gene cooley
Autocrosser
New subject " The blow thru battle: Carb v. TBI". On Motor Trend @ 9:00 PM Eastern.
Replay subject at 9:30 "Cylinder Heads/ Boost".
Replay subject at 9:30 "Cylinder Heads/ Boost".
New Engine Masters tonight.
- Thread starter gene cooley
- Start date
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I recorded it but haven't watched it yet. This episode kind of typifies the "old school" nature of these guys. I've never been partial to TBI systems in general nor boosting through carbs. So this episode doesn't interest me as much as some others. However boosting through a more modern EFI (with individual injectors) does excite me.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I watched the episode last night. I'm glad they mentioned that the right answer for a boosted engine is a EFI with individual injectors ("multiport").
It's clear they are old school carb guys and seem to get hung up on newer technologies. But I get their point was to compare two specific setups. Unfortunately they cheated the results. With the TBI system they elected to NOT control the ignition with the FI's computer. That is a major advantage of any computer controlled fuel/spark system, to allow optimal spark timing that corresponds to the AFR. So they gave the FI a big disadvantage to make it equal to the carb.
However it was a fun test. It illustrated the main reason I don't care for TBI, the lack of good atomization and AFR control compared to what's possible with individual cylinder injectors.
It's clear they are old school carb guys and seem to get hung up on newer technologies. But I get their point was to compare two specific setups. Unfortunately they cheated the results. With the TBI system they elected to NOT control the ignition with the FI's computer. That is a major advantage of any computer controlled fuel/spark system, to allow optimal spark timing that corresponds to the AFR. So they gave the FI a big disadvantage to make it equal to the carb.
However it was a fun test. It illustrated the main reason I don't care for TBI, the lack of good atomization and AFR control compared to what's possible with individual cylinder injectors.
MikeHynes
True Classic
Engine Masters is a good show. For this episode they concentrated on carb vs TBI - in a blow through application. The first rule of testing is - Make one change at a time. So, they didn't include ignition timing - or octane, or cam timing, or collector extension length, or...
They were very open about the advantages of multi point FI, and why it's better. In this episode they wanted to know if TBI was worth the extra $ and hassle because it's easier, and less expensive to just bolt a carb on. In the end they pretty much came to the conclusion that the carb delivered results that were about equal to TBI. So, if you want to save some bucks, and time, bolting on a carb isn't going to put you at a disadvantage to TBI (in a blow through application).
One of the things I like about the show is the discussions about why they get the results they get. In this episode they focused on the effect dual plane vs single plane manifolds, and part throttle vs wide open throttle (throttle blade position) has on fuel distribution. That seems to be something they focus on often. Probably because it's pretty darn important.
For me the takeaway is that if you can, you will have a better chance of getting good results (more consistent AFRs) with individual runner (IR) carb manifold setups. Be it dual DCNFs, dual DCOEs, or even (gasp) dual IDFs, you should have more consistent AFRs with IR carb manifolds than with a single carb manifolds. But, if you want to spend even more, and don't worry about the complexity, multi point electronic fuel injection is probably going to deliver superior results. How fast do you want to go?
They were very open about the advantages of multi point FI, and why it's better. In this episode they wanted to know if TBI was worth the extra $ and hassle because it's easier, and less expensive to just bolt a carb on. In the end they pretty much came to the conclusion that the carb delivered results that were about equal to TBI. So, if you want to save some bucks, and time, bolting on a carb isn't going to put you at a disadvantage to TBI (in a blow through application).
One of the things I like about the show is the discussions about why they get the results they get. In this episode they focused on the effect dual plane vs single plane manifolds, and part throttle vs wide open throttle (throttle blade position) has on fuel distribution. That seems to be something they focus on often. Probably because it's pretty darn important.
