itskrees

iTrader: (1)

Hey everyone,

Im in the process of replacing the blown motor in my 97 with the following:

-99-00 NB motor, 47k miles, 180 psi dry across all four cylinders
-EUDM squaretop intake manifold
-MSM BP5A camshaft
-Monsterflow Intake with heatshield and thermal wrap
-Racing Beat or Maxim works header, wrapped
-RS*R Exmag GTII catback exhaust
-949racing 1.6 clutch
-XTD Prolite 9.5lb 1.6 flywheel
-MSPNP v1.1

Assuming baseline 99-00 dyno to be roughly 116whp and 94-97 to be 104whp, whats the rough whp estimate you guys think this setup could hit with a dyno tune?

I was also thinking of deleting the MAF and going with the IAT sensor instead, are there some power gains to be had from doing so?

Also any recommendations/tweaks to the setup are welcomed.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

140

itskrees

iTrader: (1)

Doing a quick search I found this:

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=24

In which emilio stated a stock NB2 motor with bolt ons and a tune would net 150whp, which is actually a number I was hoping to get closer to.

That said, I dont have the VVT of the NB2 motor, would that be enough difference to make 10whp? Isnt it that the NB1 motor actually makes more power out of the box than the NB2 due to its higher flowing head? I was hoping that in combination a higher flowing intake manifold, quality intake/filter, and the bp5a cam would create a pretty drastic improvement. Especially with a tune.

In any case, my goals are to essentially get the maximum net whp possible without engine work, essentially through bolt ons and a tune. If theres anything else im missing from my list that fits in that category, id love to hear it. Otherwise, do I pretty much have everything covered in the bolt on department? Is this a setup that could benefit from running 93 octane vs 87 pump gas?

NiklasFalk

iTrader: (1)

When you remove the VICS and VTCS (i.e. the intake) there isn't much difference regarding flow (the NB2 seems to have slightly improved casting behind the intake valve).
The higher compression is one thing you are missing...

k24madness

iTrader: (6)

I would shave the head to bump compression and use adjustable cam gears. Both of those are cheap they just take time.

itskrees

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the replies guys. Kind of wishing I went with a VVT motor now but for the price I got my 99 motor, trans, and 4:3 torsen for, I cant really complain.

I guess the biggest thing thats been on my mind is whether there be a pretty big and noticeable improvement in power and handling between my old and new setup. I dont know what a ~35whp increase would feel like at the track, but am just hoping itll be worth it in the end.

Old setup:
-100k mile 97' motor, possible leak somewhere since there was oil on the threads of cylinder 1 spark plug
-Zero power mods - Stock header, intake, clutch/flywheel, ECU
-PS/AC
-4:1 torsen
-STANCE coilovers (9k/6k)
-949 race alignment
-Racing beat hollow front bar, stock rear bar
-15x8 with 205/50/15 Star Spec Z1
-Hawk DTC 60/30



New setup:
-99-00 NB motor, 47k miles, 180 psi dry across all four cylinders
-EUDM squaretop intake manifold
-MSM BP5A camshaft
-Monsterflow Intake with heatshield and thermal wrap
-Racing Beat or Maxim works header, wrapped
-RS*R Exmag GTII catback exhaust
-949racing 1.6 clutch
-XTD Prolite 9.5lb 1.6 flywheel
-MSPNP v1.1
-4:3 torsen
-Depowered steering rack, debating on keeping AC
-XIDA-S 700/400
-949 race alignment
-RB hollow front bar
-MSM rear bar
-15x9 on 225/45/15 BFG Rivals
-Hawk DTC 60/30

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Yes, there will be a big difference. But you gotta be realistic, you're asking us for a complete and utter prediction, then focusing on it being 10hp from where you want it.

lol

It might make 150....or 160....or maybe 130....only way to find out is actually do it. But one thing for sure: I believe it will feel a whole lot better than your '97 setup, and a much much better track car.

itskrees

iTrader: (1)

LOL I know I know, im just being needy and wanting reassurance ;-).

As a student, its a good amount of money spent, but figured I get it all done while the motor is out anyways. Ive read that running 93 octane isnt necessarily needed or even beneficial if the setup doesnt call for it (ie compression).

Do you think my setup is one that can benefit from the higher 93 octane vs 87? Id like to run e85 but from what ive been reading thats at least another 800-900 to do it properly.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

I'd probably run it at the track for extra det protection and whatnot, but on the street I doubt it would matter much.

itskrees

iTrader: (1)

Got it. So as far as the tune goes, should I put in 93 that day or 87? Or is that negligible?

18psi

iTrader: (76)

you tune on the lowest octane, then run higher for protection

or you can just have 2 maps

dcamp2

iTrader: (4)

I'll be watching this thread for results... I've got a very similar build plan for when my '97 motor dies...


One question- why go with the 1.6 clutch? is it that much lighter than the 1.8?

Staffah

Likely the numbers suggested by Emilio are on CA91 gas. So you would sacrifice some power by tuning on regular fuel.

soviet

iTrader: (10)

104whp on a 94-97 is a super healthy car. Most dyno under 100.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

There is no thinking about removing the MAF and going with an IAT. There are a few ponies to pick up by removing it, I am not sure how many exactly on a 97. I know on the 1.6 motors it was something like 7-10hp at the wheels with removing the stock AFM and going with the standalone.

soviet

iTrader: (10)

Run E85. It will make more power because its an oxygenated fuel.

itskrees

iTrader: (1)

Yes, from what ive read, the AFMs are very restrictive. Hopefully the MAF delete can net around 2-3whp. Any recommendations on IAT placement along the intake? If it means anything, the monsterflow intake I have is for an NB, which includes a port for the stock MAP sensor that the 94-97 doesnt have as far as I know. Im wondering if I can put it in there.

Hard part is, the crossover tube isnt metal so im not sure how to go about drilling and welding a bung for it.

Id love to, but the costs involved in properly converting the car are around $800-900 additional, which isnt really something im looking to spend at the moment.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Vics motor nets more top end power.

codrus

It makes more power because it allows more timing and because it has a higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon than gasoline does. The oxygen in E85 is already bonded to a C and an H, it's already "burned" and is just along for the ride.

--Ian

NiklasFalk

iTrader: (1)

That would lower the value of the squaretops for N/A use, "JDM YO" factor you mean? Haven't there been dyno plots showing the squaretop as top dog up high (quite some time ago)?

There is no problem with using the stock AIT in any tube available (at zero boost of course). Just drill hole and use the grommet from the stock airbox.
Disregard the fact that my example was a quick hack to be able to race, it's not a tuned length at all, especially not for stock cams.