John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
http://www.automedia.com/Relocating_a_Battery/res20010301br/1
That site says you are wrong daimo.
|
cunningham
Member
Registered: 25th May 05
Location: Lochore, Fife
User status: Offline
|
lol i had the battery in the boot made no diffrence
|
Graham88
Member
Registered: 16th Apr 07
Location: South East Kent Drives: E46 M3
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
You have a battery that weighs 27kg!!!!!!!!
Bloody hell, thats one big battery!!
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
http://www.automedia.com/Relocating_a_Battery/res20010301br/1
That site says you are wrong daimo.
It says im wrong about what? 27kg being a big battery????? I haven't said anything else other than that?
So what am i wrong about?
[Edited on 01-08-2008 by VXR]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.automedia.com%2FRelocating_a_Battery%2Fres20010301br%2F1&btnG=Search&meta=
Don't know why that link doesn't work, it works from the google search, says about relocating a 60 pound battery.
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
But what am I wrong about?
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Ok then, it is possible to get smaller batteries, my mistake.
|
sand-eel
Member
Registered: 15th Mar 07
Location: carluke/braidwood--IRNBRULAND
User status: Offline
|
27 kg battery is not far off TBH they are quite heavy
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
just weighed biggest battry we have and its 20kg
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
60a or higher James?
I know my standard 39a (think) corsa battery weighed LOADS less than the 60a one I put in (for the audio) thats still in the car.
But then Andy H had a tiny tiny battery. And Motorbike batterys (almost that size tbh) are tiny and only weigh a few kg.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
X16 - 30-40bhp with mapping.
C16 - 30-50bhp with mapping.
Bollocks
The heads aren't that different FFS
You'd be lucky to see a 10bhp gain on a 1600 of that spec with a decent ported head, not just with a different factory one.
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
60a or higher James?
I know my standard 39a (think) corsa battery weighed LOADS less than the 60a one I put in (for the audio) thats still in the car.
But then Andy H had a tiny tiny battery. And Motorbike batterys (almost that size tbh) are tiny and only weigh a few kg.
72ah 380a
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Bollocks
The heads aren't that different FFS
You'd be lucky to see a 10bhp gain on a 1600 of that spec with a decent ported head, not just with a different factory one.
Yes, Robin is correct.
This is why SBD has had practically 10-12bhp MORE from a C16 than it has an X16 in various guises of tuning.
I can sit here and prove it, but its the interent, I don't need to prove it. Donnas old engine PROVED it, as did others in my 2000-2008 time.
Yes the C16 IS that much better.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Maybe the X16 had a prototype VXR resctriction mat.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
So you're saying that in standard form, the C16XE head is going to give a 10bhp gain on a mild specced engine overn X16XE one?
The reason SBD use the C16XE head for their 'ultimate' head spec is because there's a tiny amount less work involved in making it flow a little better.
They found the C16XE one to be best in standard form, the obvious thing to do is use that as a starting point.
Your claim of 10bhp over an X16XE head on an engine with 'cams, inlet, decat etc' is, frankly, utter shit.
An engine of that spec, with a ported X16XE head with a higher flow rate than a standard C16XE head gives 8/9bhp over the same spec without (Broster's been there)
You know best though, all the figures from the year 2000 in Revs magazine will have been spot on.
I'll remind you of your own video the other day when someone claimed 167bhp from an XE Corsa 
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Maybe the X16 had a prototype VXR resctriction mat.
Maybe he's thinking of the Ecotech version, that's how I've managed to be wrong here....
|
Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
Is that the reason everyone who's tuned an X16 has had less power to show?
D5 - Northampton RR, quite accurate (in terms or RR anyway). Remus exhaust (standard bore), D5 made 109bhp.
Then it had an airfilter, and a larger exhaust system. 114bhp at Mantzels RR. But in favour of your argument, lets say it only made 109bhp.
After Mbox, mantzel chip, and some fettling (used as a development car), it made 161.5bhp@7519rpm, on the SAME rolling road.
There was a green Nova, similar spec, made 155bhp around the same time.
