is a 1600cc that much better. - Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups
Suzuki GEO All Discussion of all things, Suzuki and GEO

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2000, 07:01 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 418
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
is a 1600cc that much better.

I was wonder if a 91 tracker engine is really that much of an improvement. does anyone know the actuall horsepower gain and\or torque increase. Also is there a increase or decrease in gas mileage?

billduck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2000, 10:55 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

Chilton's Truck and Van Repair Manual lists horse power for covered trucks.
1600 engine has longer stroke that has a lower max RPM than 1300 engine.
A well set up 1300 engine can make almost same horse power as 8 valve 1600 engine that is stock. 1600 16 valve engine makes more HP but the head takes less abuse as it tends to crack and I don't like its spark plug connectors.

More HP how ever you get it lowers your gas mileage more so if you use the extra power with a heavy foot.

Part of the push for 1600 engines is 1300 engines getting to the point they are bored to max and can't be rebuilt again economically.
post #3 of (permalink) Old 09-13-2000, 10:55 PM
zukiman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

A 1600 does give a meaningful power increase "there's no replacement for displacement" but there are a lot of other things to consider too. I have a 1298 GTi/Samurai hybrid motor that smokes an 8-valve 1600 and is probably really close to a 16-valve 1600 in power, but it cost me a heck of a lot less to build.

Don't get me wrong, 1600 swaps are really nice, especially the turnkey operations that come out of Trail Tough. But don't be too quick to give up on a 1300 like I almost did. The built 1300s that come out of places like Mild to Wild Suzukis and Asian Auto Parts of AZ will raise an eyebrow with the power they put out. Heck, Mild to Wild's race truck has trophies to prove how successful it has been for a long time with its 1300, until the sponsor took the motor back. They just replaced it with a 16-valve 1600 though.

--Geoff Beasley
Suzuki Tech Editor: www.Off-road.com
87 Hardtop Samurai: 33's, GRS2, screamin' 1300
www.northcoast.com/~zukiman
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 01:41 AM
Jonathan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

Off the top of my head, the factory figures are...

1324cc engine
[email protected]
73 ft-lbs/[email protected]

1590cc engine-8 valve
[email protected]
93 ft-lbs/[email protected]

1590cc engine-16 valve
[email protected]
98 ft-lbs/[email protected]

I suppose one could build up a 1300 to come close to the 1600 power levels. However, I do not think they could do it for $700-the price I paid for a low mileage 1600-8 valve. Also, to get a 1300 near 1600 power levels, the camshaft would have to be a lumpy, high duration type, which means lots of top end but no low end. All in my IMHO of course.

BTW, both of my Samurais have 1600cc engines in them. Both have weber 32/32 DGV carbs and DT Headers. One has the ISKY "Dual Purpose" camshaft with a 1324cc head, the other
has an ISKY "Torker" camshaft with a 1600cc head. The camshaft makes a world of differance, these engines have completely different characteristics. The DP cam has turned the 1600 into a high reving, highway cruiser, engine. I bet it has close to 100hp with the mods. The torquer engine grunts from 1000 rpm but starts running out of air above 4500 rpm. It all depends on what you want to do with it.


post #5 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 01:46 AM
Jonathan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

I forgot about the MPG question.
My daily driver is the Samurai with the DP cam. I'm running a 135 primary and 170 secondary in my Weber. Tires are 30x9.5, with a GRSI and a .865 fifth. I get 20-22 mpg if I keep it below 70 mph. It will do 85-90mph but mpg decreases sharply for there and the handling is a little to dicey for me.

post #6 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 03:36 AM
Old Hand
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 934
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

In reply to your post Jonathan, I have to ask what your total is with the cost of the head and cam? plus adaptor to match up the 1.6 to the 1.3 tranny, what other parts did you have to buy?

We have been using 4 different cams in these 1.3 heads, and the one that does the best by far is our low end T-cam with some cool tricks done to with the exhaust valves. This setup has great all around power, with no trouble getting up to redline and holding it there.
The total cost with head and cam is about the same as you have in your 1.6, I bet.