For me the takeaway is that if you can, you will have a better chance of getting good results (more consistent AFRs) with individual runner (IR) carb manifold setups. Be it dual DCNFs, dual DCOEs, or even (gasp) dual IDFs, you should have more consistent AFRs with IR carb manifolds than with a single carb manifolds. But, if you want to spend even more, and don't worry about the complexity, multi point electronic fuel injection is probably going to deliver superior results. How fast do you want to go?
carl
True Classic
I watched the two episodes last night. The first one dealt with exhaust and they seemed totally shocked that the mandrel bent exhaust performed no better than the non-mandrel exhaust and the turbo muffler performed the same as the glasspack. Their reasoning was the mild cam didn't care. My takeaway for my X was the turbo muffler on my header was fine for me.
The second episode dealt with various octane gas and they proved what I had understood, if whatever gas you use was not creating knock at your desired total ignition advance then using higher octane gas GIVES NO MORE POWER. The point they did not discuss was that higher octane gas will last longer in the tank before going bad. My takeaway was with the stock compression my motor was fine with cheap ass 87. I do try to drive the X at least once a biweek all through the winter so gas going bad was not a consideration.
The second episode dealt with various octane gas and they proved what I had understood, if whatever gas you use was not creating knock at your desired total ignition advance then using higher octane gas GIVES NO MORE POWER. The point they did not discuss was that higher octane gas will last longer in the tank before going bad. My takeaway was with the stock compression my motor was fine with cheap ass 87. I do try to drive the X at least once a biweek all through the winter so gas going bad was not a consideration.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Last night I watched the episode about mandrel vs crimped exhaust systems. I am a little surprised there wasn't any real difference between them. I guess it is like they discussed at the end, it may be very engine specific. But I also have another thought that they sort of touched on. Perhaps the overall diameter of the tubing they used was large enough for this application that the pipes could be crimped a noticeable amount and still have more than enough flow to maximize power. For example if they started with the minimal diameter for that engine, then crimped it, the results may have been different. Think in extremes; say you start with a 5" diameter pipe and crimp it 50%, you still have a internal surface area that is more than what's needed to maximize the engine's potential. So even though the back pressure increased a little with the crimped pipe, it was still too little to make any difference in this case.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I saw another interesting dyno test result on TV. This was a different program on a different channel, but still one that specializes in engine performance and they have their own dyno to test everything they do. The goal this time was to compare the effect of various engine accessories on performance. Things like air cleaners, headers, electric water pump, and such. The particular engine for these tests was a big V8 with a lot of power, so the results would be very different compared to a small low power engine like ours. For example the same air filter test had been done by them previously on a smaller V8 with much less power and the results were significantly different, as we will see.
One result that stood out to me was although a large low restriction air filter did improve performance on the big high power engine, it made virtually no difference on the smaller one. So I imagine that would be the case on our engines. A smaller, lower power level engine does not draw enough CFM to warrant a HP air filter, because the stock arrangement flows enough CFM already.
Another interesting finding was having a high current draw on the alternator (i.e. requiring a lot of charging output and therefore higher load on the engine to drive it) only had a fractional effect on actual power loss (not significant). However a electric water pump in place of a mechanical made more difference, although still not a huge amount (barely significant). Again I think this would be even less so on our engines.
Some of the other tests really weren't relivelent to our engines. For example their header comparison (with three different types of headers) was interesting but it is much too specific to the engine and header design that you can't draw conclusions for a completely different engine - like the X vs a big V8.
The bottom line seems to be little low output engines (e.g. X1/9) won't benefit significantly from a lot of the typical "hot rod" tricks. Which isn't anything new really; I've seen this proven over and over. Let's be honest, one or two more horse power is not going to change the driving dynamics of the X. This supports my personal belief that spending a ton of money building a "performance" SOHC will not yield enough return in performance to warrant the cost and loss in reliability. If you really want a high performance X then a different (higher output) engine is the better path to take. Again, only my opinion.
One result that stood out to me was although a large low restriction air filter did improve performance on the big high power engine, it made virtually no difference on the smaller one. So I imagine that would be the case on our engines. A smaller, lower power level engine does not draw enough CFM to warrant a HP air filter, because the stock arrangement flows enough CFM already.
