Re: 2.3 10v NA

[Bruce Bell <bbell@csn.org>]

Don't get me wrong, I never said 200 hp would be easy or cheap, just
attainable.  
Improving his exhaust should get him around 155hp. Increasing the
displacement from 2.308 to 2.584 should yield around 174-5 hp and the
resulting increase in compression (from 10 to 10.7:1 will get him beyond
180hp. The 95.5mm crank will get him 10% more torque all the way through the
rpm range and will easily compensate for the bottom end he lost with the cam
and free flowing exhaust. Personaly, I wouldn't consider the increase in
displacement without both exhaust improvements and some head and manifold
work. To get close to 200hp plan on serious manifold and head work ($$$). At
the upper end there could well be some fuel delivery questions that may need
to be addressed and whether the chip helps or hurts at that level of tune
could be another topic for discussion. We are talking about power here in
the neighborhood of 78 hp/litre. Colin Gynes achieved close to 88 hp/ litre
with a 4cyl VW engine but that was with an astronaomical CR and a solid
lifter head which has more potential than the hydraulic.  

At 04:49 PM 3/20/96 -0500, you wrote:
> 
>	March 19, '96 Bruce B. wrote (in part) as follows:
>
>	"A 2.3 10v with improved exhaust (go for 2.5"), Shrick 272 should
>get you around 180 hp.  Do the head & manifold work and blueprinting thing
>and you may just see 200HP NA".
>
>	Question:  Are we talking about the same 2.3 10v motor?  The 
>motor that came stock in the '89 100q?  A friend used the 272, chip & K&N 
>in this motor and by the seat of my pants I couldn't sense that type of 
>improvement.  He was estimating closer to 150-155, but of course no dyno 
>testing.  If you have done this work, and really got this type 
>improvement, can you tell me what exhaust work was actually done?  What 
>about the low end loss, if any?  I would really appreciate any info you 
>or anyone else has in pulling 180-200hp from the 
>
>

Bruce Bell
bbell@csn.net