So say in your favour, thats minus 5bhp, which makes 156.5bhp.
So where am I lying here? Making up figures for IE cool points?
At worst, the engine made 156bhp, if the RR was correct, it made more.
C16's generally throughout the years have given better gains over an X16 engine. Even Andy Hamiltons when he ran a Mantzel box.
Also, what so hard to believe? C16 made 150bhp with engine managmen, and airbox changes.
I understand your lame attempts to make fun, but at the end of the day, facts are facts.
Revs, robin, get back in the closet please. I don't read Mag figures thanks.
Claimed 167bhp from a 2.0 16v, who Nikki, yes her car ran around these figures. But then you seem to have forgotten different engines make different power as every engine has been treated the same through life haven't they :Rolleyes: .
Same as Fads overbored 2.0 made 164bhp, yet Swindon Racing (you know, the guys who controlled the engines for Formula Vauxhall for many years) ran XE's at just shy of 180bhp with a set of cams, exhaust and inlet.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if your trying to be funny, facts are facts, and the other fact that D5 was nearly as quick as my 2.0, even though my 2.0 was far lighter. It was only at higher speeds my car would slightly pull..... Sure the figures maybe a little high, even dubious myself still, but thats what it made, and D5 had a really healthy running C16XE.
Whether you wish to believe any of this, couldn't give 2 shoots. Im sure you will try to make mockery of facts in some way.
What is it with people trying to prove me wrong today
[Edited on 01-08-2008 by VXR]
|
jr
Member
Registered: 20th May 02
Location: Kent
User status: Offline
|
saying that, remember that suprisingly quick white x14xe vs a 2.0 xe on the way from southend 
|
J200RSA
Member
Registered: 23rd May 05
Location: Sheffield
User status: Offline
|
why not put a 3.0 v6 in? you don't see many of them as you do redtops and you have 200+bhp standard and a hell of alot of torque
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
Daimo, TBH, you're just arguing that a couple of the C16s you've had the pleasure of being familiar with made x amount of power.
There's no backup to your 'fact' that the X16 would make 10bhp less in the same spec.
Standard for standard, the C16XE head categorically will not give 10bhp more than an X16XE of the same spec.
I see you still don't agree that the X16XE can be made to flow just as well as a worked C16XE head either, again, with no actual fact.
Believe what you want, it's fine with me.
As for C16XEs always making more power, that's probably to do with the fact that they're using a standard head. There won't be a 10bhp difference though, whatever you say.
I'm not here to be funny or make you look like a cock, I'm just trying to show you that you're not always right.
|
SAL
Premium Member
Registered: 19th Dec 05
Location: Radlett, Hertfordshire
User status: Offline
|
Yes but D5 robin, D5
|
Rob126
Member
Registered: 18th Feb 05
Location: Mellieha, Malta Drives: Corsa D 1.4
User status: Offline
|
maybe it won't be to everyone's taste but what about a 1.7 / 2.0 DTI astra engine and tune that! don't see many around in corsa's and will be fast and torquey!
[Edited on 02-08-2008 by Rob126]
|
chrex
Member
Registered: 26th Aug 07
Location: Brawdy/Wirral
User status: Offline
|
SEH ftw!
|
broster
Premium Member
Registered: 6th Dec 02
Location: Drives: E39
User status: Offline
|
to be fair the better head is found on the x16xel, and im not being funny their either! the triangular port heads are better than the c16xe or the x16xe.
people used to argue the valve sizes on the c16xe head were bigger than an x16xe (rubbish) and thats why they were better...
get a c16xe head and an x16xe head, spend the same money on each regards to head work and cams, then you have two heads that will be the same power wise!
iv never seen any advantage removing my x16xe head in favor for a c16xe head, ever. just dont believe it to be fair.
like the sbd164 kit making 164bhp.......
|
richard_cooper
Member
Registered: 31st Jan 07
Location: Mansfield, Nottingamshire
User status: Offline
|
x16xe and tune it, thats what i want to do.
Throttle Boddies, cams, headwork and full system with manifold. Not cheap but better than a 2L IMO
|
