Adding some juice to a 1.4i Corsa
Zoti
I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine at
the lowest price possible of course.
Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
What are the implications on the cost of insurance ?
Any websites dealing with the subject specific for the corsa ?
Tomer
Kev
Zoti wrote:
>
> I've got a 1998 1.4i Corsa (Hi torque engine, 3 door)
>
> I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine at
> the lowest price possible of course.
>
> Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
Sell it and buy something faster. Lot less bother. You can't polish a turd.
>
> What are the implications on the cost of insurance ?
dunno. Probably lots.
>
> Any websites dealing with the subject specific for the corsa ?
Hope not but I wouldn't be surprised.
Craig
Kev <ke...@hammer.imm.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39D0A14B...@hammer.imm.ox.ac.uk...
David Wood
<zo...@cableinet.co.uk> writes
>I've got a 1998 1.4i Corsa (Hi torque engine, 3 door)
>
>I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine at
>the lowest price possible of course.
>
>Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
The 1.4 Hi Torq engine always was a "gutless wonder". It's a 1.4 8v
engine - I understand it to basically be the old 1400 carburettor engine
with a pretty nasty single point fuel injection system fitted to it.
It's tuned for economy rather than performance. It's slower than your
average slug, and the difference between the 1.4 Hi Torq and the
1992-ish vintage 1.4 16v engine is amazing (the comparison was made
between two Astras on K plates when they were almost new, but I remember
it vividly).
Really I don't think there's a lot you can do with it - it's a very
unsophisticated injection system on a pretty basic engine and I don't
think there's a lot of tuning potential in it (I have a feeling that
it's a Multec injection system). You'd probably find a Corsa with a 16v
engine, or, for that matter, maybe even the 1.0 12v 3 cylinder engine,
rather zippier.
>What are the implications on the cost of insurance ?
Any performance modifications must be declared - your insurer will be
able to advise you. Many insurers don't like covering modified cars, and
you may land up having to go to a specialist.
To be honest, if it bothers you that much, consider trading the Corsa
in. As the new Corsa is imminent (the sales director of a local Vauxhall
dealership attended a launch event for it in Cannes about ten days ago),
there are all sorts of offers on the existing Corsa new. Second hand
Corsa prices may well drop like a stone soon, though I must admit I
loved my 1998 1.5TD Corsa and only got rid of it as it was no longer
suitable for my needs (heavy wheelchairs aren't easy to load and unload
from a Corsa).
>Any websites dealing with the subject specific for the corsa ?
No idea - sorry.
David
--
David Wood
da...@wood2.org.uk
Southwell
Zoti wrote:
> I've got a 1998 1.4i Corsa (Hi torque engine, 3 door)
>
> I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine at
> the lowest price possible of course.
>
I'd suggest trading it in and buying something faster, perhaps a bigger
car that gives you better value for money.
>
> Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
>
> What are the implications on the cost of insurance ?
>
> Any websites dealing with the subject specific for the corsa ?
>
> Tomer
david adams
try www.corsasport......not exactly sure of the address.
I drove a Corsa SRi around the Millbrook proving ground when it was
introduced a few years ago.
It was fun - but the Senator 3.0 was better!
My advice would be - spend MORE on performance / efficiency enhancement than
you do on the ICE!
regards
Dave A
Kev <ke...@hammer.imm.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39D0A14B...@hammer.imm.ox.ac.uk...
>
>
> Zoti wrote:
> >
> > I've got a 1998 1.4i Corsa (Hi torque engine, 3 door)
> >
> > I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine
at
> > the lowest price possible of course.
> >
> > Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
> Sell it and buy something faster. Lot less bother. You can't polish a
turd.
> >
> > What are the implications on the cost of insurance ?
> dunno. Probably lots.
> >
> > Any websites dealing with the subject specific for the corsa ?
Nom
If you can't post anything to help the guy, then don't bother posting at
all.
Guy King
from David Wood <da...@wood2.org.uk> contains these words:
> 1.5TD Corsa and only got rid of it as it was no longer
> suitable for my needs (heavy wheelchairs aren't easy to load and unload
> from a Corsa).
Have you seen those really simple but effective cranes that fit in
the boot? Not the really complex ones, but the one that is just a bit
of bent tube with a socket bolted to the floor. The tube just drops
into the socket when you want it and there is a thing as bit as a
wiper motor which pulls a string up the bent pipe. The whole sh'bang
pivots in the socket to give the right sort of "davit" effect.
Because the stalk is de-mountable it works really well in hatchbacks.
Very cheap and startingly effective. I thought there were little toy
until I actually used one.
--
Skipweasel........one who relieves strangers of what they didn't want.
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine at
| the lowest price possible of course.
| Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
do for non-turbocharged engines. You don't get much from it. About 5 hps at
high rpms and increased maximum engine speed (but really not much - at most
i'd say 500 rpms). That's it for "low performance - no affect on durability"
chips. You may of course buy a high performance chip, but this WILL affect
durability of the engine for sure.
I suggest you installed some cheaper elements. Here's a list of things you
could buy, what do they do, and good and bad things about theese elements:
1) Cone Air Filter
You can buy the cone at a car-shop near you. I suggest KingDragon
or K&N, but maybe there are other good cones, anybody?
+ improves high rpm performance
+ lowers fuel consumtion
+ it's lifetime (but you have to clean it from time to
time with specific liquids)
- Well it's not really just the cone you need. "What else?" follows.
2) Cold Air Intake System Improvements
Sometimes the air intake is situated near the cooling radiator.
Much air deflected from the radiator gets into air system and lowering
the overall air compresion (cold air is better compressed). You could
affect it by situating the hose futher in front but then the hose is
longer and there is more resitance. There is no better place to find
cold, dry air than above the hood. Therefore what you have to do is to
cut a hole in the hood, and install special element that won't allow
water get into the air intake. It's a simple piece of plastic you can
find in Escort Cosworth. You cut the hole, you choose the thing. When
you install a cone directly instead of normal filter, you have to cut
the hole just above the cone.
+ improves torque in the whole scale
+ can't break down
- you must cut a hole in the _hood_ (How do you translate it to BrE?)
3) Polishing and Tefloning the post injector parts
This can be done only by a speciallist. It won't be cheap, but also not
specially expecive.
+ improves torque in the whole scale
- Telfon should be applied periodically, it goes off at any scratch.
4) Exhaust System
This is an easy but not that cheap way to improve performance. You
shouldn't think that exchanging the last element will affect
acceleration. It won't! It'll just give you nice low sound, but nothing
else. But then, if you replace everything mid-mufflers, catalytyc
converter (you could remove it, but then it changes the exhaust gases to
be more toxic - "what to do about it?" follows), exhaust pipes and
colectors. Collectors for example could just be polished from inside.
That should improve the performance. rest of these elements should be
bought as their respective performance equivalent.
+ improves high rpm performance
+ lowers fuel consumtion
+ the sound
- the sound
- the price
- removing the converter makes the Labda sound go crazy, you have to do
something about it, but i'm not really sure what. I shall ask, and
then i'll write here what to do.