Another interesting finding was having a high current draw on the alternator (i.e. requiring a lot of charging output and therefore higher load on the engine to drive it) only had a fractional effect on actual power loss (not significant). However a electric water pump in place of a mechanical made more difference, although still not a huge amount (barely significant). Again I think this would be even less so on our engines.
Some of the other tests really weren't relivelent to our engines. For example their header comparison (with three different types of headers) was interesting but it is much too specific to the engine and header design that you can't draw conclusions for a completely different engine - like the X vs a big V8.
The bottom line seems to be little low output engines (e.g. X1/9) won't benefit significantly from a lot of the typical "hot rod" tricks. Which isn't anything new really; I've seen this proven over and over. Let's be honest, one or two more horse power is not going to change the driving dynamics of the X. This supports my personal belief that spending a ton of money building a "performance" SOHC will not yield enough return in performance to warrant the cost and loss in reliability. If you really want a high performance X then a different (higher output) engine is the better path to take. Again, only my opinion.
MikeHynes
True Classic
"The bottom line seems to be little low output engines (e.g. X1/9) won't benefit significantly from a lot of the typical "hot rod" tricks. Which isn't anything new really; I've seen this proven over and over. Let's be honest, one or two more horse power is not going to change the driving dynamics of the X. This supports my personal belief that spending a ton of money building a "performance" SOHC will not yield enough return in performance to warrant the cost and loss in reliability. If you really want a high performance X then a different (higher output) engine is the better path to take. Again, only my opinion."
The Fiat SOHC engine does benefit from typical "hot rod" tricks. While it was designed (a long time ago) to be an economical, mass produced engine, for low cost cars, it's still simply an "air pump" and it responds well to "hot rod" tricks that improve airflow. You can easily gain a lot more than one or two more HP by applying "hot rod" tricks. And, you don't have to worry about a loss in reliability, the X engine is very robust. As to the amount of money spent, well, that's all relative isn't? Just throwing money at an engine project won't often yield acceptable results. If you don't have the skills and experience to build, and tune, a small displacement engine you will likely get lackluster results.
As for driving dynamics, a little more HP completely changes the character of the car - in my opinion. If your experience driving X's is with stock smog 1300s, you will be happily surprised at how much difference adding a stock smog 1500 will make to the feel of the car. Install a "hot rod" 1500 and you get a car that is an eye opener. Apply another "hot rod" trick - remove some weight - and you now have a car that can really put a smile on your face. You should try it sometime.
Of course transplanting a different "higher output" engine can also deliver more fun. As long as you don't add more weight. The X already has a rear weight bias, it tends towards oversteer, in other words it's loose. Adding more weight just makes things worse. That's dangerous, it's difficult for most "average" drivers to recover from oversteer. That's why some high performance sports cars that exhibit oversteer have been labeled "Dr. Killers". (No pun intended!) Most manufacturers will design their cars to have understeer, or push, because it's easier to recover from understeer. It's "safer". The key to adding an engine with higher output to an X is to install one that doesn't weigh anymore than a "hot rod" SOHC engine. Oh, and do it for a lower cost than "hot rodding" a SOHC engine. If you only drive in a straight line, then adding a higher output engine to your X, even if it weighs more than a SOHC engine, is perfectly acceptable. But, if your plan is to add more HP, with a heavier drivetrain, and drive around curves, hang on. You might just find your way into the ditch a lot faster than you might otherwise. In my opinion.
The Fiat SOHC engine does benefit from typical "hot rod" tricks. While it was designed (a long time ago) to be an economical, mass produced engine, for low cost cars, it's still simply an "air pump" and it responds well to "hot rod" tricks that improve airflow. You can easily gain a lot more than one or two more HP by applying "hot rod" tricks. And, you don't have to worry about a loss in reliability, the X engine is very robust. As to the amount of money spent, well, that's all relative isn't? Just throwing money at an engine project won't often yield acceptable results. If you don't have the skills and experience to build, and tune, a small displacement engine you will likely get lackluster results.
