I'm trying to decide if it's better for me to build a turbocharged 1.6, or perform a full 1.8 swap (incl subframes, brakes, suspension) on to my '91 shell.

Does the 1.8 engine weigh more than the 1.6? Was all of the additional weight on the later cars added to the shell?

The 1.8 was shipped with 133 hp ('97) and it would take 5 psi of boost to get that out of the 1.6... it seems to me the swap up to a 1.8 is the smarter choice.

What do you think?

 

It's never a bad idea to add displacement. I'd only run a 1.6 if you don't go north of 230whp on the track.

 

it would take less than 5psi. I was hitting 170rwhp at 6psi.

with that said, I'd take the 1.8L motor, chasis and upgrades over the 90-93 anyday.

 

Depends on your budget. The 1.6L can take boost quite easily. I was boosting 9-10PSI last year on a tired 1.6L and made just under 200whp. The car was pretty damn fast for only having invested about $1200 in the kit (used GReddy + FMIC, MS1). This year I am running a built 1.7L and a Rotrex. I've driven a 1.8 turbo and if there is one thing the 1.6L likes, it's to be revved. It's a very rev happy motor (especially with the head work I have done). If you can afford a 1.8L swap AND a turbo kit then do that... but if you just want to go fast for cheap, throw a used BEGi manifold/dp on it (easiest to find used), a ebay T25/28, injectors, fab up your own IC and run a megasquirt.

And don't mistake 133hp with 133whp :P. 5PSI on a 1.6L with decent compression will get you in the 155-165whp ish mark. Up that to 10PSI and you have 200whp give or take. That's not even pushing what the block can handle.

 

I'd rather have a motor that makes boost faster and outputs more torque per psi than the placebo effect of the 1.6L that it revvs better.

 

1.8L ftw.

Like brain said, it'll make boost faster, have more tq and be and all around better motor to boost.

 

I agree. But I was just saying if he only has the money to either turbo the 1.6 or put an NA 1.8 in, you will get more for your money and more power turboing the 1.6.

 

Now this is true. I'll have to agree with this.

But if you're willing to live with an NA 1.8 for a little while till you can save up for a turbo kit, I'd do that

 

Or he can do things completely backwards like I did and build a 1.6L motor and swap it into an NA8. :P

 

I have the budget for both.

I can tell that you guys are almost completely unanimous for the 1.8 build. Me too.

Why can't the 1.8 be as revvy as the 1.6? I've read it just needs a 1.6 flywheel. I would imagine a good set of cams might change the power curve too, no?

 

They are just as revvy. The placebo effect is the car shaking apart as you slowly accelerate to 40 mph.

It's just a thing the m.net foagies use to pretend they are still relevant with their <20K orginial miles 90-93 cars.

 

Everytime I read about "reviness" (SP?) or throttle response I want to punch babies. My car gets to 0 psi as fast as theirs does.

 

twin 35r ls1 or bust.
you'll make 500whp on 2psi

 

Everytime I drive a 1.8L motor I'd glady give up the "revviness" of my 1.6L for the extra power, bracing, braking power, clutch clamping force, and torsen rear.

Once you FI the car, the "revving" factor is thrown out the window. I'll take faster spool and greater output anyday. Plus, all the above mentioned tend to get upgraded to the 1.8L counterparts eventually.

 

your motor has a torsen? And bracing? I've been missing out.