5) What to do with exhaust gasses? - Magnetizers
On the Polish newsgroup pl.misc.samochody we had a test that proved that
Magnetizers won't affect power, nor fuel consuption, but it will make
the exhaust gasses less toxic. It may even compensate the inpresence of
catalytic converter, but you had better check it out.
6) Camshaft and Chipping
Now, after appling all above changes, you may step into chipping.
Notice, that your car isn't the same Corsa 1.4 that you had before. It
has lower flow restrictions and it can burn fuel faster that it could
before. Thus you may replace you camshaft with a sport one, and apply a
chip. You should also notice, that there is no "normal replacement
chip", that would be siutable for you car. It has to be prepaired after
checking you car's parameters. I combined the two things, because the
two standalone won't affect performance as much, as they do together.
You'll loose much power at low-rpm, but gain lots of extra power at
high. This could change you Corsa from 100-110 hp (after above changes)
to even 140-160 hp (it depens on how much you wan't to spend on
fuel ;)))).
+ highly improves high rpm power
- lower low rpm power -->
- clutch wear
- increases fuel consumption
| What are the implications on the cost of insurance ?
In Poland none although there are some problems with guarantee.
One more thing: I wrote that some elements could lower fuel consumption, but
don't think it will, if you wan't to use the extra power you'll recive.
| Tomer
--
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
Audi 80 Avant 1.9 TD(red)I
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
brakes. You could install brembo discs and Ferrodo Brake Clips. This shold
be enough the brake the monster, you could create.
Tom West
> In article <4e%z5.6433$gw4.7...@news1.cableinet.net>, Zoti
> <zo...@cableinet.co.uk> writes
> >I've got a 1998 1.4i Corsa (Hi torque engine, 3 door)
> >
> >I love the car but would like to get a bit more juice out of the engine at
> >the lowest price possible of course.
> >
> >Any suggestions ? Such as chipping, exhaust system etc ?
>
> The 1.4 Hi Torq engine always was a "gutless wonder". It's a 1.4 8v
> engine - I understand it to basically be the old 1400 carburettor engine
> with a pretty nasty single point fuel injection system fitted to it.
I thought the 'Hi-torque' was the multi point injection version, it certainly
is on my '92 Astra (which I don't think is 16v.....)
> It's tuned for economy rather than performance. It's slower than your
> average slug, and the difference between the 1.4 Hi Torq and the
> 1992-ish vintage 1.4 16v engine is amazing (the comparison was made
> between two Astras on K plates when they were almost new, but I remember
> it vividly).
...your making me wonder now.....
--
Tom
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| I thought the 'Hi-torque' was the multi point injection version, it
| certainly
| is on my '92 Astra (which I don't think is 16v.....)
But let's have one thing clear: If the engine is a Multipoint Injection one,
and it's a 1.4 Opel engine, it hat to be 16v. I don't remember any 3 valve
per cylinder engines of Opel.
| Tom
--
Steve Knight
GLS and some Astras.
The 16v engine is a cracker but calling the 1.4 hi-torq (60ps) sluggish is
most unfair. It's fine and in that car works well. If you want more
performance just change down a gear. If you want a sportier car - change
your car.
--
*remove NOSPAM from email address to reply direct*
"Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki" <cz...@mail.icpnet.pl> wrote in message
news:8qr26q$fcg$1...@sunflower.man.poznan.pl...
James
>David Wood wrote:
>> The 1.4 Hi Torq engine always was a "gutless wonder". It's a 1.4 8v
>> engine - I understand it to basically be the old 1400 carburettor engine
>> with a pretty nasty single point fuel injection system fitted to it.
>I thought the 'Hi-torque' was the multi point injection version, it
certainly
>is on my '92 Astra (which I don't think is 16v.....)
I'm afraid not, I have the afore mentioned in my Astra and it is as David
said a 1.4 8v, 60Bhp engine. You can tell because on the tach the redline is
at 6000 rpm and on the multi-point I believe it is at 6400/500 rpm. The Bhp
of the multi-point is 82Bhp. I'll get the 16v next time, or maybe I'll get a
mk4 ;). Sorry to disappoint you Tom, I know you are a fellow Astra
conisseur. Look on the bright side, at least we get better fuel economy!
>> It's tuned for economy rather than performance. It's slower than your
>> average slug
come on Dave, be fair (expecting witty response, but don't use the tortoise
with no legs thats my quote).
James
>The 16v engine is a cracker but calling the 1.4 hi-torq (60ps) sluggish is
>most unfair. It's fine and in that car works well. If you want more
>performance just change down a gear. If you want a sportier car - change
>your car.
Couldn't agree more steve, 3rd normally does the job. Especially when
overtaking an (albeit stationary) Golf GTI at the lights. He did try though,
I'll give him that.
James
Steve Knight wrote in message ...
>(60ps)
ps = Bhp right?
Zoti
Zoti
Paul Adamson
Paul Adamson
helpful people like you on here, instead of wasters taking up space.
Well done matey!
Regards
Paul
Tobe
>Er, fuck off.
>If you can't post anything to help the guy, then don't bother posting at
>all.
He offered some sage advice. If you mince your words people will never
learn.
J
"$imes"@raunds.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> James said in <jx8A5.1837$616....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>:
>
> >
> >Steve Knight wrote in message ...
> >
> >>(60ps)
> >
> >ps = Bhp right?
>
> IIRC it's BHP measured at the crank without any accessories fitted to
> the engine - so it's the exact output of the engine, but not what would
> be available to you in the car once you have the waterpump, alternator,
> fuel pump etc etc connected.
> --
> Simon Atkinson http://www.raunds.demon.co.uk/
Nah - ps = pferdes = horses in German ! AFAIK ps and Bhp are the same, but
I am not sure about the exact standard. But it doesn't really matter as
long as the same industry standard is used.
Johannes
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| wow, that was great Czapi. I bet that helped him shit loads. We need more
| helpful people like you on here, instead of wasters taking up space.
| Well done matey!
to stay with you for as long as it's possible. :)))
| Regards
| Paul
David Wood
<the...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Tom West wrote in message <39D10C2C...@beer.com>...
>>David Wood wrote:
>>> The 1.4 Hi Torq engine always was a "gutless wonder". It's a 1.4 8v
>>> engine - I understand it to basically be the old 1400 carburettor engine
>>> with a pretty nasty single point fuel injection system fitted to it.
>
>>I thought the 'Hi-torque' was the multi point injection version, it
>certainly
>>is on my '92 Astra (which I don't think is 16v.....)
>
>I'm afraid not, I have the afore mentioned in my Astra and it is as David
>said a 1.4 8v, 60Bhp engine.
I'm glad I'm right over this point, but I have misremembered the engine
it was compared with, which was the multi-point 8v unit, and not a
multi-point 16v engine (this was in a K plate Astra GLS we had).
Thinking back, there's no way the rocker box of that car could have
contained two camshafts as it was rather narrow, and, to my knowledge,
the only 16v SOHC engines Vauxhall have ever used are turbo diesels (the
2.0Di and 2.0DTi engines are both this configuration - there's bridge
pieces across the valve pairs so that only one camshaft is needed).