As for driving dynamics, a little more HP completely changes the character of the car - in my opinion. If your experience driving X's is with stock smog 1300s, you will be happily surprised at how much difference adding a stock smog 1500 will make to the feel of the car. Install a "hot rod" 1500 and you get a car that is an eye opener. Apply another "hot rod" trick - remove some weight - and you now have a car that can really put a smile on your face. You should try it sometime.
Of course transplanting a different "higher output" engine can also deliver more fun. As long as you don't add more weight. The X already has a rear weight bias, it tends towards oversteer, in other words it's loose. Adding more weight just makes things worse. That's dangerous, it's difficult for most "average" drivers to recover from oversteer. That's why some high performance sports cars that exhibit oversteer have been labeled "Dr. Killers". (No pun intended!) Most manufacturers will design their cars to have understeer, or push, because it's easier to recover from understeer. It's "safer". The key to adding an engine with higher output to an X is to install one that doesn't weigh anymore than a "hot rod" SOHC engine. Oh, and do it for a lower cost than "hot rodding" a SOHC engine. If you only drive in a straight line, then adding a higher output engine to your X, even if it weighs more than a SOHC engine, is perfectly acceptable. But, if your plan is to add more HP, with a heavier drivetrain, and drive around curves, hang on. You might just find your way into the ditch a lot faster than you might otherwise. In my opinion.
carl
True Classic
From my own experience, going from a 1300 to a 1500 is a massive improvement in performance and it's incredibly easy to do. My 1500 X which weighs around 1800 lbs is a hoot and will pull from 2500 rpm which is something my 1600 Miata could only dream about since they don't do anything till 4,000. It also depends on what you plan to do with the car. If it's a weekend fun car in a suburban environment then it's all about torque. If it's an SCCA race car then you will pay a fortune to get that very last extra horsepower to be competitive.
If I was thirty years younger I would do trackdays and see if mods I did improved my lap times. But I'm not, I fall into that first group now.
If I was thirty years younger I would do trackdays and see if mods I did improved my lap times. But I'm not, I fall into that first group now.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I don't disagree with the general comments by Mike and Carl, however I respectfully disagree with some ot if. One key word in my initial statement is - benefit "significantly". Personal preferences and expectations will differ greatly, but in my opinion even a highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine is not a high performance engine, it is not reliable, and it does not bring the X up to the level of excitement I think it deserves. Some of my position might be due to comparing the X's drivetrain to others I'm very familiar with. So there may be relative differences in opinion depending on what you are accustomed to. But after building a few X engines I've concluded the expense is not worth the payoff....at least not to me. However I do respect the opinions of others, and I know the desire to keep things "original" (as in "a Fiat in a Fiat") is important to some. It may also be worth mentioning that my current position on this has changed over the years; I haven't always felt that engine swaps were the way to go.
MikeHynes
True Classic
I don't disagree with the general comments by Mike and Carl, however I respectfully disagree with some ot if. One key word in my initial statement is - benefit "significantly". Personal preferences and expectations will differ greatly, but in my opinion even a highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine is not a high performance engine, it is not reliable, and it does not bring the X up to the level of excitement I think it deserves. Some of my position might be due to comparing the X's drivetrain to others I'm very familiar with. So there may be relative differences in opinion depending on what you are accustomed to. But after building a few X engines I've concluded the expense is not worth the payoff....at least not to me. However I do respect the opinions of others, and I know the desire to keep things "original" (as in "a Fiat in a Fiat") is important to some. It may also be worth mentioning that my current position on this has changed over the years; I haven't always felt that engine swaps were the way to go.
Well, we all have opinions and experiences, nothing wrong with that.
But your comments have raised a few questions for me.
Why do you feel a "highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine" "is not reliable"? What goes wrong? How does a "highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine" break or not run?
Can you please describe the highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engines that you have experience with?
How much HP have you experienced in your X's (estimated is fine), and what was lacking in the driving experience of these modified X's?
