Exactly.

Doesn't have symptoms of running poorly does it? Doubt you'd find like 20-30hp from a bit more fuel and ignition anyway

who did the head work ect?

a mate had his cams reprofiled and ported and polished his head on his mk2 golf 16v, it was without a doubt the slowest KR i've ever driven (and by a long shot) and the most the others had was just filters and exhausts which this also had. he freely admits that it had much more power before the work was done than it did after. we never got the the bottom of why it was so shit before he got fucked off with it and broke it, but the head was ported to fuck, i'd say to the point where you couldn't of taken much more out if you even wanted too, the bits of head between the ports were like paper in places. now i'm no expert in the field but i was under the impression that taking too much out can seriously fuck up the flow and reduce power rather than improve it?

just because a engine doesn't sound like its running poorly, doesn't mean its running anywhere near optimum. it might not be that it's loosing power through poor setup or anything that would make it sound like it was running rough but more through a poorly flowing head or mods that don't compliment each other. could still sound sweet while not running any where near as good as it should

the company that did his work was dub unit btw, seriously never take a car you give a fuck about to these monkeys no matter what the chumps on edition 38 say

Yeah that sounds more correct, IMO mines similar, mods dont compliment each other aswel as they could and such, i ported the head without any research into it too haha.

Get what youre saying, may not be a fault (like lack of compression etc) but could be a head flowed and cams that need to be running at like 9k to make any power lol.

i wonder how this would compare to others if it didnt have the LSD

why? his 60' time is slower than my 6n and mk3?

oh really? fair enough lol

The headwork was done by a company called headtune, it didnt look too extreme but then again i had nothing to compare it too.

This has almost made me totaly lose interest in the car, yes it is fast and lots of fun, but it isnt as fast as it should be by a long shot and there is no real reason why.

So much time and money for what? 11 measly bhp :(

RR it again elsewhere and see what kind of reading you get, seams very suspect.

As said, my injection AFH with filter and diy exhaust made 114 ATF last month

Indeed "porting" a manifold/head is not for someone who doesn't know exactly what they're doing, but it would have to extremely bad for it to hamper this spec to an additional 11bhp.

Also, the theory of the modifications not complimenting each other, or not being compatible is a strong one, is there any other engine we can compare this one too? similar spec ones obviously.

Could the lightening and balancing of the bottom end be Hampering the power At all

No

Also, the theory of the modifications not complimenting each other, or not being compatible is a strong one, is there any other engine we can compare this one too? similar spec ones obviously.

i'm thinking briscoes is pretty close, his is a 1.6 but it has cams, head work, bike carbs. his made (iirc) 157bhp on one set of rollers and 153 on another. i know the 1.6 bottom end makes a big difference, but no that big

It made 156bhp on 2 different sets if rollers, but at slightly different rpm's

either way you can't get much more piece of mind than that, two totally different rollers giving almost the same results

Is your cam timing correct?

Is your cam timing correct?

Yep definetly, i have done it so many times i could do it with my eyes shut now!

Power at the wheels and the AFR reading

:lol:

Sorry i shouldnt laugh.....

I was about to say maybe despite the graph saying 111 at the fly is actually the wheels and they just cocked up on that, 111 at the wheels so about 130 at the fly... that cant be far off? Although that doesent explain the shit 1/4 mile times....

Presuming that drop in AFR is a lean main jet? or am i getting it wrong?

Edited 21 September, 201213 yr by POLOMON

Surely thats too lean? Although I'm assuming that AFR gauge was shoved up the tail pipe, so any leaks in the system would alter the readings (making it look leaner), providing you had some

Ben - that would seem about right, the main comes on around that rev range, although I'd expect the decline to be more gradual, as both pilot and main are used right up until roughly 80% wide open. But I guess it looks about right

Edited 21 September, 201213 yr by prankstar2003

Surely thats too lean? Although I'm assuming that AFR gauge was shoved up the tail pipe, so any leaks in the system would alter the readings (making it look leaner), providing you had some

no leaks, full stainless that fully sealed :)

Compression? Ignition components? AFR'?

Sorry i shouldnt laugh.....

I was about to say maybe despite the graph saying 111 at the fly is actually the wheels and they just cocked up on that, 111 at the wheels so about 130 at the fly... that cant be far off? Although that doesent explain the shit 1/4 mile times....

Presuming that drop in AFR is a lean main jet? or am i getting it wrong?

Its 111 ATF and 90 ATW.

Looking at the AFR its all over the place, who set the carbs up?

That's pretty rich man, you want it about 12.8-13.2AFR, quite unsteady too, fuck knows what the spike is where it goes leaner also

That spike is about 12.5:1 aint it?

Sorry i shouldnt laugh.....

I was about to say maybe despite the graph saying 111 at the fly is actually the wheels and they just cocked up on that, 111 at the wheels so about 130 at the fly... that cant be far off? Although that doesent explain the shit 1/4 mile times....

Presuming that drop in AFR is a lean main jet? or am i getting it wrong?

Its 111 ATF and 90 ATW.

Looking at the AFR its all over the place, who set the carbs up?

Ye thats why i said i was about to say.... I realised there was a ATW graph. My thoughts last night when on my phone looking at this were that the ATF graph was printed wrong and it was ATW.... Saw the new update of the ATW graph and realised this couldnt be the case.

So that graph shows a lean spike? Learning myself now, never seen a AFR on a graph