth; both of which would take severe beatings and not complain (don't ask me how I know, my uncle never did find out about my little spin in his '87 TC )

Anywho, found a 2.0 swap kit for $1250 @ Trail Tough...it's supposed to be for a Sammie but they give the option for a SideTrack; have to email them and ask about that. The motor shouldn't be hard to find around here. 130HP + 5-speed = just right. We may become a dual-Tracker family yet.

[jtgh]

that is a nice motor.
they made up a custom harness so you dont have to pull one and then put it all in.
but you must not have 4sp. AT.

dont think then newer ecu properly talks to old TCM? but not 100% sure.

[ZENO0771]

Originally Posted by jtgh

that is a nice motor.
they made up a custom harness so you dont have to pull one and then put it all in.
but you must not have 4sp. AT.

dont think then newer ecu properly talks to old TCM? but not 100% sure.

My wife can have the slushbox, I prefer to stir my own