Also, while I understand that it's not cheap to rebuild, or build, an engine, why do you consider the Fiat SOHC engine to be more expensive to build than other engines?
And lastly, what engine/drivetrain do you feel should be used to bring an X up to your expectations?
Sorry for the thread drift, should probably start a new thread...
Well, we all have opinions and experiences, nothing wrong with that.
But your comments have raised a few questions for me.
Why do you feel a "highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine" "is not reliable"? What goes wrong? How does a "highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine" break or not run?
Can you please describe the highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engines that you have experience with?
How much HP have you experienced in your X's (estimated is fine), and what was lacking in the driving experience of these modified X's?
Also, while I understand that it's not cheap to rebuild, or build, an engine, why do you consider the Fiat SOHC engine to be more expensive to build than other engines?
And lastly, what engine/drivetrain do you feel should be used to bring an X up to your expectations?
Sorry for the thread drift, should probably start a new thread...
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Excellent questions Mike. I was trying to avoid getting too far adrift here so I was not too specific. But let me see if I can answer you in a concise way.I don't disagree with the general comments by Mike and Carl, however I respectfully disagree with some ot if. One key word in my initial statement is - benefit "significantly". Personal preferences and expectations will differ greatly, but in my opinion even a highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine is not a high performance engine, it is not reliable, and it does not bring the X up to the level of excitement I think it deserves. Some of my position might be due to comparing the X's drivetrain to others I'm very familiar with. So there may be relative differences in opinion depending on what you are accustomed to. But after building a few X engines I've concluded the expense is not worth the payoff....at least not to me. However I do respect the opinions of others, and I know the desire to keep things "original" (as in "a Fiat in a Fiat") is important to some. It may also be worth mentioning that my current position on this has changed over the years; I haven't always felt that engine swaps were the way to go.
Well, we all have opinions and experiences, nothing wrong with that.
But your comments have raised a few questions for me.
Why do you feel a "highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine" "is not reliable"? What goes wrong? How does a "highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engine" break or not run?
Can you please describe the highly modified Fiat 1500 SOHC (X) engines that you have experience with?
How much HP have you experienced in your X's (estimated is fine), and what was lacking in the driving experience of these modified X's?
Also, while I understand that it's not cheap to rebuild, or build, an engine, why do you consider the Fiat SOHC engine to be more expensive to build than other engines?
And lastly, what engine/drivetrain do you feel should be used to bring an X up to your expectations?
Sorry for the thread drift, should probably start a new thread...
I've always found the more you move away from (i.e. modify) the stock OEM design of any engine it looses reliability. Simple physics, mechanics, and a world of performance experience back that up. That might be in terms of longevity, or fragility, or general dependability. But there is also a matter of the change in that engine's characteristics; the more highly tuned it is the more the power curves drift toward higher ranges with less torque and 'peaky' HP. That's the opposite of my idea of a good street engine.
As for what I compare things with, at the risk of ruffling feathers on a Fiat forum, pretty much any German engine. In my 55+ years experience of building all levels of engines I've always found huge differences in the quality and engineering between German and Italian engine designs (pretty much the only vehicles I've owned in my lifetime). I can achieve more torque and drivability from those makes of engines with fewer modifications, while still retaining more reliability and durability/longevity, all for less money. I've done so many times before. So why not change to a better option rather than tempting fate with what I believe to be an lesser one? And I'm comparing apples with apples; same era, same basic design, same level of vehicle application, same general price point, etc. I should also say I have no experience with any Asian vehicles; I'd be hard pressed to remember driving or even riding in anything from Japan, Korea, China, or otherwise. So I really can't speak for a Honda engine swap. Therefore my opinions on that are based on what I've read and input I've received from others.
I get that comments like these are not well received on a make specific forum, and I apologize for that. Honestly I'm not trying to make waves. Recent events in my personal experience, and comments in recent threads here have brought these feelings to the surface for me. Perhaps I should refrain from stating them publicly. Hopefully I've not offended anyone. So I won't go into further detail. If you still wish to discuss the subject further I'd be glad to offline.