If I was going to go to a 1.6 it would be a 1.6 16 valve from Trail Tough.

I am not knocking what you said or what you have done, I am defending the way our motors run. But dollar for dollar I know we have a great motor setup.

Just my 2 pennies worth.

DaveAZ

Asian Auto Parts
http://www.asianautopartsofaz.com

"We make your Suzuki ZIP for less"
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
DaveAZ is offline  
post #7 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 05:49 AM
Jonathan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

I paid $700 for a complete 1600 8-valve longblock with starter and alternator. I got the 1.6 adapter kit from RR for $150. I decided to use a 1324cc head with the 1600 block for the increased compression (I've since heard the combustion chambers are the same size for both 1300/1600heads) and to use the mechanical fuel pump of the 1300 engine. The head was ported/polished and fitted with the larger 1600cc valves. The head I took off one of my parts Samurais so there was no cost in procuring it. The ISKY DP camshaft kit w/dual valve springs I got from the defunct VE for $250. The weber, intake, header came off the old 1300 engine. It all adds up to costing quite a bit ($1500 for the longblock completed) but I have no doubts that it would decisively outperform a 1300cc engine with the same mods but still be very reliable. (I've put on 30K in the past two years) Again, I bet it turns out at least 100hp but it still has excellent low end torque. Not as much as my 1600 with the torquer cam, but alot more than a 1300cc engine.

Also, the two Suzuki engines are nearly identical in design except for the fact that the 1600 has a longer stroke and therefore more cc's. The post '90 1600cc engines are all counterbalanced. Only the somewhat rare twincam 1300cc GTi engines were counterbalanced and 1300ccs destined for Samurais were never counterbalanced. Hence, the 1600cc engine is a smoother running engine too.

BTW, I have never had a problem getting a 1600 for just a few hundred more than a 1300 either. I guess on the west coast Hawk Suzuki hordes all of the 1600s and drives up the prices? Keep in mind, my 1600s are salvage models too. Not a rebuilt, so that's were I'm saving quite abit of money. I ensured that they were low mileage engines though. I took off the oil pan and head to verify this.

I've got nothing against the 1300cc engines but they just lack the grunt I need. However, I will admit I have several 1300cc engines laying around to swap-in if I ever need to swap out a dead 1600cc engine. I will probably never go back to a 1300 though. I have already got an eye on the 2.5 V-6 in my Dad's GV. ;-)


post #8 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 11:15 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

I swaped in an 89 8v, and the lower end tourqe is much better, I got about 22-24 mpg with 5.12 gears, now with the FI conversion I seem to be getting better mileage even!
It's all preferance.
Last Sun I was behind a buddies 88 with a tricked out swift gti? 1.3 and I could gain on him and still have plenty of power left. BTW the 1.6 has 135k on it and runs perfect.
My 2 cents

Ford guy with twin rockcrawling Samurai's [img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
[email protected]
post #9 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 11:38 AM
Keyboard Implanted
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Eastern Tennessee
Posts: 3,550
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

well fellers, just my opinion, but if i had it to do again, and I knew all the things i do now, i would have definately built one of my 1.3s instead of getting a 1.6... i kinda lucked out with a whole 95 tracker for $800, but not everybody will be that lucky. if the price is right, jump on it. puttin on efi from tracker now, might be better. overall, i was really dissapointed with my 1.6...
just my opinion..
BiLLy bOb

Do unto others as you want done to you!
If you pack it in, pack it out!
MUD is your friend baby!!!!!!!!!!
Billy Bob is offline  
post #10 of (permalink) Old 09-14-2000, 02:06 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 418
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: is a 1600cc that much better.

Thanks for all the replys to my post. i also had another question, should i be concerned with "things" breaking with the added power. I am unsure if the extra torque could put more strain on joints, shafts, pinions,...etc..

billduck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome