View Full Version : What are peoples opinions on the 172 conversion into the 5?
TNT ANDY
07-05-2010, 17:38
Just wondering how good the conversion of putting a 172 lump in the front of a 5 is. How do people feel who have done it?
Has the car lost the '5' character or is it sooo much better. I know the potential with it, but is it as good as a boosted C1J 5??? in whole terms, not just power or speed.
:confused:
Just wondering how good the conversion of putting a 172 lump in the front of a 5 is. How do people feel who have done it?
Has the car lost the '5' character or is it sooo much better. I know the potential with it, but is it as good as a boosted C1J 5??? in whole terms, not just power or speed.
:confused:
I would say Scoffs 550 bhp 172 turbod 5 is slightly better than the c1j :cooter:
I really should get mine in and running :coffee:
Just waiting on a couple of bits to turn up so I can get the engine in and new exh manifold and exhaust made for it :agree:
Then the new coilovers will be fitted and I'm away :smokin:
Once I have it all running, I'm changing the cams...
I was on the verge of buying itbs but Mr Cooke advised me of something which would help me reduce the cost of wanting to keep the oe bonnet :D
I might spend what I save on a supercharger...:ashamed:
Cough cough I wouldn't do it again unless your going to turbo and do the willy wide track conversion with a stiffer suspension setup.
That's my view anyway
link below to my old n/a 172 conversion
http://www.rtoc.org/boards/album.php?albumid=932
can't speak for the front but in the back it's awsome.. I would like to turbo it because I miss the noise but I'm reluctant as I've enough power as it is..
If I'm honest I'm not sure I would do the conversion in the front though unless you were to turbo it, I think it might be a bit boring..and an expensive way to get 180 horses if that makes sense :)
TrixNFlix
08-05-2010, 08:40
b18ft ;)
:agree:;):laugh:
TNT Tricky Nicky
08-05-2010, 11:10
B18ft isn't an option.
Ok, so the next question is would you down grade from a 1.4 running circa 200 bhp which spins it's wheels in 5th gear at 100mph while running r888 to a 172 engine. would the lose of 30 odd bhp be worth it for a smoother power delivery and more relaxed drive, ie started it rag the nuts off it and park it compaired to constant gauge watching, reliability isnt a reason for the conversion either.
B18ft isn't an option.
Ok, so the next question is would you down grade from a 1.4 running circa 200 bhp which spins it's wheels in 5th gear at 100mph while running r888 to a 172 engine. would the lose of 30 odd bhp be worth it for a smoother power delivery and more relaxed drive, ie started it rag the nuts off it and park it compaired to constant gauge watching, reliability isnt a reason for the conversion either.
I take it you are basing this purely on power output? :) Going from a C series to an F series engine is not downgrading in my opinion :D
B18ft isn't an option.
Ok, so the next question is would you down grade from a 1.4 running circa 200 bhp which spins it's wheels in 5th gear at 100mph
Are you sure its not clutch slip because its not wheel spin with 200bhp.
TNT Tricky Nicky
08-05-2010, 12:57
Are you sure its not clutch slip because its not wheel spin with 200bhp.
yes definately wheelspin as speedo increases (measured from driveshaft not box) and when you back off throttle it pulls to the camber of the road.
in damp conditions which i forgot to add :ashamed:, which is also the point of the swap, at what point is too much power for a road car without traction control/abs. realistically could fit a smaller turbo so that when it comes on full boost the wheels dont spin up but that's kind of a back step hense the conversion.
yes downgrading as in losing power, it's not being done to increase/decrease power but to have useable power that you can go out in and drive but have the power when you need it, not fighting it all the time.
another downside for the 172 is the amount of £/bhp you have to spend to get any real gain
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 13:01
bhp for £ and ease of fitment cant beat the b18ft in my opinion cheap reliable turbo power.:D
TNT Tricky Nicky
08-05-2010, 13:14
pretty sure c1j is easier and cheaper to tune :scared:
plus the fact that's what's in the car and the f4r is in the garage so that's why b18ft isn't an option.