By the way, aren't you building a Honda swapped X?
dllubin
Don
My X has never left me stranded in all the years it has been on the planet. It managed to blow up right in my driveway! Not sure whether to call it reliable or not. I can say that it required much more maintenance and attention even when it was new even when compared to the other cars I owned of similar age at the time. Not sure the German stuff was any better back then. My '81 Audi Coupe (the one they turned into the Quattro rally car) made the X to appear to be the model of dependability by comparison.
I would also say that the performance improvements I made when the car was new probably would not make sense today based on the cost of the parts versus performance gain when compared with newer technology options. If I wasn't able to rescue the performance equipment off my blown 1300, I'd likely have a stock '79 1500 powering my X right now.
I would also say that the performance improvements I made when the car was new probably would not make sense today based on the cost of the parts versus performance gain when compared with newer technology options. If I wasn't able to rescue the performance equipment off my blown 1300, I'd likely have a stock '79 1500 powering my X right now.
MikeHynes
True Classic
No, I'm not. As usual I've collected the engine/trans and lots of other RSX parts but can't bring myself to start cutting up a car to install them. Not that I wouldn't like to have the added HP, I really would : ) And no, its not because I have a problem installing a non-Fiat engine in an X, I don't.
Instead I would prefer to go the UnoTurbo engine route (although I haven't started on that project yet either).
Maybe I'm just too lazy, or maybe it because I find that a "hot rodded" SOHC engine makes my X just so much fun to drive that I would rather be driving than building ; ) After all, that's really why you build a car, to drive it. Right?
BTW - I'm sure we would all like to hear more details of your engine swapped X. Please keep us informed. And remember the pics too " No pics...It never happened".
Ulix
True Classic
Jeff,
I don‘t find your comments offensive.
And I agree that a more powerful stock engine from a different car is a good mod.
But have you done such an engine swap before?
Many 1st time swappers report that it is way more work to get the details right than they expected.
So usually the comparison of the costs of modding the existing engine vs. a used donor is not a fair one.
I don‘t find your comments offensive.
And I agree that a more powerful stock engine from a different car is a good mod.
But have you done such an engine swap before?
Many 1st time swappers report that it is way more work to get the details right than they expected.
So usually the comparison of the costs of modding the existing engine vs. a used donor is not a fair one.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I was thinking more about this last night. I believe this is relevant to the thread because my comment was in regard to some TV programs where they test engines in a somewhat scientific manner on a dyno, to see exactly how much improvement various mods make. And that was my point; if you examine the data most mods yield very little power gain and come with a tradeoff. The tests typically take a specific engine and pull a few baseline ("before") dyno runs first, they make a single change/mod to it, then repeat the dyno pulls ("after"). They show the actual dyno graphs (the torque and HP curves) with the before and after results on the same graph. If you freeze the image and study the data on that graph you usually find a typical pattern. Most mods result in a decreased output over a broad portion of the lower to mid range RPM (reduced torque), but a increase over a short portion of the upper RPM range (peak HP increase). Historically this has been demonstrated with the majority of common "hot rod" mods (we may define that differently also). In my opinion that is the opposite of a good street engine, where a strong torque curve in the low to mid range is very beneficial. Furthermore if you look at the scales of the graph and do some math with the data, the improvements are often not statistically significant. For example there may be a 5 to 10% gain at most (however if you also consider the losses it may well be a net zero gain or even a overall decrease). If the engine begins with 750 HP then 10% is 75HP and that is something you can feel. But with our 75HP engines 10% is only 7.5HP, which I find insignificant. And obviously a 5% gain is only half that. Those are not significant improvements, especially when you consider the decrease in torque that resulted. I think often there is a tendency for a lot of psychology here; when someone spends money on a new part and invests the time and effort to install it, they believe the result is much more than it really is. But the dyno tests are a more accurate means of actually measuring the outcomes. There is a lot of science behind why many changes will yield some gains and some losses; everything has a tradeoff. A good book on the subject written by a experienced automotive engineer can give more details on that. And this was my main point about most mods to a small low output engine like the X's; I don't find the gains (if any) to be worth the expense (cost and effort) in most cases.
