1k €

[Petrus]

Suppose you have a 1k €uro x-mas present budget for the car within the scope of the performance subtopic.

It is rather disappointing no?!
Not enough for supercharging, carbon bits simply silly priced, NOx too dangerous stuff.

Is there a good, easy, reliable, problem free electronic upgrade to advance the ignition a bit? What I dó want NOT is custom mapping it on a dyno.
Are camshafts really not much sense with the inlet optimal and the exhaust straight through?
Or??

[shnazzle]

I'd go for the Crower stg1 cam option.
Timing advance might release a tiny bit of torque at the cost of reliability but extra valve lift = more VE = more fuel = more bang = more power.

Also because I've gone down the cheap electronic timing advance route and all it adds is a bit more urgency to throttle.
Don't get me wrong, I miss it and sometimes think to put it back in. But worth the money...? 

If you must; get both. 
ECUMaster DET3 and Crower stg1 cams. Both delivered to España for under 1k

[Petrus]

Thanks for the suggestions.

Came accross the DET3 on MX fora. They seem to quite like it. The mess of wiring mods illustrated does not inspire my confidence though.

Also been digging for info on both Crower and CatCams and that is seriously démotivating if anything.
One output graph in the ´stickies´ is a good example; Wabbitkilla lost a wallop of torque for a handful of horses at the to end by fitting the Crower Stage 1.

Maybe I should be happy with the current power plus the way it is delivered. Keep the budget for a more affordable lightweight bonnet/rear deck if that would happen to appear. Meanwhile keep my creative mind occupied with working out a water injection kit 
It is a luxury ´problem´ after all. Difficult to be sensible though ....

[Beachbum957]

A friend has Crower stage 1 cams, lightly cleaned up head, Zero exhaust, and stock intake.  Previously he just had the MAF mod and the Zero exhaust. Both were with a relatively new short block. He had the car dynoed on the same dyno with each configuration.  The dyno charts were virtually identical, with the same max HP (134) and torque at almost the same RPM.  Having driven the car back to back with a MR2 with just the MAF mod and a cheapo clone header, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference.  Even the throttle response and part throttle behavior is almost identical.

As he puts it, a lot of money spent to achieve virtually nothing

[shnazzle]

Such is life with modding the 1zz.

End hp figures don't tell the full story though. They're almost irrelevant to me. It's flattening and raising the torque curve I'm  more interested in

[Ardent]

Not what you had in mind, but, how about just spending the K on fuel n tyres.
Use it up, wear em out. Rinse n repeat.

[steveash]

A set of Enkei RPF1s? Slightly lighter wheels would continue your overall philosophy. Or how about a lightweight flywheel and perhaps a stronger clutch while your at it? Possibly the most notable difference for the money.

[Call the midlife!]

Speaking from experience, as many times as it's confirmed the standard intake is the best option if you're going to the trouble of changing cams without opening up it's throat then you're not going to see much difference.
The standard intake is best for a standard car but starts to choke it when you increase the valve timings with more aggressive cams etc.

[Ardent]

A set of Enkei RPF1s? Slightly lighter wheels would continue your overall philosophy. Or how about a lightweight flywheel and perhaps a stronger clutch while your at it? Possibly the most notable difference for the money.

I believe the enkies are already ticked off.

[Ardent]

Speaking from experience, as many times as it's confirmed the standard intake is the best option if you're going to the trouble of changing cams without opening up it's throat then you're not going to see much difference.
The standard intake is best for a standard car but starts to choke it when you increase the valve timings with more aggressive cams etc.

Are the more aggressive cams even more oxygen hungry than a 2zz.
Same box supplies the 2zz with enough snd that munchies through some when on song.

[shnazzle]

Speaking from experience, as many times as it's confirmed the standard intake is the best option if you're going to the trouble of changing cams without opening up it's throat then you're not going to see much difference.
The standard intake is best for a standard car but starts to choke it when you increase the valve timings with more aggressive cams etc.

Are the more aggressive cams even more oxygen hungry than a 2zz.
Same box supplies the 2zz with enough snd that munchies through some when on song.

Stage 2 cams are basically the same lift-wise as a 2zz in lift. 

BUT...1zz valves are smaller and 2zz bore/stroke is more square. So, no, it's not. 
The 2zz flows a LOT more air than 1zz. I found that out on a thread here a while ago.

[Beachbum957]

Such is life with modding the 1zz.

End hp figures don't tell the full story though. They're almost irrelevant to me. It's flattening and raising the torque curve I'm  more interested in

You could overlay both dyno charts and not tell which was which.  The curves were as close to each other as one dyno run to another with the same configuration. 

[shnazzle]

Such is life with modding the 1zz.