Therefore the engine I'm remembering must have been 8v.
I'm struggling slightly to remember the pre-Ecotec line-up of Vauxhall
petrol engines, though I'm quite clear that the Hi Torq (it was mis-
spelt like that, at least in the brochures) is only an 8v single point
unit.
>You can tell because on the tach the redline is
>at 6000 rpm and on the multi-point I believe it is at 6400/500 rpm. The Bhp
>of the multi-point is 82Bhp. I'll get the 16v next time, or maybe I'll get a
>mk4 ;). Sorry to disappoint you Tom, I know you are a fellow Astra
>conisseur. Look on the bright side, at least we get better fuel economy!
I have to say that I like the mark 4, though the mark 3 was, and still
is, a cracking car. My mother had, in order, a 1.4 multi-point K plate 5
door Astra GLS, a 1.6 16v M plate 5 door Astra Diamond (special edition,
I think it was GLS plus alloy wheels and other bits) and a 2.0 16v P
plate 5 door Astra CDX.
The Astra CDX was, at that time, the only model with air conditioning -
there was a 1.6 version, but with the air conditioning on it felt a
little under powered, hence the 2.0 engine in this example. The Astra
CDX only went a couple of weeks ago to be replaced by a 2001 model year
1.8 16v 5 door Astra CDX, which, being a 2001 model year car, benefited
from the newly revised engine (Z18XE as opposed to the X18XE1 used up
until the end of the 2000 model year). I drove both the M and P plate
Astras - I've yet to drive the X plate one!
My father had a 1.7TD 4 door Astra LS saloon on an L plate - that was
eventually traded in for a 1.7TD Vectra when the Vectra first came out
as we wanted a bigger car, though he always liked the Astra a lot. I saw
that Astra recently in the local Vauxhall dealer waiting for a service!
I've got a 2000 model year 2.0Di Zafira Elegance, which is mark 4 Astra
based.
>>> It's tuned for economy rather than performance. It's slower than your
>>> average slug
>
>come on Dave, be fair (expecting witty response, but don't use the tortoise
>with no legs thats my quote).
The Hi Torq unit was fitted to a mark 3 Astra Estate, and was really
unsuitable for an estate car, hence the comment. To be fair, in a
lighter and smaller Corsa, that isn't as likely to be used for load
lugging, it's probably a very effective engine.
Also, the other comparison drawn was that 1.4 Hi Torq mark 3 Astra
estate against a 1.4 Astra Belmont (mark 2 Astra saloon), which had what
is, IIRC, a pretty similar engine to the 1.4 Hi Torq except it had a
carburettor. As is often the case, the engine felt (even if it wasn't)
more powerful with a carburettor than it did with single point fuel
injection.
I've found some hard data, from the Corsa brochure I've kept that was
current when I bought my Corsa in August 1995 - I don't have any 1998
data to hand, and I know the original question was about a 1998 car.
The 1.4 Hi Torq is a 1389cc unit, peak power 60PS (44kW) at 5200rpm,
peak torque 76.0 lb ft (103Nm) at 2800rpm. It is Multec single point
fuel injection, 8v.
The other 1.4 Corsa engine at that point was the 1.4 16v ECOTEC - that
was a 1389cc unit (same block?), peak power 90PS (66kW) at 6000rpm, peak
torque 92.2 lb ft (125Nm) at 4000rpm. It is Multec M multi-point fuel
injection, 16v DOHC.
This shows that the Hi Torq has its peak torque very low down the rev
range - I believe that's how it acquired its name.
The performance and fuel economy figures are telling (bear in mind that
this was the 1995 method of testing fuel consumption - the figures
aren't comparable to the later testing methods):
Max speed 0-60 Urban 56mph 75mph
1.4 Hi Torq 96mph 14.0s 32.8mpg 52.3mpg 39.2mpg
1.4 ECOTEC 112mph 10.5s 32.5mpg 53.3mpg 39.2mpg
(ECOTEC figures given with the wide ratio GLS/CDX gearbox, not the close
ratio SRi box)
Now, at that time, the 1.4 Hi Torq version used isn't shown as compliant
with forthcoming EU96 emission requirements - presumably the fuel
injection system was later revised somehow. In any case, I would expect
the 1998 engines to be slightly different.
However, it's obvious that the increased power and performance of the
ECOTEC unit doesn't carry any significant fuel consumption penalty.
Whew! Is everyone happy now?
David Wood
<guy....@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <oPbFysB5...@wood2.demon.co.uk>
> from David Wood <da...@wood2.org.uk> contains these words:
>
>> 1.5TD Corsa and only got rid of it as it was no longer
>> suitable for my needs (heavy wheelchairs aren't easy to load and unload
>> from a Corsa).
>
>Have you seen those really simple but effective cranes that fit in
>the boot? Not the really complex ones, but the one that is just a bit
>of bent tube with a socket bolted to the floor.
Yes - though it wasn't just the ease of loading and unloading that made
me change the Corsa.
The Corsa's boot just wasn't big enough. My chair was so large that it
was impossible to stand it up in the boot, so I had the back seat
permanently down to give me enough room for the chair. The back seat was
beginning to get damaged as a result. Even then, there wasn't much spare
room in the back, which made it unsuitable to take my grandmother
shopping.
The Corsa was bought back in 1995 assuming that my health was going to
improve and that I'd be dispensing with my wheelchair and ultimately the
car to go back to university. What actually happened was that my health
continued to deteriorate, I landed up needing ever bigger and more
complicated chairs and I'm not likely to return to study or work in the
foreseeable future.
I was also beginning to have problems driving the Corsa and whilst I
didn't want to admit it, I'd begun to avoid going out and my fuel
receipts and service invoices clearly showed that my annual mileage had
halved.
Those who know and love the Corsa know that the driving position is
slightly skewed to one side by the position of the steering column
relative to the pedals and front offside wheel arch. It had begun to
become really uncomfortable. Also, I really needed something with
lighter pedals; whilst the Corsa's cable operated clutch was not, by any
stretch of the imagination, terribly heavy despite it being the large
turbo diesel clutch, the hydraulically actuated mark 4 Astra / Zafira
clutch is much lighter. Cruise control was also desirable as keeping my
right leg on the accelerator for long periods was beginning to get
extremely painful - on a journey of any length I was having to stop at
least every hour.
The Corsa had a driving position that you got down into, which, as my
illness worsened, was not ideal. My Corsa didn't have electric windows
and I was beginning to find a manual window winder very awkward -
annoyingly electric windows were added to the Corsa GLS specification
six weeks after I bought mine with no price increase. Finally, as my
body doesn't regulate its temperature properly, I really wanted
something with air conditioning.