so is turbo power better than n/a (a question to get shot down for on a turbo owners club :laugh: )
so is turbo power better than n/a (a question to get shot down for on a turbo owners club :laugh: )
If the car came from the factory with a turbo, it should stay turbocharged, whether its a C1J or a turbo'd 172 doesnt matter as long as it is still turbocharged :)
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 13:26
c1j defo easier and cheaper with a lot more parts available off the shelf but a lot less reliable ant cant take the abuse like the others. Can't beat the power delivery a turbo lump bit of lag then a smack in the back:D
TNT ANDY
08-05-2010, 13:29
:agree::agree::agree:
If the car came from the factory with a turbo, it should stay turbocharged, whether its a C1J or a turbo'd 172 doesnt matter as long as it is still turbocharged :)
TNT ANDY
08-05-2010, 13:32
c1j defo easier and cheaper with a lot more parts available off the shelf but a lot less reliable ant cant take the abuse like the others. Can't beat the power delivery a turbo lump bit of lag then a smack in the back:D
Keep the turbo within its map and all is well on a C1J - I never had reliability problems with 180bhp and I mean never.
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 13:41
personally all ive had is problems with my c1j but that may just be that engine in particular as it wasnt in the best state when i got it and it didnt get an easy life but they just cant seem to take the abuse the 172 or b18ft lumps can take.
The new Bill J
08-05-2010, 13:47
......but they just cant seem to take the abuse the 172 or b18ft lumps can take.
What makes you say that?
C1j are generaly bullet proof.. unless under the sever beatings the top 1/4 mile fella's give them, even then they are strong
TrixNFlix
08-05-2010, 13:57
C1j are generaly bullet proof.. unless under the sever beatings the top 1/4 mile fella's give them, even then they are strong
Just don't agree with this statement at all, but that's just based on my experiences with this engine.
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 14:05
just my personal experience with it. Old design they run hot and dont seem to last long without going wrong at the 200bhp mark
Just don't agree with this statement at all, but that's just based on my experiences with this engine.
You have had a torrid time dude.. only based on my own experiance and personal opinion.. although over the greater scheme of things there will be a vast difference in peoples opinions.
It does depend on quality of parts used, and set up id guess
B18ft isn't an option.
Ok, so the next question is would you down grade from a 1.4 running circa 200 bhp which spins it's wheels in 5th gear at 100mph while running r888 to a 172 engine. would the lose of 30 odd bhp be worth it for a smoother power delivery and more relaxed drive, ie started it rag the nuts off it and park it compaired to constant gauge watching, reliability isnt a reason for the conversion either.
If reliability isn't an issue, personally I would just reduce the boost on yours so you get about 180horses that should cure your wheelspin a little.. I don't see much benifit to the 172 engine unless you have a problem with the cj1 in the first place.. unless you wanted more power! then the 172 in turbo form is a good route. I'm not sure you'll benifit, if your current engine is performing as well as you say it is from putting in the 172, and if you bought the GT partly for the turbo element in the first place I'll tell you one thing you'll sure as hell miss it!! ;)
Don't get me wrong I love my 172 engine, but if it wasn't right behind me growling with induction noise and wasn't powering the rear wheels I'm not sure if I would be fussed.
The new Bill J
08-05-2010, 14:14
just my personal experience with it. Old design they run hot and dont seem to last long without going wrong at the 200bhp mark
Because you had one dud?
When they're looked after properly, they run as hot as they were designed to. Surely Renault wouldn't have carried on using the 'old design' if it ran too hot? :cartman:
In over ten years, I've never had any component fail in a C1J. Or a turbo, or a gearbox for that matter.
As has been said so many times, the C1J is a tough old engine when done properly/looked after. Yes, they can/do fail when you're pushing them to the absolute limit, but how many people are doing that?
TrixNFlix
08-05-2010, 14:15
You have had a torrid time dude.. only based on my own experiance and personal opinion.. although over the greater scheme of things there will be a vast difference in peoples opinions.
It does depend on quality of parts used, and set up id guess
yeah totaly correct john, we all can only make judements off our own experiences, many people have never had a problem with the c1j. With engines, you realy don't know if they are 100% unless you are willing to strip them down.