End hp figures don't tell the full story though. They're almost irrelevant to me. It's flattening and raising the torque curve I'm  more interested in

You could overlay both dyno charts and not tell which was which.  The curves were as close to each other as one dyno run to another with the same configuration. 

Guess all the more reason to leave the damn thing alone. 

Go big or stay 1zz stock

[Petrus]

Guess all the more reason to leave the damn thing alone.

Yes, that was my grasp too but best let the more 1ZZ experienced confirm.

Indeed Jason, the Enkeis are fitted as is lighter a lot else too.
For those who missed it; my car is 900 kilos on the weigh bridge with fuel light just about on/off.

Lighter flywheel has negative efects on the driveability and a stronger clutch makes no sense. In both these cases too OEM is quite a good match already.

Gas & rubber budget is véry flexibly covered Jason ;-)

Bottom line is that;
- I will keep eyes and mind open for additional lighter bits (especialy with black friday coming up - ideas/heads up véry welcomed)
- water injection is under investigation*

* although associated with forced induction, the principle is the same for n.a.: increase in relative air density = increase in cilinder filling = increase in power.
Think how the engine runs on a chilly drizzly early moring versus dry hot afternoon.
A water injection system can on a hot afternoon make the engine run like on a chilly wet morning.
Living in the southernmost part of continental Europe this is a lót of afternoons :-)
The effect is %-wise the same all over the rev range at every throttle opening.

Yes, yes, not making the tyres spin but more hp´s while putting léss thermal stress on the engine is not something to discard offhand.
As Shnazzle observed in a different thread, 10 degrees C. temp increase = 2.5 hp power loss and that is the same for the inverse. So drop the inlet gas temp  and you gain  horses.

The evaporation energy of water is 2,260 kJ/l. and the flow of the 1ZZ at full bore 6k rpm, say 90 liter per second.

The specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kg (per degree C.)
Air weighs 1.225 kg/m3 (= per 1000 l. per degree C.)
So 1.225 kJ per 1000 l. per degree C.
This means that 1 liter of evaporating water needs the same energy as cooling 1,844,898 liters of air 1 degree celcius.

Right, now that 90 liters of air per second.... 20,499 seconds at 6000 rpm. full throttle, 341 minutes, 5 hours 41 minutes.
Translating to 34 minutes and 10 degrees cooler, or  per example 6l./hr./34 degrees cooler. Or whatever you want to convert it to.
Obviously we are not running the engine full bore for half an hour at 6k rpm. and it is simple to calculate the air volume we realistically pass thus how much water is evaporated.
The numbers also give us what capacity of nozzle/jet we need.
 
Dropped mails to SnowPerformance and AEM-Electronics.

[Petrus]

Oh my...
Found two vintage systems from the big names in US carbs; Holley and Edelbrock.

Turns out they both offered an automatic system till the late eighties.

[Call the midlife!]

Guess all the more reason to leave the damn thing alone.

Yes, that was my grasp too but best let the more 1ZZ experienced confirm.

Indeed Jason, the Enkeis are fitted as is lighter a lot else too.
For those who missed it; my car is 900 kilos on the weigh bridge with fuel light just about on/off.

Lighter flywheel has negative efects on the driveability and a stronger clutch makes no sense. In both these cases too OEM is quite a good match already.

Gas & rubber budget is véry flexibly covered Jason ;-)

Bottom line is that;
- I will keep eyes and mind open for additional lighter bits (especialy with black friday coming up - ideas/heads up véry welcomed)
- water injection is under investigation*

* although associated with forced induction, the principle is the same for n.a.: increase in relative air density = increase in cilinder filling = increase in power.
Think how the engine runs on a chilly drizzly early moring versus dry hot afternoon.
A water injection system can on a hot afternoon make the engine run like on a chilly wet morning.
Living in the southernmost part of continental Europe this is a lót of afternoons :-)
The effect is %-wise the same all over the rev range at every throttle opening.

Yes, yes, not making the tyres spin but more hp´s while putting léss thermal stress on the engine is not something to discard offhand.
As Shnazzle observed in a different thread, 10 degrees C. temp increase = 2.5 hp power loss and that is the same for the inverse. So drop the inlet gas temp  and you gain  horses.

The evaporation energy of water is 2,260 kJ/l. and the flow of the 1ZZ at full bore 6k rpm, say 90 liter per second.

The specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kg (per degree C.)
Air weighs 1.225 kg/m3 (= per 1000 l. per degree C.)
So 1.225 kJ per 1000 l. per degree C.
This means that 1 liter of evaporating water needs the same energy as cooling 1,844,898 liters of air 1 degree celcius.