So, there were multiple reasons, largely related to deteriorating
health, for changing the car. In the end, the forcing issue was that my
brother suddenly decided that he wanted the Corsa, as he finally
accepted that his G-reg Polo was falling apart. Being a medical student
(he's now a doctor) reliant on his car to get to the various hospitals
he was working at, he needed something reliable. Also, my father had
just got his kit car (1.8 Zetec powered Quantum H4) on the road, making
his Vectra redundant. My mother didn't want to change to anything bigger
than a hatchback Astra, and the Vectra wasn't directly suitable for me,
either, though I drove it for a while between ordering the Zafira and
giving the Corsa to my brother in October 1999 and getting the Zafira,
for which there was a waiting list, in January this year.
Even without the various other problems, the Corsa was over four years
old, and it didn't seem to make sense to pay to fit a hoist to what was,
in our terms, an elderly car, just to make it more wheelchair friendly.
[Our family decisions are very skewed towards new cars as my father is a
member of the Vauxhall pension scheme, so all of us can get new
Vauxhalls at a fairly large discount via the Vauxhall Partners scheme].
In the end, we decided that I should get a new Zafira, which, as well as
being my car, is the family load lugger and vehicle for use on holidays.
The Vectra was traded in against it. My brother had the Corsa, and Mum
recently changed her Astra for a new one. The Polo was sold for next to
nothing :-(
>The tube just drops
>into the socket when you want it and there is a thing as bit as a
>wiper motor which pulls a string up the bent pipe. The whole sh'bang
>pivots in the socket to give the right sort of "davit" effect.
>
>Because the stalk is de-mountable it works really well in hatchbacks.
I've seen them, and they're brilliant! At the moment, with the Zafira
having a level load area, and being able to take a wheelchair standing
up, I can manage my heavy manual without a hoist - all I have to do is
to lift and wheel it into the back. However, if things get worse, or if
I have to change to a power chair, I can either go for one of these, or
a pair of extendable aluminium ramps to push the chair up and into the
boot. I realise that both potential solutions have their advantages and
disadvantages, and that it would be a case of taking appropriate
professional advice.
Having said that, I know that this is an area in which you have
expertise, Guy, not least because of your wife. If you've got any links
to web sites featuring these hoists and other items such as those
telescopic aluminium ramps, I'd be interested in them by email. Don't
waste too much time on this, though, as I'm doing OK at the moment
without either.
>Very cheap and startingly effective. I thought there were little toy
>until I actually used one.
It's another example of clever design being able to solve a problem very
effectively!
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| I'm glad I'm right over this point, but I have misremembered the engine
| it was compared with, which was the multi-point 8v unit, and not a
| multi-point 16v engine (this was in a K plate Astra GLS we had).
Multipoint AFAIK means that the fuel is injected in multiple points, so it
has to have 2 injection valves. Could anybody straighten it up for me?
| David Wood
Pete Lucas
> Użytkownik David Wood <da...@wood2.org.uk> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
> | it was compared with, which was the multi-point 8v unit, and not a
> | multi-point 16v engine (this was in a K plate Astra GLS we had).
> Multipoint AFAIK means that the fuel is injected in multiple points, so it
> has to have 2 injection valves. Could anybody straighten it up for me?
"Single point" injection = a throttle-body and a single injector
injecting into an intake-manifold which then has branches to the
individual cylinders. Rather like the classic "one carburettor
barrel feeding multiple cylinders" approach of days-gone-by.
"Multi-point" injection = a throttle-body/manifold system, with
individual pipes leading from the plenum to the cylinders,
with multiple injectors, one squirting into each of the
individual intake-pipes downstream of the plenum. Equivalent
to the one-carburettor-barrel-per-cylinder approach (or
"independent runner" as it's known Stateside).
Makes no difference how many valves-per-cylinder the engine
has!
//PJML//
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| "Single point" injection = a throttle-body and a single injector
| injecting into an intake-manifold which then has branches to the
| individual cylinders. Rather like the classic "one carburettor
| barrel feeding multiple cylinders" approach of days-gone-by.
| "Multi-point" injection = a throttle-body/manifold system, with
| individual pipes leading from the plenum to the cylinders,
| with multiple injectors, one squirting into each of the
| individual intake-pipes downstream of the plenum. Equivalent
| to the one-carburettor-barrel-per-cylinder approach (or
| "independent runner" as it's known Stateside).
| Makes no difference how many valves-per-cylinder the engine
| has!
| file://PJML//
James
>The Hi Torq unit was fitted to a mark 3 Astra Estate, and was really
>unsuitable for an estate car, hence the comment. To be fair, in a
>lighter and smaller Corsa, that isn't as likely to be used for load
>lugging, it's probably a very effective engine.
I can't imagine the engine in an estate, with a full load you would be
asking a lot. I would have thought it to be a very able engine in the Corsa,
but I expect the difference between it and the multi-point would be even
more marked in the Corsa.
>Also, the other comparison drawn was that 1.4 Hi Torq mark 3 Astra
>estate against a 1.4 Astra Belmont (mark 2 Astra saloon), which had what
>is, IIRC, a pretty similar engine to the 1.4 Hi Torq except it had a
>carburettor. As is often the case, the engine felt (even if it wasn't)
>more powerful with a carburettor than it did with single point fuel
>injection.
My previous car was a 1.4 Astra estate mk2 (carb variety). It did feel more
powerful it pains me to say. You don't have any data for this engine David?
Glyn
J <jo...@madasafish.com> wrote in article
<39D13549...@madasafish.com>...
> > >>(60ps)
> > >
> > >ps = Bhp right?
> >
> > IIRC it's BHP measured at the crank without any accessories fitted to
> > the engine - so it's the exact output of the engine, but not what would
> > be available to you in the car once you have the waterpump, alternator,
> > fuel pump etc etc connected.
> >
>
but
> I am not sure about the exact standard. But it doesn't really matter as
> long as the same industry standard is used.
I thought there was a little difference - like 200PS= 197BHP or something
like that. I had a Rover 620ti and was told either one of these power
outputs at each website I looked at. Rover quoted 200PS, but car mags and
websites sometimes quoted 197 .
Still, either of those would be fun in a Corsa...
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| Nah - ps = pferdes = horses in German !
There's a significant difference between hp (on the continent: CM, KM, PS
etc.) and bhp. The actual hp:bhp:kW ratio is:
1 bhp = 1.02 (continental)hp = 1.333... kW
| Johannes
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| There's a significant difference between hp (on the continent: CM, KM, PS
| etc.) and bhp. The actual hp:bhp:kW ratio is:
| 1 bhp = 1.02 (continental)hp = 1.333... kW
- Why noone has ever conqeured Britain?
- Easy! Because the British always had stronger horses!
:)))))
Johannes H Andersen
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki wrote:
>
> Użytkownik J <jo...@madasafish.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
> | Nah - ps = pferdes = horses in German !
> Not exactly: prefd stark = horse power, that's for translation.
>
> There's a significant difference between hp (on the continent: CM, KM, PS
> etc.) and bhp. The actual hp:bhp:kW ratio is:
> 1 bhp = 1.02 (continental)hp = 1.333... kW
>
> | Johannes
>
> --
> Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
> Audi 80 Avant 1.9 TD(red)I
Thanks for contribution. But there are two issues here:
1) The conversion factor to KW .
2) The engine accessories included, i.e. alternator, water pump etc.