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 14:32
yer i have only had one c1j and had problems with it so it is a bit unfair on ye old fella to tar them with the same brush but if i had another one id be constantly worrying about it and not wanting to push it.
The new Bill J
08-05-2010, 14:56
.....but they just cant seem to take the abuse the 172 or b18ft lumps can take.
So how many of those engines have you had, to draw that conclusion? :D
My old engine was fine, never ran hot, intake temps were never over 35 deg IIRC, 24 psi manifold (ran 2 bar once) did over 20 runs at pod in one day & drove it home after... daily driver, all be it stripped out ( & I mean thrashed as well).
Relaibility is in the build, if it's old & manky & not been looked after any car will be un-reliable.
That reminds me I must do an oil change on the Evo.. :ashamed:
I miss my old GTT :(
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 16:47
So how many of those engines have you had, to draw that conclusion? :D
:ashamed: just going by what i have read been told and looking at the lump its self looks a lot more robust! if this turns out to be unreliable then i must need changing:laugh:
The new Bill J
08-05-2010, 16:55
:ashamed: just going by what i have read been told and looking at the lump its self looks a lot more robust! if this turns out to be unreliable then i must need changing:laugh:
Right, so you've had experience of one C1J engine, and that failed, so that makes them unreliable. And you've physically looked at one B18FT engine, but not had it running, and that looks a lot stronger, so it is? :scratch:
:laugh:
I think that might be what Mart describes as "RTOC Gold" :wasntme:
My old engine was fine, never ran hot, intake temps were never over 35 deg IIRC, 24 psi manifold (ran 2 bar once) did over 20 runs at pod in one day & drove it home after... daily driver, all be it stripped out ( & I mean thrashed as well).
Relaibility is in the build, if it's old & manky & not been looked after any car will be un-reliable.
That reminds me I must do an oil change on the Evo.. :ashamed:
I miss my old GTT :(
My orginal c1j engine before the 172 conversion was easy over 200bhp running 24psi manifold I never had any cooling problems the only prob I had was piston rings and valve stem seals and that was it. The only reason I did the conversion was I felt there wasn't much more for me to do to the c1j and fancied some efi so done the f4r conversion just done 500 miles took the n/a f4r out and am now back to running a c1j again had a few probs as this engine was rusting from inside out but all hood now. I am of the view Renault did it right in the first place with the 5 gtt.
http://www.rtoc.org/boards/album.php?albumid=817
People can only go by their own experiences of a particular engine.
For example : If your Rover K series popped its head gasket at 80k and cost you a good few hundred quid to put right, you are hardly going to go out and buy another K series engine to prove to yourself that the engine is reliable. You are more then likely going to move on and find something else.
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 17:10
b18ft efi, piston oil spray, ohc, 1.7l, low comp pistons whats not to like? why stick with the c1j if thats on offer for not much dosh.
Right, so you've had experience of one C1J engine, and that failed, so that makes them unreliable. And you've physically looked at one B18FT engine, but not had it running, and that looks a lot stronger, so it is? :scratch:
:laugh:
I think that might be what Mart describes as "RTOC Gold" :wasntme:
:laugh:
My orginal c1j engine before the 172 conversion was easy over 200bhp running 24psi manifold I never had any cooling problems the only prob I had was piston rings and valve stem seals and that was it. The only reason I did the conversion was I felt there wasn't much more for me to do to the c1j and fancied some efi so done the f4r conversion just done 500 miles took the n/a f4r out and am now back to running a c1j again had a few probs as this engine was rusting from inside out but all hood now. I am of the view Renault did it right in the first place with the 5 gtt.
http://www.rtoc.org/boards/album.php?albumid=817
:agree:
Wow, there's some bollox being posted in this thread.
The C1J is a great little engine, even more so if you bear in mind how old the original design of the engine is. People seem to forget that the gtt came from an era where road-going turbo-charged engines were still effectively in their foundation years, but even so, a low 7 second 0-60mph time from an inefficient (compared to today's standards), carb'd, 1.4L, 8v pushrod engine running 1980's spec tyres from back in the day definitely isn't anything to be sniffed at.
