Poly Quad Head - Anyone heard of it or tried it?
 

I'm taking a head porting class at a local CC and my instructor brought up this article he read about Polyquad heads. Here is an article on it.

Polyquad Article - MotorTech Magazine

Long story short it is a method to help 4 valve engine's increase their low end torque output without sacrificing anything or gaining some on the top end. It uses 4 different size valves (in the article +1mm and -1mm on both the intake and exhaust) to introduce more swirl into the chamber. They claim about 7% gain on the low end.

I have +1mm intake valves and +2mm innconel exhaust valves for a 99 head I'm building. I was thinking about giving this a shot.

The plan would be to pick up a spare head and run 3 tests.
1. stock valves
2. both +1mm intake, both +2mm exhaust
3. Polyquad - 1 over sized and 1 stock valve for both intake and exhaust.

I'd be able to compare the valve lift vs flow charts, port velocity, and swirl between the 3 variations to make a decision before actually cutting the valve seats of my 99 head.


What are your guys thoughts on this from those with engine building expertise?

combine this with singh grooves

speaking of m.net discussions.

Please do it and post before/after results so we never have to talk about it again :)

I've never gotten poly-quad head.

Sounds like a really good time though.

But seriously..............try it?

Im familiar with a few Honda heads that have a different cam profile between the intake valves. Im not talking about VTEC, although these are VTEC heads, the "low cam" has a lobe for each intake valve and there is a difference in lift there to create swirl.

The "low cam" is for economy though, and as far as I know the "high cam" of all the VTEC engines, and the cam profiles of non-VTEC engines all use the same profile between valves.

It seems like most of the effort put into create swirl and tumble are for economy, not power.

the k20a3 right? I remembered that hype, and then you compare economy to the a2 "non economy" engine and they're about the same, and you realize you're left with a stupid theory that really doesn't do much IRL

I know one of the Ks did it, not sure of the engine code. Pretty sure its the one in the EP3 that doesnt make very good power.
All of the "VTEC-e" D series do it. Most people say that it switches between 3 valve and 4 valve, but the 1 intake valve isnt completely disabled, it just doesnt open very far. And then the D15B basically has swirl mode, then 1st stage VTEC where both intake valves open the same, and then finally real VTEC where they go "high cam".
The cam is pretty hilarious looking with all those lobes.

I had a base rsx with the a3, which is basically same engine as ep3 but with the variable intake mani, and then had 3 type-s' with the a2, and the a3 didn't have better torque OR economy. It was poly quad FAIL

I did not see this discussed anywhere on this forum. I'm in the rare position to test this theory on the flow bench and post the results for the greater good of the miata community. I'm just wondering if more knowledgeable people in miata engine building can chime in and say for sure it's not worth my time and efforts to do so with good reasoning.

I'm thinking that the same... Maybe some gains in the low end and some economy but this will be used mostly for track driving so I mostly care about the upper rev range.


But let's say I do give this test a shot in the name of science... Would a decent increase in swirl throughout the entire range of lift be worth some power gains?

My uneducated guess will be no, because even the hawnduhhs that do this ONLY do it to about 2500rpm or something like that, and then open both full tilt

Can we even compare head flow of a Honda head to the Miata? Singh grooves, square pistons, poly guad head, snake oil. Do it all. Make Science.

We can. Not all Honda engines are like the K20A, F2xC, B1xC

The humble B18B from the LS integra is surprising similar to the BP. Port size is nearly identical, same sized valves, same rod ratio. The BP has an advantage in that its larger bore and shorter stroke that the B18B.

Here is a B18B with intake, header, and tune:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1427826685

I found this post on a different forum from a guy who does cylinder head development work. It sounds like different valve size alone will not make any difference from the tests he has run.