I remember that there were DIN and SAE standards in relation to 2), but
thought that DIN had become the accepted standard.
Johannes
Burgerman, John Williamson
"Johannes H Andersen" <johannes...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39D282FB...@brunel.ac.uk...
>
>
> Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki wrote:
> >
> > Użytkownik J <jo...@madasafish.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
> > | Nah - ps = pferdes = horses in German !
> > Not exactly: prefd stark = horse power, that's for translation.
> >
> > There's a significant difference between hp (on the continent: CM, KM,
PS
> > etc.) and bhp. The actual hp:bhp:kW ratio is:
> > 1 bhp = 1.02 (continental)hp = 1.333... kW
> >
> > | Johannes
> >
> > --
> > Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
> > Audi 80 Avant 1.9 TD(red)I
>
> Thanks for contribution. But there are two issues here:
>
> 1) The conversion factor to KW .
> 2) The engine accessories included, i.e. alternator, water pump etc.
>
> I remember that there were DIN and SAE standards in relation to 2), but
> thought that DIN had become the accepted standard.
>
> Johannes
There are many different correction factors in use.
DIN standard that most currently use is 70020.
SAE standard currently in use is J-1349 which gives a slightly lower reading
than DIN figs as it is corrected to a different standard temp and pressure.
Also in common use are ECE, EEC, ISO correction factors, and so on.
Non are correct or incorrect, as such but you have to compare like with
like, I know loads about this stuff as I build Dynos!
Guy King
from David Wood <da...@wood2.org.uk> contains these words:
> Those who know and love the Corsa know that the driving position is
> slightly skewed to one side by the position of the steering column
> relative to the pedals and front offside wheel arch. It had begun to
> become really uncomfortable.
Oh, tell me about it. I had several Corsas and they were all horrid.
Dreadfully underpowered as well. And lousy handling.
--
Skipweasel........one who relieves strangers of what they didn't want.
Tom West
> Tom West wrote in message <39D10C2C...@beer.com>...
> >David Wood wrote:
> >> The 1.4 Hi Torq engine always was a "gutless wonder". It's a 1.4 8v
> >> engine - I understand it to basically be the old 1400 carburettor engine
> >> with a pretty nasty single point fuel injection system fitted to it.
>
> >I thought the 'Hi-torque' was the multi point injection version, it
> certainly
> >is on my '92 Astra (which I don't think is 16v.....)
>
> I'm afraid not, I have the afore mentioned in my Astra and it is as David
> said a 1.4 8v, 60Bhp engine. You can tell because on the tach the redline is
> at 6000 rpm and on the multi-point I believe it is at 6400/500 rpm. The Bhp
> of the multi-point is 82Bhp. I'll get the 16v next time, or maybe I'll get a
> mk4 ;). Sorry to disappoint you Tom, I know you are a fellow Astra
> conisseur. Look on the bright side, at least we get better fuel economy!
>
OK, then my engine isn't a 'hi-touque' but is the 82bhp multi-point 8v as the
redline is at 6400rpm. I think the 60bhp versions were used in lower spec
models (Merit, LS)... mine's a CD.
--
Tom
James
>OK, then my engine isn't a 'hi-touque' but is the 82bhp multi-point 8v as
the
>redline is at 6400rpm. I think the 60bhp versions were used in lower spec
>models (Merit, LS)... mine's a CD.
Does it have some wood trim, I know the cavalier CD does.
Mike B
> The message <MWeck9At...@wood2.demon.co.uk>
> > slightly skewed to one side by the position of the steering column
> > relative to the pedals and front offside wheel arch. It had begun to
> > become really uncomfortable.
>
> Dreadfully underpowered as well. And lousy handling.
I rather like them, precisely because of that. They always remind
me of the bargain-bin cars you rent on holiday in Spain for about
5 quid a day... :) And the little 3 cylinder, 1 litre model has a
wonderful engine note at high revs. I always take it ('it' being the
courtesy cars kept by the local dealer) down a country lane,
wind the windows down and let the revs pile up. Sounds rather
like a straight-6 being opened up! :)
Is the Corsa, like so many other cars, skewed because it was designed
for LHD form and the 'conversion' to RHD isn't perfect, resulting
in the skewed position?
Mike
DervMan
> Użytkownik Paul Adamson <paulie...@thefreeinternet.co.uk.NOSPAM> w
> | wow, that was great Czapi. I bet that helped him shit loads. We need
more
> | helpful people like you on here, instead of wasters taking up space.
> | Well done matey!
> Thanks, reading and writing here shall also improve my english, so I'm
going
> to stay with you for as long as it's possible. :)))
I should pay no attention, it's refreshing!
True, you could modify the Corsa HT unit, but with limited effect. The
DervMan has driven the 1.4 HTq engine (60 PS) and the 1.4 SRi (82 PS). The
difference between the two was immense. The Hi Torq unit was a bit like a
diesel - lacks top end sparkle, lots of heave.
Both both were blown away by the Corsa 1.5 TD!
--
DervMan
Anti-Spam Measures: Remove the reference to petrol
Steve Knight
the GLS and was available (but not standard) on Merit Estates and LS models.
On the LS, for the non-mechanically-minded, the easiest way to tell if your
car has the 82PS is if it has electric front windows. If it does, it's an
82PS, if it does not it's a 60PS Hi-Torq.
--
*remove NOSPAM from email address to reply direct*
"Tom West" <tom....@beer.com> wrote in message
news:39D22A31...@beer.com...
> James wrote:
>
> > Tom West wrote in message <39D10C2C...@beer.com>...
> > >David Wood wrote:
> > >> The 1.4 Hi Torq engine always was a "gutless wonder". It's a 1.4 8v
> > >> engine - I understand it to basically be the old 1400 carburettor
engine
> > >> with a pretty nasty single point fuel injection system fitted to it.
> >
> > >I thought the 'Hi-torque' was the multi point injection version, it
> > certainly
> > >is on my '92 Astra (which I don't think is 16v.....)
> >
> > I'm afraid not, I have the afore mentioned in my Astra and it is as
David
> > said a 1.4 8v, 60Bhp engine. You can tell because on the tach the
redline is
> > at 6000 rpm and on the multi-point I believe it is at 6400/500 rpm. The
Bhp
> > of the multi-point is 82Bhp. I'll get the 16v next time, or maybe I'll
get a
> > mk4 ;). Sorry to disappoint you Tom, I know you are a fellow Astra
> > conisseur. Look on the bright side, at least we get better fuel economy!
> >
>
> OK, then my engine isn't a 'hi-touque' but is the 82bhp multi-point 8v as
the
> redline is at 6400rpm. I think the 60bhp versions were used in lower spec
> models (Merit, LS)... mine's a CD.
>
> --
> Tom
>
>
Steve Knight
Vauxhalls. It was good but the 1.4 HT would certainly give it a good run
for its money and the 82PS would kill it.
--
*remove NOSPAM from email address to reply direct*
"DervMan" <der...@mondeo-petrol.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8qtkod$7tb$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki <cz...@mail.icpnet.pl> wrote in message
> news:8qrccl$o0b$1...@sunflower.man.poznan.pl...