A C1J'd gtt is still topping the 1/4 mile leaderboard last time I checked, and I've not yet been in any other gtt on track with a different engine in situ, which gave the same grin factor as T-cup & Trusty did.
Fair enough if people want to install something more modern to achieve their targets, be it on the 1/4 mile, improved driveability, better mpg, or whatever, but the C1J should never be knocked for what it is, even more so if you want to retain the gtt's heritage & character.
jesus in the seat of a 5
08-05-2010, 17:30
Wow, there's some bollox being posted in this thread.
The C1J is a great little engine, even more so if you bear in mind how old the original design of the engine is. People seem to forget that the gtt came from an era where road-going turbo-charged engines were still effectively in their foundation years, but even so, a low 7 second 0-60mph time from an inefficient (compared to today's standards), carb'd, 1.4L, 8v pushrod engine running 1980's spec tyres from back in the day definitely isn't anything to be sniffed at.
A C1J'd gtt is still topping the 1/4 mile leaderboard last time I checked, and I've not yet been in any other gtt on track with a different engine in situ, which gave the same grin factor as T-cup & Trusty did.
Fair enough if people want to install something more modern to achieve their targets, be it on the 1/4 mile, improved driveability, better mpg, or whatever, but the C1J should never be knocked for what it is, even more so if you want to retain the gtt's heritage & character.
All frickin hail...yeah , what he said, :agree:, well said mart , exactly what i would of said.
It just boils my p1ss mate.
I'd lay good money on the majority of unreliability issues being down to 'weekend spanner monkeys' not really knowing what the feck they're actually doing to/with the engine.
:dearme:
I wouldn't get too worked up about it, the weekend is here and this is a car website :D.
I have never bought anything else other than Renault 5's since the very first day i started driving and have never gone over to the dark side unlike some of our members. :D
SCHWARTZ
08-05-2010, 17:53
I dont deny most probs are down to poor maintenance and people not knowing what they are doing but i still think in my personal opinion that the c1j may be reliable but not as reliable as a more modern alternative.
Markey Mark (BD)
08-05-2010, 17:54
I'd lay good money on the majority of unreliability issues being down to 'weekend spanner monkeys' not really knowing what the feck they're actually doing to/with the engine.
:dearme:
Totally agreee with you there mate, you want to see some of the piss poor repairs i have seen on some cars. Done one today which i pulled about 4m of crap cable out of it because it had been lashed together :sad2:.
I always say the most unreliable bit of a 5 is the driver/owner of the car, if its not looked after/well maintained then don't be suprised if it causes you problems.
very intreasting thoughts been raised, ive oftern thought of dumpin my engine in favour of a 172 lump because of it been more modern but think id miss the wizz pop bang!;)
how difficult is the conversion start to finish?
TNT Tricky Nicky
08-05-2010, 18:47
Thanks for the input guys, this isn't my car btw, mine has no engine in it at the moment and I have the option of doing this conversion but will be a little while yet until I'm ready to put an engine back in. TNT Hammond is the member in question, we've talked about the pros and cons and neither of us can decide what's best so asked andy for his opinion and still undecided!
My worry is he'll miss da boost, the f4r is a powerful engine but I feel it needs to be charged as it could pull harder at lower rpms.
It's a 5gt turbo and should stay a turbo agreed, I personally wouldn't mind it not being charged as I have a soft spot for the styling not the power.
We basically left it at the point where money and time isn't an issue and we'd do the conversion on his car, rag it about and see what it's like, if it didn't feel right we'd swap it back.
TNT Tricky Nicky
08-05-2010, 18:52
how difficult is the conversion start to finish?
i was being optimistic and said engine bays stripped buy lunch time new engine in and ready to fire up buy the evening as any problems we can ask the guys who have already done it for help :laugh:
this is assuming we have all the parts before we start
I think people are getting sucked into a reliability argument without considering any real life comparisons. power for power the difference in reliability will shift the more you are asking of each engine. at 150hp both engine's will cope just fine ofcourse. The C1J will take whatever the hell you throw at it! the difference in reliability shifts exponentially the more power you ask of them though. My C1J broke cranks, pistons, cam lobes, cam journals, push rods, stem seals, small ends, wore its valve guides and god knows what else. none of those things broke because I couldn't tune it, or because it was put together poorly - they broke because I was asking too much from it. The 16v engine would have took my old C1J's 260hp on a daily basis and thought nothing of it. I could do 100k miles at that level of power with only oil changes, I'm 100% confident of it.