Vizard's polyquad.. valve size theorization.... ? Speed Talk

Hi folks ! I joined for the sole purpose of bumping this thread. David Vizard is one of my favorite small block Chevy modifiers. His tips and techniques allowed me to build the Vortec 350 in my Tahoe , which makes stupid power over the stock engine , with the smallest Comp Cams roller in their catalog. Mileage and drivability were both improved as well. But this Polyquad thing...while I like the theory, the initial test he did used a pair of 4 valve heads created for the small block Chevy. The manufacturer designed them to SPECIFICALLY MAKE MORE POWER than available 2 valve heads. At no point do we see dyno figures for the heads in unmodified form. In other words, we have no way of knowing if these mods increased or decreased their output. All we know is they performed better than 2 valve heads, which they were supposed to do anyway. I'm not accusing David of lying or misrepresenting his data, I am merely stating the fact that we cannot draw any conclusions from this original test. Then there is the whole " patent and royalty" thing. Mr. Vizard points out that it took 4 years and " great expense " to have the patent granted. No duh ! You can't patent a law of physics, this must have required multiiple attempts to find someone who misiunderstands the difference between a unique idea and the discovery of a physical property. If making these modifications creates more power, it is specifically because the laws of physics cause this to happen. Allowing a person to patent " modifications " to someone else's head design is a slippery slope. Do we patent the concept of raising compression, installing larger camshafts or power adders like turbos because someone discovered they made more power? NO! Because they are based on the laws of physics. Don't get me wrong, I admire and respect Mr. Vizard's R&D and excellent understanding of all things engine related. If he had designed and produced an actual, unique cylinder head, I would be all about protecting his right to patent it. However, the person who approved this patent was either smoking crack or doesn't understand the difference between intellectual property an immutable laws of airflow. The ability to transmit sound by converting it into electrical signals was not patented, the telephone was. Electricity was not patented, the lightbulb was.. Whether this idea makes more power or not may never be fully explored because a silly beurocratic mistake requires the payment of money to explore it. Mr.vizard, if you have not already done so, please surrender your patent , I believe you to be a man of integrity and I doubt you truly benefit from charging royalties. Your most beneficial contributions to motorsports have always been your books and articles revealing the results of your testing. We have all purchased a magazine or book from which you have profited. If the Polyquad modifications become common place because they make more power, we will all remember your contribution, something I believe will result in far greater financial gain for you long term. Ben Franklin didn't invent electricity, he mere showed proof of concept, as you have. Designing a device that generates or stores electricity, now that is a patentable idea. This is embarrassing for a man of your brilliance. Thank you.

P.S. The same goes for Singh grooves, this is the discovery of a property of airflow, not an invetntion. Design a head from scratch with Singh grooves and patent that. What have we become ? I believe something exists and improved it so it must be my invention ? Bull !

Is this real life?


I guess everyone has to care about something?

Yes...yes it is.
 

Well, it's a post about a topic that someone ( other than myself ) is interested in, so I guess I do care. Not my number one priority. David Vizard obviously cares. I'm sorry if it bothers you, I just can't stand the " I had an idea so pay me"' philosophy the world has come to. And yes, this is real life, it contains some of the most bizzare concerns you will ever see. Most people could care less about 99.99999% percent of the things other people find important,but let someone tread on a concept you hold dear and observe how you feel.

Said with the most matter of fact intent. Not looking to provoke. Thanks.

This is a Miata forum that the person you have a problem with probably doesn't know about.

We were discussing the merits of performance, not who makes money based on what.

I heard Pontiacivan is a fag who drives a miata and has sex with a fleshlight that he drilled singh grooves in and got sued for doing it.

Sigh.
 