> > Użytkownik Paul Adamson <paulie...@thefreeinternet.co.uk.NOSPAM> w
> > | wow, that was great Czapi. I bet that helped him shit loads. We need
> more
> > | helpful people like you on here, instead of wasters taking up space.
> > | Well done matey!
> > Thanks, reading and writing here shall also improve my english, so I'm
> going
> > to stay with you for as long as it's possible. :)))
>
J
"$imes"@raunds.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> J said in <39D13549...@madasafish.com>:
> You translation is right - the method of measurement is different. BHP
> (DIN) is measured with accessories attached - PS without. Therefore you
> always get slightly more PS than BHP from a given engine.
> --
> Simon Atkinson http://www.raunds.demon.co.uk/
Hm, I am almost certain that the Germans use PS (DIN) since DIN stands for:
"Deutsches Institut fur Normung". Still there could be a small difference
in the conversion factor to KW as suggested by Czapi. Unless - that is -
it could well have been EC harmonised ?
Johannes
Duncan Wood
1 hp (PS,metric CV) = 0.7355 kW
so if you quote your BHP in PS then your engine looks 1.3% better
Its measured with the engine accessories (Water pump , alternator under no
load etc.) fitted.
Guy King
from "Mike B" <m.bur...@bigfoot.com> contains these words:
> Is the Corsa, like so many other cars, skewed because it was designed
> for LHD form and the 'conversion' to RHD isn't perfect, resulting
> in the skewed position?
No, its skewed because it is narrow and the doors are thick so to
allow a sensible sized steering wheel and to allow you to steer
without banging your knuckles on the window ledge the steering
position is off centre relative to the seat.
LHD cars are a mirror image.
James
Steve Knight wrote in message ...
>the GLS and was available (but not standard) on Merit Estates and LS
models.
>On the LS, for the non-mechanically-minded, the easiest way to tell if your
>car has the 82PS is if it has electric front windows. If it does, it's an
>82PS, if it does not it's a 60PS Hi-Torq.
Am I right re: tachometer redline also?
James
>Vauxhalls. It was good but the 1.4 HT would certainly give it a good run
>for its money and the 82PS would kill it.
Ok, so here is a massive difference between the 1.4 HT and the 1.4 82Bhp,
but what about the 1.6, would that also blow the 82Bhp into the ether?
Figures?
James
<8qt29v$m37$1...@sunflower.man.poznan.pl>...
I don't mean to be rude but if I see "Internet Explorer Install on Demand"
one more time I will do my nut.
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| I don't mean to be rude but if I see "Internet Explorer Install on
| Demand"
| one more time I will do my nut.
standards for separate newsserwers. That's the main problem.
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| True, you could modify the Corsa HT unit, but with limited effect. The
| DervMan has driven the 1.4 HTq engine (60 PS) and the 1.4 SRi (82 PS).
The
| difference between the two was immense. The Hi Torq unit was a bit like a
| diesel - lacks top end sparkle, lots of heave.
| Both both were blown away by the Corsa 1.5 TD!
quite the same about my Audi, it just blows away all A4 Avants I ever been
racing with. But there is a problem about diesels: they accelerate very
quickly, but with no special FX. In the Audi you just can't feel it
accelerating, but you got the feeling like everybody is driving backwards.
:)))))
| DervMan
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| Must have been a different TD to the one I used to drive when I sold
| Vauxhalls. It was good but the 1.4 HT would certainly give it a good run
| for its money and the 82PS would kill it.
75 hps and much better tourque curve than any petrol fueled,
non-turbocharged engine. My 110 hps in Audi are competitive to 130 hps in
2.0i Audi Engine thus much greater economy. :)))
Rob Humberstone
> Steve Knight wrote in message ...
>
> >The 16v engine is a cracker but calling the 1.4 hi-torq (60ps) sluggish is
> >most unfair. It's fine and in that car works well. If you want more
> >performance just change down a gear. If you want a sportier car - change
> >your car.
>
> Couldn't agree more steve, 3rd normally does the job. Especially when
> overtaking an (albeit stationary) Golf GTI at the lights. He did try though,
> I'll give him that.
I'll keep a look out for you at the lights! ;-)
I overtook an older Golf GTI 16v yesterday, she was going flat out up a
hill...... :-)
Rob, UK, MKIV Golf GTI 1.8T, ICQ: 35685955
David Wood
<the...@ntlworld.com> writes
>David Wood wrote in message ...
>>estate against a 1.4 Astra Belmont (mark 2 Astra saloon), which had what
>>is, IIRC, a pretty similar engine to the 1.4 Hi Torq except it had a
>>carburettor. As is often the case, the engine felt (even if it wasn't)
>>more powerful with a carburettor than it did with single point fuel
>>injection.
>
>My previous car was a 1.4 Astra estate mk2 (carb variety). It did feel more
>powerful it pains me to say. You don't have any data for this engine David?
Somewhere I've got an early Haynes manual for the Mark 3 Astra - it
covered the 14NV 1400cc carburettor engine as, though it was never
fitted to any UK models (all the UK petrol models were all fuel injected
and catalysed), was fitted to versions for other countries early on. I
expect that manual to contain the data.
At the moment, however, I can't find it - I can find all the other old
Haynes manuals that are kicking around, but not this one. Our Mark 2
Astra and Belmont manual was given to the new owner when we got rid of
our E-reg Belmont.
If anyone has got a Vauxhall owner's manual for an early Mark 3 Astra,
it might contain data on the 14NV engine, though I wouldn't be surprised
if it wasn't covered in the UK version of the manual.
David
--
David Wood
da...@wood2.org.uk
David Wood
Czapracki <cz...@mail.icpnet.pl> writes
>What is the max torque of 1.5 TD? HP?
For the petrol engines, see one of my previous posts in this thread.
The 1.5TD engine variant current when my 1995 1.5TD Corsa GLS was new is
given as:
Maximum power 67PS at 4600rpm, maximum torque 97.4 lb ft (132Nm) at
2600rpm.
By way of comparison, the 2.0Di 16v diesel engine in my 2000 Zafira is:
Maximum power 82PS at 4300rpm, maximum torque 136.5 lb ft (185Nm) at
1800-2500rpm.
Tom West
> Steve Knight wrote in message ...
Yep I can confirm that, red-line at 6400rpm, and yes, 'wood' trim inserts on
doors....
--
Tom
Tom West
James wrote:
> Steve Knight wrote in message ...
> >Must have been a different TD to the one I used to drive when I sold
> >Vauxhalls. It was good but the 1.4 HT would certainly give it a good run
> >for its money and the 82PS would kill it.
>
> Ok, so here is a massive difference between the 1.4 HT and the 1.4 82Bhp,
> but what about the 1.6, would that also blow the 82Bhp into the ether?
> Figures?
Depends which 1.6. I don't know if they were used in this county, maybe in the
earlier/low spec Mk3s, but there's a 1.6 single point injection which has less
power, but more torque than the 82Bhp 1.4... The 1.6 multipoint is certainly
more powerful than the 1.4 multipoint.