So if you're going to argue the toss you need some real life comparision situations else its meaningless. ..and all said and done, you have to just do whatever the hell you want to do! The car WILL loose it's charachter, feel, sound and a lot of respect from the real GTT enthusiasts. That will bother some people, others it will not. :)
hydrotec78
08-05-2010, 20:39
Totally agreee with you there mate, you want to see some of the piss poor repairs i have seen on some cars. Done one today which i pulled about 4m of crap cable out of it because it had been lashed together :sad2:.
I always say the most unreliable bit of a 5 is the driver/owner of the car, if its not looked after/well maintained then don't be suprised if it causes you problems.
Yeah but dont forget Mark people like that pay us very well ! ! ! ! ! ! ! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The one today was a joke on four wheels, Ch-ch-ch-chav city ! :wasntme: :wasntme: :wasntme:
turbo ted
08-05-2010, 20:52
I think people are getting sucked into a reliability argument without considering any real life comparisons. power for power the difference in reliability will shift the more you are asking of each engine. at 150hp both engine's will cope just fine ofcourse. The C1J will take whatever the hell you throw at it! the difference in reliability shifts exponentially the more power you ask of them though. My C1J broke cranks, pistons, cam lobes, cam journals, push rods, stem seals, small ends, wore its valve guides and god knows what else. none of those things broke because I couldn't tune it, or because it was put together poorly - they broke because I was asking too much from it. The 16v engine would have took my old C1J's 260hp on a daily basis and thought nothing of it. I could do 100k miles at that level of power with only oil changes, I'm 100% confident of it.
So if you're going to argue the toss you need some real life comparision situations else its meaningless. ..and all said and done, you have to just do whatever the hell you want to do! The car WILL loose it's charachter, feel, sound and a lot of respect from the real GTT enthusiasts. That will bother some people, others it will not. :)
I second that Chris!!
this is what can happen to a C1J after 250hp
5alldaway
08-05-2010, 21:36
in almost 8 years of gtt ownership the only failure on the c1j was a headgasket which was my fault running too much boost, i found it was the 20 year old parts around the engine bay that failed cause of old age
TNT ANDY
09-05-2010, 09:29
I second that Chris!!
this is what can happen to a C1J after 250hp
Basicly -
C1J - Great up to 200bhp but becomes less reliable after that depending upon application. If you need more power then look at converting to more modern engines.
Question -
Q- is 200bhp enough in a 5???
Disagree with the first comment, but yep, I'd agree that a low-lag 200hp gtt is more than enough fun.
Why do people chase numbers anyway though?
Trusty (~170hp, 200+lbs/ft) was way more fun to drive around/on track than my old Raider (~245/235) was. Less lag/quicker spool & better traction probably the main 2 reasons.
As noted from a previous comment in this thread, is wheel-spinning in 5th gear @ 100mph really that impressive? All that tells me, is that power is simply being wasted...
Why do people chase numbers anyway though?...
:agree: i couldnt agree more. tune/build your engines for how you want it to feel and drive, not for who can get the biggest bhp:disagree: i think we all know the threshold a c1j is capable of, is there any point in trying to go beyond that when many people have already tried and failed.
if you want big bhp the c1j isnt really the engine for you, if you want a quick, fun lightweight car that will keep up with todays standard of cars then the c1j is more than up to the job:agree: plus the fact it costs pennies to service compared with more modern vehicles.
In over ten years, I've never had any component fail in a C1J. Or a turbo, or a gearbox for that matter.
You had a wobbly piston tho ;)
Disagree with the first comment, but yep, I'd agree that a low-lag 200hp gtt is more than enough fun.
Why do people chase numbers anyway though?