As for "reliability", something does not have to break or completely fail to be considered unreliable. In my opinion a unreliable vehicle has things like frequent electrical issues, multiple fluid leaks, abnormal levels of rust, a multitude of frozen fasteners, repetitive hydraulic system problems, intermittent difficulty starting, cooling system issues leading to overheating, the need for constant maintenance or repairs or adjustments, weather seals allowing air and water leaks, unusually quick wear of interior components, transmission grinding, and on and on. Sound familiar? And in my experience there is a significant (again, I said significant) difference with these issues for Italian vehicles compared to others (at least the ones I have a lot of experience with). In general I find them to be what I consider unreliable. And not just Fiats, but pretty much all vehicles from that country.
However let me be clear. This does not mean I dislike Italian cars in general, and Fiats specifically. And it is certainly not a statement on Italy, I am Italian and I very much like Italian products. I find the body styling to be great. However the engineering and material/ build quality not so much. I really wasn't intending to start a debate on the virtues of the X1/9. I own and build them - which would not be the case if I thought they were complete garbage. Again, I was commenting on the dyno results I saw on a program. Sorry if this got out of hand.
As for "reliability", something does not have to break or completely fail to be considered unreliable. In my opinion a unreliable vehicle has things like frequent electrical issues, multiple fluid leaks, abnormal levels of rust, a multitude of frozen fasteners, repetitive hydraulic system problems, intermittent difficulty starting, cooling system issues leading to overheating, the need for constant maintenance or repairs or adjustments, weather seals allowing air and water leaks, unusually quick wear of interior components, transmission grinding, and on and on. Sound familiar? And in my experience there is a significant (again, I said significant) difference with these issues for Italian vehicles compared to others (at least the ones I have a lot of experience with). In general I find them to be what I consider unreliable. And not just Fiats, but pretty much all vehicles from that country.
However let me be clear. This does not mean I dislike Italian cars in general, and Fiats specifically. And it is certainly not a statement on Italy, I am Italian and I very much like Italian products. I find the body styling to be great. However the engineering and material/ build quality not so much. I really wasn't intending to start a debate on the virtues of the X1/9. I own and build them - which would not be the case if I thought they were complete garbage. Again, I was commenting on the dyno results I saw on a program. Sorry if this got out of hand.
Last edited:
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Following on my last post.
Regarding the question of doing a engine swap and the cost/benefit to doing so. Yes I've done a few of them on various vehicles. And to me it really depends on the specific vehicle in question. Some cars have engines and transmissions that warrant retaining their original drivetrain, while others are not worth the effort. I feel it is also dependant on the goals for each build. Some of my vintage cars are not "performance" vehicles and therefore a relatively stock powertrain is fine. Especially those that have a lot of torque and dependability to begin with. However others are more like streetable versions of a track car and the original powertrain just isn't suited for the level of performance I'm looking for. Particularly those with a lower power output and not a huge amount of potential for strong torque numbers with reliability.
As with all of my car builds, on the swaps I've done I attempt to keep the expense as low as possible. Having built many "performance" engines I generally know what the total cost of that will be. By buying a inexpensive whole donor car that runs/drives, but is otherwise damaged, I get pretty much all of the needed components at a low price. This would differ greatly depending on what donor car one chooses, and what the nature of the swap is. Same for the choice of car receiving the swap - some are much easier (less costly) than others. But I've found the cost of a simple swap to be little more than a full performance drivetrain (engine, transmission, and other related components) build would be (keeping in mind I do all of my own work so the labor is not included). Especially when the resultant reliability/dependability is considered; it's nice to be able to have fun and abuse a performance car without it breaking or having a multitude of drivetrain issues.