--
Tom
Steve Knight
powerful and more economical, a nice engine and better suited to the car -
more relaxed. I never liked the 1.4 82PS! On paper the 82PS was more
powerful and faster but it felt much harder work at high speeds.
--
*remove NOSPAM from email address to reply direct*
"James" <the...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BWuA5.2114$VZ.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Michal 'Czapi' Czapracki
| >What is the max torque of 1.5 TD? HP?
| The 1.5TD engine variant current when my 1995 1.5TD Corsa GLS was new is
| given as:
| Maximum power 67PS at 4600rpm, maximum torque 97.4 lb ft (132Nm) at
| 2600rpm.
| By way of comparison, the 2.0Di 16v diesel engine in my 2000 Zafira is:
| Maximum power 82PS at 4300rpm, maximum torque 136.5 lb ft (185Nm) at
| 1800-2500rpm.
Well what do you expect of non-turbocharged diesels. Thay have to be econo,
not fast. Although I'd say it's quite good for no turbo engine. Does it have
these digital injectors?
| David Wood
David Wood
Czapracki <cz...@mail.icpnet.pl> writes
>| The 1.5TD engine variant current when my 1995 1.5TD Corsa GLS was new is
>| given as:
>| Maximum power 67PS at 4600rpm, maximum torque 97.4 lb ft (132Nm) at
>| 2600rpm.
>Only?!? Strange. I thought it had 75 hp.
It may have had more power in a later variant.
>| By way of comparison, the 2.0Di 16v diesel engine in my 2000 Zafira is:
>| Maximum power 82PS at 4300rpm, maximum torque 136.5 lb ft (185Nm) at
>| 1800-2500rpm.
>Well what do you expect of non-turbocharged diesels. Thay have to be econo,
>not fast. Although I'd say it's quite good for no turbo engine. Does it have
>these digital injectors?
In fact, both these engines, the 1.5TD and the 2.0Di, are turbocharged
but have no intercooler (the engine Vauxhall/Opel badge as the 2.0TDi is
the same engine as the 2.0Di with a slightly different turbo and an
intercooler). The latest diesel Zafiras, starting with the beginning of
the 2001 model year have the 2.0TDi engine.
The 2.0Di is a high pressure direct injection engine with electronic
engine management, the 1.5TD Corsa engine is indirect injection with a
mechanical injection system.
Andy Clews
> > >ps = Bhp right?
> >
> > IIRC it's BHP measured at the crank without any accessories fitted to
> > the engine - so it's the exact output of the engine, but not what would
> > be available to you in the car once you have the waterpump, alternator,
> > fuel pump etc etc connected.
> Nah - ps = pferdes = horses in German ! AFAIK ps and Bhp are the same, but
> I am not sure about the exact standard. But it doesn't really matter as
> long as the same industry standard is used.
More correctly, 'ps' stands for Pferdestark, which is German for....horse
power! And yes, PS and BHP (Brake Horse Power) are the same.
--
Andy Clews University of Sussex Computing Service
A.C...@sussex.ac.uk Falmer, BRIGHTON BN1 9QJ, U.K.
Ian Johnston
: More correctly, 'ps' stands for Pferdestark, which is German for....horse
: power! And yes, PS and BHP (Brake Horse Power) are the same.
Is there not, perhaps, a difference in hopw they are measured. For example,
didn't SAE power measurements use a standard induction tract and exhaust
system, whereas DIN measurements used the whole system from the car. From
memory, SAE horsepower can be 20% higher than DIN. I had just assumed that
PS was used to indicate a particular test method.
ian
Burgerman, John Williamson
"Ian Johnston" <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8r2eiq$29q$4...@news.ox.ac.uk...
SAE J-1349, DIN 70020 are correction factor formulas designed to allow for
conditions on the day of test to give a 'corrected' reading to standard temp
and pressure. For what its worth DIN figs are very slightly higher than SAE
ones generally only a couple of percent.
This correction factor is on most days very small and less than 2 percent
overall.
But if you tested your car on a cool dry day at sea level (high atmospheric
pressure) it would make lots more real as measured power, than it would on a
hot day up a mountain! (or on a low ambient pressure day as measured by a
barometer.
Both the correction factors are designed so that if you add the correct
intake air temperature, and atmospheric pressure then the CORRECTED results
will be very similar and comparable.
This correction factor can be applied to horsepower PS bhp kw or whatever
else you decide to measure in or call it. Typically you would multiply the
measure data by say 0.03 or 1.07 or whatever the correction formula says you
do. The dyno software will if its any good tell you the type of correction
used and the amount!
(Use the right mouse button on mine for exact figs..)
I have some dyno software with lots of runs already on (although 2
wheelers) that allow you to view any run with any of 4 different correction
factors inc DIN and SAE and see what happens if you change the temp and
pressure to the curves. Downolad from here
http://freespace.virgin.net/dyno.power/ from the download page!
But bear in mind that since my accident I no longer sell this software or
the hardware...
Tom West
David Wood wrote:
> In article <QOjA5.219$VZ....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, James
> <the...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >David Wood wrote in message ...
> >>Also, the other comparison drawn was that 1.4 Hi Torq mark 3 Astra
> >>estate against a 1.4 Astra Belmont (mark 2 Astra saloon), which had what
> >>is, IIRC, a pretty similar engine to the 1.4 Hi Torq except it had a
> >>carburettor. As is often the case, the engine felt (even if it wasn't)
> >>more powerful with a carburettor than it did with single point fuel
> >>injection.
> >
> >My previous car was a 1.4 Astra estate mk2 (carb variety). It did feel more
> >powerful it pains me to say. You don't have any data for this engine David?
<snip>
> If anyone has got a Vauxhall owner's manual for an early Mark 3 Astra,
> it might contain data on the 14NV engine, though I wouldn't be surprised
> if it wasn't covered in the UK version of the manual.
>
I have that manual, and the 14NV engine is in it. It's also in the handbook in
my '92 Astra. I can't say I've come across a Mk2 with that engine though...
Max power for 14NV: 55kW at 5800rpm; max torque 110Nm at 3000rpm (carb and no
cat)
Max power for C14NZ: 44kW at 5200rpm; max torque 102Nm at 2800rpm (single-point
FI and cat)
Make of that what you will
--
Tom
Steve Walker
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>In uk.rec.cars.misc Andy Clews <an...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>: More correctly, 'ps' stands for Pferdestark, which is German for....horse
>: power! And yes, PS and BHP (Brake Horse Power) are the same.
>
>Is there not, perhaps, a difference in hopw they are measured. For example,
>didn't SAE power measurements use a standard induction tract and exhaust
>system, whereas DIN measurements used the whole system from the car. From
>memory, SAE horsepower can be 20% higher than DIN. I had just assumed that
>PS was used to indicate a particular test method.
As in 'Stamped Addressed Envelope'...
Isn't this why American muscle cars often had unrealistically high
outputs quoted?