Lol. The point I am trying to make is relevant, Miata related or not. In order for many of us to find out if Polyquad is worthwhile, we need to have a machine shop perform the mods. There are a few lucky people who can perform this on their own. I actually have access to valve grinding equipment, but not the skills to use it. Mr. Vizard specifically states, whether idle threat or not, that performing the Polyquad modification for money requires payment of a 7% royalty. And he gon' find you if you don't. He said so. Ask your machinist if he wants the address for sending the check. I bet he says Beat it and take your heads with you. 7% of my profit ? Are you with the Government ? Perhaps you will pay Mr. Vizard the royalty, even though you didn't charge for the work. Will lots of machinists do this mod and not pay ? You better believe it. Why ? Because they know it's crap. But many won't . Some won't even try it because it is not a proven concept and they don't want to buy you new heads when you come back to complain. What I am trying to say is, remove the silly royalty and more shops will be willing to try this and watch for feedback on it's effectiveness. And that, just happens to be, what the original poster wanted to know. For now, the jury is out. Singh grooves? Not an invention. Power Lynz, not an invention.. Mike Hollers tools to cut them...invention. Omni valves ? Invention. Idea behind them...not an invention. Get it ? I doubt I can convince you to see my point of view, but I have it none the less.
P.S. I happen to think Miatas are pretty cool, why do you think I was lurking here? Not owning one personally doesn't invalidate my interest. Gotta go, my sex doll is calling.

Jesus christ who fucking cares?

Go discuss this on www.MrVizard.com or something.

Mr. Vizard is an idiot. the end.

we already assumed this when he developed poly-quad.



this does remind me of the group that patented "taking a picture, putting it online, and selling it" :

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/phot...hoto-contests/


I just patented giving blow jobs. Now every time your mom goes to work, she's gotta pay up.

:giggle:

Hey Scott, how about you participate in the injector timing thread instead of this waste of bandwidth

<p>I wanted to give this a try on the flowbench but just ran out of time. In theory I can see it helping some. Is it going to make enough difference to warrent the extra time and effort to test. No clue... Prove these guys wrong and get some definitive data on it.&nbsp;</p>

Um ?
 

Well, I'm super glad to see you taking the "engine performance" section of this forum seriously. The OP cares, that's who, but he can't find out if this mod makes more ENGINE PERFORMANCE because of the reasons I stated. Yes, I have made DV aware of my feelings on this matter. I have also pointed out that I think he is a pretty brilliant engine guy. The comment about me having a problem with him is false but I let it slide. I simply disagree with the handicap he has put on the automotive community. Maybe the OP, like you, doesn't care about my opinion on the royalty issue. Does that invalidate it? What if it turned out to be the SINGLE greatest mod for Miatas ever conceived. You'll never know because you want to make things about you and make personal attacks. Have you posted anything about the OP's topic at all? I have. YOU made it personal, so I am no longer Loling. Your own forum community can't even rely on fo constructive input. You probably trash talk anybody who wants to explore unconventional mods.

I just patented prostitution. Every time Brain collects a payment for your mom blowing someone, i get a payment for that payment.

What the actual fuck.

No, i haven't posted anything because 1) i think it's bullshit, and 2) i'm waiting to see if someone tries it.

This isn't a thread about royalties.

YOU fucked up the thread. Not me.

Good for you.
 

I'm glad you are going to try this out on the flow bench for yourself. I think it's pretty cool that you have access and the skills to use it. The theory is sound, because airflow has to do what it has to do. It can't help it. Make one valve flow more and the air should swirl. Sorry about dragging finances into your thread. Doing the work yourself is exempt from the patent rules, so more power to you. Literally I hope. Please report your results. I happen to still be interested.

Whatever. Perhaps you should try Yoga.
 

Partial quote : No, i haven't posted anything because 1) i think it's bullshit, and 2) i'm waiting to see if someone tries it.

I ruined to thread ? Fair enough. I am trying to get back on topic.

You think the concept is BS. I don't. Yet you seem strangely drawn to a thread you claim no interest in. Or my opinions.

Have you considered ignoring this thread?

Waiting to see if someone tries it?