Trusty (~170hp, 200+lbs/ft) was way more fun to drive around/on track than my old Raider (~245/235) was. Less lag/quicker spool & better traction probably the main 2 reasons.
As noted from a previous comment in this thread, is wheel-spinning in 5th gear @ 100mph really that impressive? All that tells me, is that power is simply being wasted...
Chasing numbers is for people who dont know much. (Did kenobi really just say that?)
I go for power to weight ratio. Some bragging rights can be had there.
1/4 mile is the scientific bit in my opinion. Until its on paper it aint real.
The new Bill J
10-05-2010, 17:37
You had a wobbly piston tho ;)
:laugh:
I haven't heard that one for a few years. How did that come about? Was it even me? :scared:
rs250nut
10-05-2010, 17:54
As noted from a previous comment in this thread, is wheel-spinning in 5th gear @ 100mph really that impressive? All that tells me, is that power is simply being wasted...[/quote]
I dont believe that for one minute, not from a c1j anyway unless it had dustbin lids on as wheels
TNT Tricky Nicky
10-05-2010, 18:17
If you re read what I wrote, I said when it came on full boost in damp conditions it spun the wheels, this was with me driving, when the owner drives, as he knows how the car reacts it isn't so bad but was an example of how the car drives. Hopefully when he has his Internet back up he can post graphs from rolling roads so you can see the curves or lack of, within 1krpm it makes full power and doesn't drop off. If not he can explain better
Oh and I kno rolling roads are bs talk but the car should be at pod and you can make your own decisions from that.
It wasn't boasting, showing off or bull, chasing numbers as this isn't what the thread is about which alot of people seem to be missing.
The point is would the conversion make the 5gtturbo a better every day car
TNT!hammond
10-05-2010, 20:07
:)well im here,
not got the net so having to get on when i can at the mo.
The car has R888 tyres not dustbin lids, it has a good size T28 @ around 21psi. As Nick has stated traction is a issue as is driveability. Nick has managed to change lane in 5th while the wheels were spining ( I had slight ass nip as he is the only person except me to have driven it)
bhp wise i have no idea i dont like rr but last run at 19 psi on a .49 rear ended t25 it made 196hp and 188 fltlb. Im thinking it may be down to hard suspention and a very light car. Not the power spinning the wheels maybe as it hit light bumps causes it to break traction and then has enough to keep it spinning.
I was looking at the f4r as its very smooth and the get in and drive aspect. My c1j is very reliable. Problems have only really come from the previouse owner and others touching her.
This thread was setup purely to ask if the transplant was worthy of time,cost and wether the gtt shell requires a turbo to keep it fun.
:agree: i couldnt agree more. tune/build your engines for how you want it to feel and drive, not for who can get the biggest bhp:disagree: i think we all know the threshold a c1j is capable of, is there any point in trying to go beyond that when many people have already tried and failed.
there's always a point to boundry pushing! the world would be a boring place if people didn't compete, try harder, push further and while more often than not they get kicked in the balls when something breaks - well, atleast they tried. it's a hobby at the end of the day, not for everyone, but a buzz for those that enjoy it :)
TNT ANDY
15-05-2010, 09:13
:agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:: agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:
there's always a point to boundry pushing! the world would be a boring place if people didn't compete, try harder, push further and while more often than not they get kicked in the balls when something breaks - well, atleast they tried. it's a hobby at the end of the day, not for everyone, but a buzz for those that enjoy it :)
:agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:: agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:
Will your car spin it's wheels in the DRY, never mind the wet, of course they'll spin!
And of course, a worked on 2 litre will be good fun in a 5, especially with some low boost added.
The downside is the weight and the effect it has on an already front heavy balance. If making the best progress you can on windy lanes and 90° urban corners and roundabouts is your requirement then a lighter engine might serve better.
Otherwise, the 172 engine with 6psi WILL spin it wheels at 80mph on a dry road in 5th IIRC, at about 5000rpm just by pressing the loud pedal.
That car made, IIRC, 255bhp at the Track and Road single Roller in Rainham, which is East of London.