--
Steve at bourneh dot demon dot co dot uk
Mark Campion
"James" wrote:
> Ok, so here is a massive difference between the 1.4 HT and the 1.4 82Bhp,
> but what about the 1.6, would that also blow the 82Bhp into the ether?
If the Astra 1.6 is anyhting like the '92 Cavalier 1.6, it wouldn't blow a
daisy into the ether.
The Cavalier wasn't at all fast on the flat and as for uphill......
In comparison, the mid-80's Mk II Cav 1.6 was a rocket.
Mark.
J
OK, you lot. I went and looked up info from an old book.
DIN (Deutsche Industrie Norm) measures power of engine as installed in the
car.
SAE (Society of Automobile Engineers) of America as used until to 1971 was
more optimistic. Engine was measured without silencer (exhaust), cooling fan
(mechanical at the time) and generator (alternator), other settings were
optimised for power. An example: 1970 Dodge V8 had 259 BHP SAE and 177 BHP DIN.
PS is Pferde Starke. (the a in "starke" has two dots over it, sounds like ae ).
One unit of PS equals 0.986 BHP. This is pure physics, nothing to do with
measurement standards.
The French use CV = Cheval Vapeur. I think they have a different system
altogether, this was used for taxation purposes. The Italians also have
CV = Cavallo Vapore. What else ? Oh Danish HK = Heste Kraefter.
Nuf said. Source: The Penguin book of the car, published 1985.
Johannes
James
>Max power for 14NV: 55kW at 5800rpm; max torque 110Nm at 3000rpm (carb and
no
>cat)
>Max power for C14NZ: 44kW at 5200rpm; max torque 102Nm at 2800rpm
(single-point
>FI and cat)
So the mark 2 engine not only seems to have more power, it does have more
power. What is the point of adding an injection system that reduces power?
James
>In comparison, the mid-80's Mk II Cav 1.6 was a rocket.
I expect then the mark II cav had the carb engine and the mark III has the
injected engine?
I have to admit, I loved the mark II cavalier (as used by Jim Carver on The
Bill), The interior was absolutely superb, and the CD version was mint.
Tom West
More than likely the cat reduced the power the most, and the FI was added to
combat this... it just didn't work well enough. Also, perhaps to make a really
cheap-to-insure version.....
--
Tom
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
<the...@ntlworld.com> said
>Tom West wrote in message <39D4DBA7...@psynet.net>...
>>Max power for 14NV: 55kW at 5800rpm; max torque 110Nm at 3000rpm (carb and
>no
>>cat)
>>Max power for C14NZ: 44kW at 5200rpm; max torque 102Nm at 2800rpm
>(single-point
>>FI and cat)
>
>So the mark 2 engine not only seems to have more power, it does have more
>power. What is the point of adding an injection system that reduces power?
To comply with emission regulations.
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
>The French use CV = Cheval Vapeur. I think they have a different system
>altogether, this was used for taxation purposes.
Yes, uf you look at pre-war French stuff you'll find cars referred to as
"14CV" etc; this being a "fiscal horsepower" rating.
The UK used to have something similar - the "RAC Horsepower rating",
which was also used for tax purposes. It was related to the surface-
area of the pistons.
One common way of making prewar cars more "tax-efficient" was to
design the engine to have small pistons and a long stroke, a tax-
induced perversion which lumbered British cars with a tradition
of low-revving, rough engines for quite a while.
It was this "RAC Horsepower" rating that led to old cars being
named "Austin 7", "Morris 8" etc - the number being the HP-rating.
Steve Knight
ratio etc. etc. It's not all about driving around at massive speed. If
that's your thing, don't buy a 1.4 or 1.6 anything, especially an Astra or
Cavalier.
--
*remove NOSPAM from email address to reply direct*
"Mark Campion" <ma...@mcampion.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8r2u5u$rbu$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "James" wrote:
>
> > Ok, so here is a massive difference between the 1.4 HT and the 1.4
82Bhp,
> > but what about the 1.6, would that also blow the 82Bhp into the ether?
>
> If the Astra 1.6 is anyhting like the '92 Cavalier 1.6, it wouldn't blow a
> daisy into the ether.
>
> The Cavalier wasn't at all fast on the flat and as for uphill......
>
> In comparison, the mid-80's Mk II Cav 1.6 was a rocket.
>
> Mark.
>
>
Tim
>Max power for 14NV: 55kW at 5800rpm; max torque 110Nm at 3000rpm (carb and
no
>cat)
>Max power for C14NZ: 44kW at 5200rpm; max torque 102Nm at 2800rpm
(single-point
>FI and cat)
>
>--
>Tom
>
pulled very well infact, just when you open the thorttle the remaining half
to the carpet, you dont get any more shove, no point in revving it past
~4500rpm as all you get is noise;- thats the usual thing with single point
injected cars, very restricted, and as the miles build you get problems with
sluggish injector / laquer fouling, poor drivablilty , poor starting /
idling..etc etc etc!!!
The 1.4 Carb engine was available in the nova SR (twin choke weber) and
Astra LX (GM varajet thing) before it grew F.Injection and went like hell,
certainly better than a 1.4 Ford, from my memory...
Tim..
Guy King
from Tanuki the Raccoon-dog <Tanuki@canis-^Hmajor.da^Hemon.co.uk>
contains these words:
> One common way of making prewar cars more "tax-efficient" was to
> design the engine to have small pistons and a long stroke, a tax-
> induced perversion which lumbered British cars with a tradition
> of low-revving, rough engines for quite a while.
I rather like low revving torquey engines.
--
Skipweasel........one who relieves strangers of what they didn't want.
Duncan Wood
1hp UK/US = 550ftlbf/s = 745.6999 W
So the units are different . How you measure it is where the brake bit comes
from & what you measure & how you correct for ambient are a seperate issue
determined by DIN or SAE
DervMan
news:39D32ED6...@hotmail.com...
> James wrote:
>
> > Steve Knight wrote in message ...
> >
is
> > >most unfair. It's fine and in that car works well. If you want more
> > >performance just change down a gear. If you want a sportier car -
change
> > >your car.
> >
> > Couldn't agree more steve, 3rd normally does the job. Especially when
> > overtaking an (albeit stationary) Golf GTI at the lights. He did try
though,
> > I'll give him that.
>
> I'll keep a look out for you at the lights! ;-)
>
> I overtook an older Golf GTI 16v yesterday, she was going flat out up a
> hill...... :-)
Benefit of torque, that. Shovel more air in, get more torque, get more
efficiency and more speed. Hmm, I like turbochargers!
The older shape Golf GTI 16V was a fine car, but too peaky. As is the Mk.3
16V, but that's a more sober car.
--
DervMan
Anti-Spam Measures: Remove the reference to petrol
DervMan
news:zUsA5.1756$2_5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Must have been a different TD to the one I used to drive when I sold
> Vauxhalls. It was good but the 1.4 HT would certainly give it a good run
> for its money and the 82PS would kill it.
Top end, yes, but low down heave, or when driving four up, the TD had the
edge.
I found the gearbox awkward so anything I could do to stay in a gear, or
avoid changing down, I'd do it.
I never found the HiT engine entertaining, the SRi was more like it.