Well, short of being able to do it personally, we are right back to the royalty issue. I guess it really is relevant. I CAN'T find a machine shop that is willing to pay. I also CAN'T find one dishonest enough to do it and ignore the law. Surprisingly, no one will do it for me for free just so I can find out if it works.

So I gripe a little. My bad.

My friend bitches about taxes all the time. Too bad for him, part of living in a society.

Luckily the OP CAN do the work . I personally hope the results are positive.

<p></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I was <u><strong>planning</strong></u> to give it a shot while I was taking a head building class at a local comunity college. But did not have the extra free time to finish my &quot;normal&quot; head build and test this theory out as well.&nbsp;</p>

Bummer
 

Sorry to hear that. The theory is sound. Regardless of his popularity here, DV has a solid grasp of theory. His suggestions for SBCs are extremely effective. I was really hoping to find some real world data from someone who has done this. As I mentioned, I simply can't get the mod done around here. Not really into adding a couple hundred bucks in shipping to send them out to somewhere that is willing. Sucks, I have budgeted the money for the work but I'm stuck wondering. I have considered " two stepping " it but the cost is too much. I could have a shop put one oversized intake and one oversized exhaust in each chamber. I mean, what if I had to because of bad seats? Lol. Same valves in each chamber ? Coincidence. Then I would have to go somewhere else for port and chamber mods and pay for disassembly on my newly assembled heads. Too much money.

Your retarded wall of texts and off topic rants aside, you're all up in arms about not being able to try this yourself because you don't want to pay 7% royalty fees on what amounts to a few hundred bucks worth of head work? That's like... twenty or thirty bucks.

Let's say this magically works for you (it won't) and you gain 10whp. You're seriously not willing to throw the dude a few Hamiltons to thank him?

What a dick.

i patented wall-of-texts and now everytime you post I need 7%.

I wonder how much it cost Mr Vizzard to update all machine shops on his patent. Maybe he held a convention in Las Vegas or something...

I wouldn't post here except that I refuse to believe that the last 100 years of automotive industry overlooked this. Smells like a waste of time. If it was legit, he'd already be rich.

<p>This thread is so confusing. Thought i was on clubroadster or something the way this guy acts.</p>

Because i'm interested in the results if he does it, just like everybody else.

What we're NOT interested in is your ridiculous and petty diatribe that you clearly cooked up THEN did a widespread search on the Google Machine to find out where you can post your whining crap. If off topic, and nobody cares. Nobody said a single thing about Mr Vizard or his royalties or any of that unrelated bullshit before you showed up.

This is a forum that's serious about PERFORMANCE. We don't care about your crusade.

Get the fuck out.


Can we get some Quality Control Bot up in here?

Sorry to post something on topic....

But didn't honda do this a long ass time ago? Like late 80s, early 90s? Pretty sure they did, where the cam lobs on the non-vtec part were different to promote all the swirl, as that helped them get away with running a leaner mixture for hondas lean burn technology they had going back then. Granted their valves were the same size but still, it's been done.

Yes
<br />
<br />How VTEC/I-VTEC Works - Super Street Magazine

Predictability
 

Wow, how predictable. In fact I DID offer to pay the royalties. Guess what ? I can send DV all the money I want but the machine shop that actually charges the money has to pay him or the law is broken. So I went to my friendly neighborhood machinist and offered to pay 7% ON TOP of the total bill. He showed me the door but not before saying " I told you before, I have no intention on paying ANYONE for doing machine operations that I do every day simply because I am doing a particular combination of them. Installing larger valves in heads is an everyday operation and I don't care if it's in specific holes or worn out ones. I port heads and shape combustion chambers on a regular basis. Why should I pay a fee to someone because they grouped a bunch of common operations together on a patent application " Know what ? I agree with him. But, hey, YOU don't care because you aren't interested in the topic so of course, I am the dick for talking out loud about it. Yeah, silence is how EVERYTHING broken in this world gets fixed.

