|
Grunt
Jun 22, 2017 19:38:18 GMT
Post by sANDYbAY on Jun 22, 2017 19:38:18 GMT
Is that a book, or a post on a forum somewhere? i remember a few years ago Douglas Adams told me I needed to keep tabs on my towel. One of Sir Terry's books. Mr Pratchitt? I haven't read that one.
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 22, 2017 20:59:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 22, 2017 20:59:51 GMT
One of Sir Terry's books. Mr Pratchitt? I haven't read that one. I've read them all, most of them twice.
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 23, 2017 17:51:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 23, 2017 17:51:54 GMT
I've been looking at torque numbers. I over egged the T1 1600 earlier.
1600 T1 engine is 72 ft lbs 2l type-4 is 82 ft lbs.
I thought there would be a bigger jump up to the 2L but a 2l is a revvier engine so gains on the top end HP at the expense of some torque where the 1600 isn't very powerful at higher revs but makes the most from it's capacity in the form of torque. After all, they were delivery vans and a certain amount of torque would always be wanted.
Anyway, those figures make my 179 ft lbs look rather good. I got 21mpg from the last tank/250 miles and 200 of them were bombing along the motorway mostly at 70mph.
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 23, 2017 18:01:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 23, 2017 18:01:19 GMT
Does anyone have the numbers for the 2l normally aspirated engines people use in vans? There are so many versions I'm not sure which one to quote. Some of them appear to be pretty torquey which isn't the impression I had.
|
|
|
Post by pkrboo on Jun 25, 2017 6:02:04 GMT
Does anyone have the numbers for the 2l normally aspirated engines people use in vans? There are so many versions I'm not sure which one to quote. Some of them appear to be pretty torquey which isn't the impression I had. Do you mean subaru engine figures?
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 9:58:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 25, 2017 9:58:17 GMT
Does anyone have the numbers for the 2l normally aspirated engines people use in vans? There are so many versions I'm not sure which one to quote. Some of them appear to be pretty torquey which isn't the impression I had. Do you mean subaru engine figures? Oops, yes, missed the key word!
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 10:29:38 GMT
Post by VW Toast on Jun 25, 2017 10:29:38 GMT
Herecy !!!
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 12:51:02 GMT
Post by chad on Jun 25, 2017 12:51:02 GMT
The figures I saw for various non turbo 2.0 were about 135-137 lb ft at 3600-4400 rpm for a 1998 - 2006 spec motor
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 14:14:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 25, 2017 14:14:16 GMT
The figures I saw for various non turbo 2.0 were about 135-137 lb ft at 3600-4400 rpm for a 1998 - 2006 spec motor Thanks, I should piss on one based on torque then...but what about the peak HP? 154 HP. Bugger, I only have 100. They're higher revving engines and with 16 smaller valves maintain air speed at lower revs and have the volume for higher revs. Long stroke small pistons 92 x 75 compared to a 2l type-4 71 x 94 and mine 71 x 104. Whatever that means. A Subaru would have to rev the nuts to beat me I reckon, I'm happy with that.
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 15:36:36 GMT
Zed likes this
Post by chad on Jun 25, 2017 15:36:36 GMT
Yours sounds to be a brilliant engine, personally I wouldn't have thought more than 100HP was very usable in a bus that remained a bus if you know what I mean.
In the dim and distant past a guy called Bill Blydenstein used to be a very successful Vauxhall tuner.
For road cars he always tuned for torque rather than power and the reviews his cars got were, as far as I can remember, very good.
He worked on the basis that torque matters on the road and HP on the track, although his track cars were pretty good as well, albeit tuned differently.
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 17:05:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 25, 2017 17:05:56 GMT
Yours sounds to be a brilliant engine, personally I wouldn't have thought more than 100HP was very usable in a bus that remained a bus if you know what I mean. In the dim and distant past a guy called Bill Blydenstein used to be a very successful Vauxhall tuner. For road cars he always tuned for torque rather than power and the reviews his cars got were, as far as I can remember, very good. He worked on the basis that torque matters on the road and HP on the track, although his track cars were pretty good as well, albeit tuned differently. I don't think you could have too much power, My last one was 135HP but at 4800rpm. It was good above 3,000 rpm but as you say, a track engine really. A bit like the Subaru but without any bottom end grunt.
|
|
|
Post by pkrboo on Jun 25, 2017 17:16:29 GMT
The figures I saw for various non turbo 2.0 were about 135-137 lb ft at 3600-4400 rpm for a 1998 - 2006 spec motor Thanks, I should piss on one based on torque then...but what about the peak HP? 154 HP. Bugger, I only have 100. They're higher revving engines and with 16 smaller valves maintain air speed at lower revs and have the volume for higher revs. Long stroke small pistons 92 x 75 compared to a 2l type-4 71 x 94 and mine 71 x 104. Whatever that means. A Subaru would have to rev the nuts to beat me I reckon, I'm happy with that. Soon be able to try it out against mine.
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 17:22:48 GMT
Post by chad on Jun 25, 2017 17:22:48 GMT
Are you going to sell tickets?
|
|
|
Grunt
Jun 25, 2017 17:23:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zed on Jun 25, 2017 17:23:32 GMT
Thanks, I should piss on one based on torque then...but what about the peak HP? 154 HP. Bugger, I only have 100. They're higher revving engines and with 16 smaller valves maintain air speed at lower revs and have the volume for higher revs. Long stroke small pistons 92 x 75 compared to a 2l type-4 71 x 94 and mine 71 x 104. Whatever that means. A Subaru would have to rev the nuts to beat me I reckon, I'm happy with that. Soon be able to try it out against mine. If you stay under 5,000 rpm to make it fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 19:54:33 GMT
My bus now flies in third with the buzzy EJ20 powering it, it certainly does rev higher. Just filled it up for the first time since conversion 29.9 mpg happy with that. Never saw much above 20 with the 1700 in it.
as for power they vary depending on year some were as low as 125 hp up to 155 hp at least that is what I read on the internet.
|
|