A pal has a n/a 2 litre in a Nova 4 door. Looks a very ordinary car. But the Vauxhaul XE (IIRC) engine had the two large twin side draught Dell'Orto or Webber carbs, cams, headwork, revs to 9000 and goes impressively well. It also has NOS. The problem is keeping it straight on the straights and going around the corners. When planting the loud pedal it pulls at least as hard as most turbo boost thumbing in, and it does it at just about any rpm, and there's no lag to speak of.
It's guessed that, without the NOS, it makes about 185bhp. It's plenty of fun, good for overtaking, and you don't have to molly coddle the turbo all the time.
Tony Walker
16-05-2010, 20:28
I dont deny most probs are down to poor maintenance and people not knowing what they are doing but i still think in my personal opinion that the c1j may be reliable but not as reliable as a more modern alternative.
What do we mean reliable??? standard state any engine i gaurantee a modern engine will have a component failure before a c1j will stop running. be that a pencil coil, coil pack , cam sensor crank sensor egr valve sticking air flow sensor failing. c1j will pretty much never let you down. a modern engine u take a risk everytime u switch it on lol.
You're quite right, but I think no-one here is talking about sensors failing, rather, talking about the engine itself, together with lubrication and cooling, not failing under 230bhp or so of load.
I have a turbo'd clio thats been run with 6 psi on stock internals (206bhp) then converted to low comp running 267bhp@12psi.
It seems to get loads of power (200+bhp) from the C1J people are having to use large turbos and a lot of boost. Obviously the transition from off boost to full boost is pretty brutal. As I see it a N/A engine produces a pretty steady power and torque curve however at any given point by increasing the intake pressure to 20psi above atmo your inevitably going to have a massive surge in both torque and BHP. This is obviously the traits that are causing the wheel spin/unwanted lane changes.
Now looking at an F4R engine as Chris has said they are capable of running sensible power levels (250bhp) with very little strain and with the introduction of very little boost. Obviously the less boost you have to use the more the engine retains it's original characteristics. With my last set up 267bhp and 262lb/ft@12psi I can honestly say that apart from 1st and 2nd, there was no issues what so ever with wheel spin etc....
Heres a dyno printout to show the power delivery (torque drops off at the top end due to the small comp housing :()
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj243/SP33DFOUR/img001.jpg
I have a turbo'd clio thats been run with 6 psi on stock internals (206bhp) then converted to low comp running 267bhp@12psi.
Cool.. how was it at 206hp? and what did you do to lower the compression?
When you had the stock internals did you alter the injectors or anything?
Cool.. how was it at 206hp? and what did you do to lower the compression?
When you had the stock internals did you alter the injectors or anything?
TBH it was spot on at 206bhp you could be just as aggressive with the launches the same as in NA form but obviously with a stronger mid to top end. The injectors were swapped for a set of megane 225 items.
To lower the compression I took the easy option and fitted the 8.5 Wossners, I think if I were to do it again I'd get a meg 225 piston and have it copied to give 9.5 CR.
Have you considered fitting a meg 225 cylinder head to yours the same as Andyrg? I only suggest this because if you could get a meg 225 engine you could remove the crank, shells, pistons etc.... and fit them to your F4R block. This would get rid of your knocking bottom end and lower your CR for running a bit of boost. Or better still how about just fitting the complete 225 engine (saving money on head gaskets etc..) and squeeze the ND0/1 six speed gearbox in? I know Matt and Ashy said it was to big to go in the front, but in the rear?
TBH it was spot on at 206bhp you could be just as aggressive with the launches the same as in NA form but obviously with a stronger mid to top end. The injectors were swapped for a set of megane 225 items.
That sounds quite straight forward, do the megane 225 injectors fit into the 172 rail and head as a straight swap? I quite fancy that bit extra...
The megane block sounds good but I think it may be a little costly, scoffs idea of dropping the crank from a 480turbo sounds a little easier and retaining the rest although no doubt I'll end up needing something like the megane gearbox if I went down that route..
For now I quite fancy a reliable low lag 200hp cheaper than throttle bodies and once the piping is in, it's just a matter of replacing the guts for more power..
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.