Quote from concealer404:

What we're NOT interested in is your ridiculous and petty diatribe that you clearly cooked up THEN did a widespread search on the Google Machine to find out where you can post your whining crap. If off topic, and nobody cares. Nobody said a single thing about Mr Vizard or his royalties or any of that unrelated bullshit before you showed up.

This is a forum that's serious about PERFORMANCE. We don't care about your crusade.

Get the fuck out.


Can we get some Quality Control Bot up in here?

So...one more time for the slow people ( though I doubt it will make a difference )
1) Polyquad is sound theory. It probably has some benefits but needs more real world tests.

2) it cannot be easily replicated by the vast majority of performance enthusiasts at home.

3) You may not be interested in It, but people like myself and the OP apparently are.

4) Machine shops aren't interested in sharing their profit margin for something they have been doing for a living for years. They also don't want to pay this fee even if it doesn't come out of their pocket. I think it's called the principal of the thing.

5)For reasons I can probably guess, but out of politeness I keep to myself,you seem enraged about my opinion on the subject while I have simply stated the problem and my personal view. The issue of the royalty is directly related to the original question, we can't give the OP a straight answer because of it.

6) the only consistent position you have held is your hostility towards me and continuous attacks. First you say the idea is BS, then you seem to support the payment of the royalty.

7) my position remains the same : I think Polyquad has merit, I disagree that it is a patentable idea, I believe this damages the exploration of the possibilities. I still think DV is highly knowledgable and an exclellent conceptualist.

I think because this is the internet you believe it is OK to attempt to invalidate my point of view. To you I am not " real " or you imagine me as someone with qualities you feel you can dislike. You feel comfortable insulting me and calling me names, perhaps believing you have support from other forum members.This is fine, I have a thick hide but it doesn't make my opinion invalid, even if I am wrong. I hope the others here are seeing your behavior as an unflattering treatment to a guest in your community.

If there is even the REMOTE possibility that you want to present your argument against the theory, ie: why you think it doesn't work , I am listening. If you want to tell me why you think the patent/ royalty issue is not relevant, besides not personally caring, I am all ears. I have already pointed out how I see the two issues as related.

Unlike you, I respect your right to have an opinion, you simply have not presented one. Not even about me, since you don't know me. You simply attack and insult.
Sorry if this is not your cup of tea. Perhaps a cookie and a nap will do you some good ?

FYI, I am interested in serious performance. You seem to keep missing the claim that the Polyquad concept promises just that. My "petty diatribe " is about the topic and how it affects our understanding of . I haven't said a single negative thing about Mr.Vizard, nor do I consider opinion "whining ". I disagree that this is an invention and should not be subject to royalties. My position remains unchanged. I tried to point out that we don't do this for cam swaps, head milling, NOS, turbos, blowers or any other performance enhancement because it isn't logical. I didn't search Google looking for a place to crusade, I can go to change.org for that. I came hoping to talk about Polyquad and happened to state my opinion. What a bad person I am! I am more than willing to give my experienced and honest views on the concept and I promise not to say another word about DV. Please disengage from the conversation unless you are willing as well.

<p>Here's your fix.</p><p>1. Take machine shop to head and ask them to do only one intake valve to a +1.</p><p>2. Take the head to another machine shop and have them do the other one to a +2.&nbsp;</p><p>3. ....</p><p>4. ....</p><p>5. Still fail.</p>

7% of the cost of your headwork says this Vizard dude will never even know you did anything. Start calling it something else like "mismatched valvelry" and he won't even be able to google it. H wont sue you for doing a one-off head that isn't for profit. If he even managed to know you did it or somehow contact you (pay cash?), then he has to send a cease and decist before he can outright sue you for infringement. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'll help you:
1. Next person to type the words Vizard or Polyquad gets the hammer.