I realize this cost/benefit tradeoff may not be the same case for many swaps. And naturally the cost of a swap can go up considerably if you begin modifying the new drivetrain (again, it depends on the specific build). Likewise if the builder cannot fabricate everything themselves and must pay the labor for professionals to do much of the work. Therefore the results can vary a lot depending on the circumstance.
Regarding the question of doing a engine swap and the cost/benefit to doing so. Yes I've done a few of them on various vehicles. And to me it really depends on the specific vehicle in question. Some cars have engines and transmissions that warrant retaining their original drivetrain, while others are not worth the effort. I feel it is also dependant on the goals for each build. Some of my vintage cars are not "performance" vehicles and therefore a relatively stock powertrain is fine. Especially those that have a lot of torque and dependability to begin with. However others are more like streetable versions of a track car and the original powertrain just isn't suited for the level of performance I'm looking for. Particularly those with a lower power output and not a huge amount of potential for strong torque numbers with reliability.
As with all of my car builds, on the swaps I've done I attempt to keep the expense as low as possible. Having built many "performance" engines I generally know what the total cost of that will be. By buying a inexpensive whole donor car that runs/drives, but is otherwise damaged, I get pretty much all of the needed components at a low price. This would differ greatly depending on what donor car one chooses, and what the nature of the swap is. Same for the choice of car receiving the swap - some are much easier (less costly) than others. But I've found the cost of a simple swap to be little more than a full performance drivetrain (engine, transmission, and other related components) build would be (keeping in mind I do all of my own work so the labor is not included). Especially when the resultant reliability/dependability is considered; it's nice to be able to have fun and abuse a performance car without it breaking or having a multitude of drivetrain issues.
I realize this cost/benefit tradeoff may not be the same case for many swaps. And naturally the cost of a swap can go up considerably if you begin modifying the new drivetrain (again, it depends on the specific build). Likewise if the builder cannot fabricate everything themselves and must pay the labor for professionals to do much of the work. Therefore the results can vary a lot depending on the circumstance.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Another option that Mike mentioned is also intriguing, a turbo Fiat engine build for the X. As I've discussed before I am working on just such a project. In my case I wanted to start with a good stock 1500 X engine and add a small turbo to it. The idea is to keep boost levels relatively low, utilize a standalone ECU to manage the fuel and spark, and build in as much "safety" as possible (i.e. large intercooler, lots of thermal management, conservative tune, etc). All with as little expense as possible and retaining the stock engine internals. I am still working on it (there's been a ton of unexpected delays due to personal circumstances). But hopefully I'd like to find a decent power increase (mainly torque, as turbos can do) with the same or less expense as building a NA "performance" SOHC, while maintaining decent reliability (a very relative term). Basically along the same lines as what the manufacturers do, like with the Uno Turbo. However in my case rather than buying and shipping a complete UT engine I located a UT exhaust manifold and turbo and installing it (with the necessary components) onto the original X engine. Honestly I have no idea how it will work out, we'll see. But this would not be what I consider a "high performance" powertrain. The power gains should be about the same level as with a fully built NA engine, but with much more torque. And I do not consider that to be enough for the X. Also it does not address the limitations of the X's transmission. My point with bringing up this engine build is to illustrate that I am not wholeheartedly against the Fiat engine. However as I originally stated, for a true 'high performance' X I think the best route is a complete drivetrain swap.
Ulix
True Classic
Over 20 years ago, Steve Ambrose in Seattle slapped a Uno Turbo manifold and Turbo on his stock FI X1/9.
No intercooler and white PVC pipe from Home Depot for boost piping.
He may have had a Microsquirt on it, can‘t remeber.
It was simple, cheap and drove like you described above.
No intercooler and white PVC pipe from Home Depot for boost piping.
He may have had a Microsquirt on it, can‘t remeber.
It was simple, cheap and drove like you described above.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I recall someone else did similar as well. In that case he couldn't resist the temptation to up the boost and he fried the engine. Hopefully with the added protection from reducing the charge and combustion temps it may survive longer.
I really need to finish up that engine project.