Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:35 pm
by mrRocky
i do speak from experience and people exaggerating things when someone needs to be pointed in the right direction doesnt help anyone.
I dont mean to shoot down ppl but its like me saying my 1lt tops out at 160 km/hr

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:49 pm
by atari4x4
mrRocky wrote:i do speak from experience and people exaggerating things when someone needs to be pointed in the right direction doesnt help anyone.
I dont mean to shoot down ppl but its like me saying my 1lt tops out at 160 km/hr
My zook tops out at 160kmh
Image
It's a 1lt X 2 :D

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:05 pm
by ljxtreem
mrRocky wrote:1ltrs just plain suck and are ghay motors that dont rev, come with shittty gearboxs, no aftermarket parts. If you want something different pick a better motor and swap it over.
And who are you pointing in the right direction? The Ghay people?

Im sorry but I dont think all these people are exagerating things, well maybe a couple. But the non exagerators well out number you.



Mock :finger:

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:13 pm
by ljxtreem
http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/ftopic171636.php

The other thread with other people arguing the same point with you :?:

Must be wrong too :armsup:


Mock :D

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:53 pm
by mrRocky
show me some vids and ill stop calling you liars

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:42 pm
by Santos
give me 12 to 18months, i ccumulates parts slowly, but cheaply :finger:

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 1:25 am
by Wesley
mrRocky wrote:show me some vids and ill stop calling you liars
Found a vid of a 1Litre zook doing a burnout :finger: :finger: :finger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEjP-qSk ... annel_page
its the hi po 1jz 1L special edition donk

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 7:24 am
by ljxtreem
Found one :D :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn8U3yUrGWo

Hhhhhhhmmmmm No revs at all ;) well none after they blew it up :lol: :lol:

Mock :D[/url]

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 10:33 am
by Santos
thats pretty messed up, funny though

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:41 pm
by Jock
ljxtreem wrote:Found one :D :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn8U3yUrGWo

Hhhhhhhmmmmm No revs at all ;) well none after they blew it up :lol: :lol:

Mock :D[/url]
This video is better of the same car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkrRzAwAzxk

shows how cool suzis really are

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:54 pm
by ljxtreem
Jock wrote:
ljxtreem wrote:Found one :D :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn8U3yUrGWo

Hhhhhhhmmmmm No revs at all ;) well none after they blew it up :lol: :lol:

Mock :D[/url]
This video is better of the same car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkrRzAwAzxk

shows how cool suzis really are
Who needs flex :lol: :lol: :lol:

1ltrs rock :D

Mock

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:06 am
by MightyMouse
Sort of accidentally back on topic.....

The gains from boost on any engine are very linked to the engines naturally aspirated performance. A good engine N/A will produce very worthwhile gains on boost and often with low pressures - whereas an average or poor engine will require much more pressure to produce the desired result.

An undercapacity engine that relies on boost for normal driving is going to be placing significant mechanical and thermal stress on its internals which isn't going to lead to long life, and the vehicles driveability will be VERY dependant on the turbochargers characteristics. Supercharging produces the same stresses but is less device dependant as the discharge volume is more linearly linked to engine operation.

IMO there's a minimum capacity engine for a vehicle that provides adequate baseline power for "normal" operation and then supercharging / turbocharging provides the on top margin. This is especially true if the vehicle is expected to do plenty of kms..... if its a once a year day tripper then the high stress option is more acceptable, but the risk is still there.

Knowing SFA about 1ltr Zooks, its only information - but it does serve as a general guide to the "is it worth it question".

Given the work and cost involved I'd be investigating the full range of options.

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:15 pm
by Santos
good points mightymouse :D

i think the big thing about the f10a is that its a late 70`s design. its not bad at all, its just designed to run on 87 octane (or is it less).

So updating it to take advantage of 91 octane may be the first step in a turbo/supercharger conversion.
Things like putting the newer 9.5 pistons,
finding stronger springs from a larger rev-happy engine, uping the lift slightly on the cam, updating the ignition (1.3l distributer), getting a MPfi intake

not really extreme stuff here but surely you would net some decent gain
could just make or break the conversions

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:48 pm
by MightyMouse
The conversion from carb and dumb ignition to a proper programable EFI system is a good basic step no matter what way your heading.

If it does the trick N/A then fine... if you elect to go turbo/supercharged then its going to eliminate much of the long term pain.

This of course assumes you have the expertiese or money to have it installed / mapped properly.

Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 6:21 pm
by Gwagensteve
MightyMouse wrote: This of course assumes you have the expertiese or money to have it installed / mapped properly.
And that's the problem. It's probably more than four times dearer to tune and troubleshoot a turbo conversion than it is to buy the parts.

There's no question that a car that needs to drive on boost all the time isn't ideal. As you'd imagine, the 660 motors are pretty much on boost 100% of the time - I run at 5-8psi on flat ground at 100kph.

However, the 660 is a factory turbo motor and they are silly tough- they are built for boost.

A 1.0 isn't built for boost and nobody would ever spend the money to genuinely build a 1.0 for boost.

Steve.

Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:23 pm
by MightyMouse
Gwagensteve wrote:It's probably more than four times dearer to tune and troubleshoot a turbo conversion than it is to buy the parts.
Very true - and the experience required to get it right doesn't come immediately either. Add the required tuning equipment, laptop etc and it rapidly adds up. Still the results speak for themselves/
Gwagensteve wrote: the 660 is a factory turbo motor and they are silly tough- they are built for boost.
Once again true - but a significant difference between the driving cycles expected in their original market and a 10 hour 1100 km day over here.
Drive it to Lake Eyre and back, on boost all the way and you have won the point definitively.

Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:45 pm
by rattus_p
hey, i was thinking about turbo charging my 1l zook, but opted for a supercharger instead using the original carby with a custom made jet to run a solid 12:1 air/fuel ratio under boost.
the charger came off some imported subaru 600cc motor and was picked up for about 300 bucks.
the only major changes that i had to make were moving the alternator to the opposite side of the engine and fabricating a new crank pully to run goob boost when the throttle is nailed. its only running 6psi boost but the torque off road is a million times better.
i didnt play around with the timing or fuel at all, but did tune as i went on a scope and dyno as i was finding the right main jet size.
all up the whole conversion cost well under $1000 and the differece is amazing.
maby this is something to consider.
hope this helps.