Right, now that 90 liters of air per second.... 20,499 seconds at 6000 rpm. full throttle, 341 minutes, 5 hours 41 minutes.
Translating to 34 minutes and 10 degrees cooler, or  per example 6l./hr./34 degrees cooler. Or whatever you want to convert it to.
Obviously we are not running the engine full bore for half an hour at 6k rpm. and it is simple to calculate the air volume we realistically pass thus how much water is evaporated.
The numbers also give us what capacity of nozzle/jet we need.
 
Dropped mails to SnowPerformance and AEM-Electronics.

Re the water injection, we've been here before with a similar theme, bearing in mind a litre of water weighs a kilo at 21 degrees (give or take) will the extra weight and power drain of the water, tank and delivery system be worth it? Especially as you're not upping performance in any other way.

[thetyrant]

For that money only thing you could do to make a noticeable performance difference is nitrous oxide, forget water injection which in my opinion its a band aid fix not a proper solution, also squirting water into an engine just doesnt feel right to me but im aware of its benefits and what it can/cant do, to me nitrous is a better option on n/a if you want to squirt something in there and get some decent gains, only downside is runtime depends on tank size and tanks can be heavy, if you have it set to only activate on full throttle though it shouldnt be so bad and just depend son availability and price of refills in your area.

[Call the midlife!]

Using nitrous would mainly be limited by the legalities of fitting it for road use. It's not legal in the UK and I'd be surprised if it was where Petrus lives too.

[thetyrant]

Using nitrous would mainly be limited by the legalities of fitting it for road use. It's not legal in the UK and I'd be surprised if it was where Petrus lives too.

Nothing illegal about using Nitrous on road in the UK as long as insurance are happy with it which may be difficult of course, not sure about Spain etc though of course.

Here is some info on uk legality - https://www.noswizard.com/nos-nitrous-oxide-legal

[Call the midlife!]

Using nitrous would mainly be limited by the legalities of fitting it for road use. It's not legal in the UK and I'd be surprised if it was where Petrus lives too.

Nothing illegal about using Nitrous on road in the UK as long as insurance are happy with it which may be difficult of course, not sure about Spain etc though of course.

Here is some info on uk legality - https://www.noswizard.com/nos-nitrous-oxide-legal

Well every day's a school day! Thanks for that, I'll leave the original comment up for the info for others as I know I'm not the only one so misinformed.

Mind you even the wording on the WON site is ambiguous between having it fitted to a street car against actually USING it while driving on the road, which is where the confusion had always been I think.
I know there are members on here with it fitted but not for road use.

[Petrus]

NOx is not a fuel and as such fringe legal.
It is véry tricky stuff though and I stay clear.
Also there is the pressurised bottle: You are never ever permitted to enter a parking garage with it nor tunnels. This applies to butane/propane bottles too, technically even diving bottles and that makes perfect sense as you do not want air/oxigen under very high pressure in a closed space in case of fire.
Blokes refilling airguns from a dive bottle are oblivious to this too but just thínk: a 300 bar oxigen tank in a car in an underground parking garage. All the fuel tanks are bad enough.

As to weight, a water injection system weighs vary little. You could even use the wiper washer reservoir and fluid.
It is not complicated to synchronise the refilling with stopping for petrol.

The vintage water injection systems had a low pressure, 3 psi, pump, the new ones 200 to 300 even.
Nauhgty nutters have used these systems to add nitromethane/methane rc mix. This both cools ánd adds fuel/oxygen.
It works and is´safer´ than petrol, unlike NOx which additionally sits in you car under high pressure.

The stuff is freely available through rc shops. The EU regulation prohibits over 25% nitromethane but up to 30% is sold. Although not cheap, it is cheaper than NOx.
If using the system to boost with rc combustible, then it needs extra switches to make sure it only adds the fuel at higher revs and a lot of throttle.
It works, is fun, max 5-6 kilos incl. full reservoir, but not a lot of extra oompf.
I had an akin system working on butane gas on my td and thát made sense as it was about 25 hp.

As to expense a modern water injection (for n.a.) would be about 250€ and 350 if you want to adapt it to rc fuel.
New old stock vintage systems are still popping up and set you back 150-200€ as as such only makes sense if you want the simpler, lower pressure system. On a small capacity engine it does not work but on a big V8 it is very cflexible in application. Especially the Holley version which has all the safety switches you might want; water temp., oil pressure, inlet vaccuum, ignition, tps and all to be in serie.

This system from Snow is meant for n.a. and could squirt water, water/methanol, even rc combustible at under 4 kilos.

[SV-3]

Why not use the money as a deposit and have Carolyn build you a "rocket car"?

[Petrus]

Why not use the money as a deposit and have Carolyn build you a "rocket car"?

I´ll start soaking cardboard in nitro.
The white wear shop in the village will be happy to donate their endless supply of boxes to me.

Maybe buy a 3D wing and some racing decals worth 2 hp each ;-)