2. Google "experimental use exception patent infringement"

<p>...so tempting...I've never been banned before. Yet, I would be really bored at work.</p>

This is good stuff. (haven't googled it, about to)

But what I know is, you can do whatever you want that's patented, so long as you are not doing it for profit. So I can do whatever I want to my car, I can find 50 patented ideas/processes/etc and use all of them on my personal car, and so long as I don't sell these things for profit, I'm legal. Is this right?

To Pontiac, nobody here cares about the legal crap, you brought that up. You may be right, but nobody cares at all about that.

On topic, I'm a little curious if ANYTHING we could do to enhance swirl would improve the knock-resistance of these engines? If we could reduce detonation, we can make more power as these motors are typically knock-limited at high boost on pump gas.

Ok, we're on topic !
 

I agree with 1-4. This seems to be the " loophole" way to try this out.

But why 5 ? Please support your view. What law of air flow or physics or swirl and tumble or mixture homogenization do you believe breaks down ?

This is the honest and intelligent conversation I originally intended to have.

For instance, has it occurred to anyone else that , as you look into the intake port, the big valve would always have to be on the left side ? Same if you looked up the exhaust.

I can live with your terms
 

You are right, a not for profit job is free and clear. Machine shops in my area work on a strictly profit basis.

I also agree "He" would probably never know. Does this make it OK to ignore the law.?

"He" would actually sue the shop, not the customer, but I get your intent.

I really wouldn't lose sleep over it. If I had it done partially at one shop and partially at another I would sleep just fine. But money is money and paying for disassembly, machining, " environmental fees" ( whatever the heck those are) twice in a row at the average shops labor rate would suck. I happen to be a v8 owner, so double that fun. I have to look to my 4 an 6 cylinder DOHC brothers and sisters because the v8 DOHC world is weak. Throw a supercharger on it and forget everything else. Well.....I can't , so it's technology or nothing.Maybe I need to take a night class in machine work. Lol.

I do want to have a serious technical discussion on the " mismatched valvery " now that the name calling has been stopped. My thanks to the moderator.

The claims made are not small. Someone said 10WHP but the article claim 98 at the crank for a 4 cylinder. Ain't no way drive train losses equal 88. Lol. So what gives? Is it bunk or not? Why might you think so, one way or the other?

You are right.
 

Absolutely correct on the not for profit angle. I have lots of those types of mods in my vehicles.
I am duly chastised on the legal issue and I repent. I get that it doesn't matter here. I was a computer tech back in the early 90's. Saw a guy get 5 years for bootlegging DOS4. Man was he embarrassed when he got out. Had a customer sued by RIAA for junior downloading gigs of music. I guess I am a little gun shy since I know it can actually happen.

Your " off topic question " might not be so off topic. The " idea" has a lot to do with swirl and swirl generally does increase knock resistance. Does ANYONE know of effective ways to increase swirl on a DOHC head design ? Cuz, I get why they don't seem real good at it. I have Pistons that are supposed to increase mixture rotation. I make 28whp more than stock, but a have cold air, a good tune and lightly modified exhaust so I can't say how much is from them.

too late, i just patented modifying the cylinder head in any way.

I've been ignoring this thread all day yesterday and most of today.

Only just now opened it up, realized it was old, and read from the point at which the bump occurred.

I now have a strong craving for baba ghanoush.

Dammit, I didn't see the OP date.

What's babaganough made from again?

Presumably it's made entirely from shitty threads like this one

Interestingly enough, even with my unpopular off topic opinion, I'm still the only one who wanted to actually discuss to performance potential off this mod in the " engine performance " forum. Still,willing to hear pros and cons. I'll start. Opening one large valve earlier than a second smaller valve will make the charge swirl. Not a thing any of us can do about cuz that's how physics works. We want swirl. We know we do. We look for wasys tomake it happen. So.... Somebody tell me why they think this won't help or why they think it will. Also, though the dual duration cam events were dismissed as minor in the original article, I think they need to be used in conjunction with the other mods. Maybe a stock or close to it profile on the small valve and the performance profile on the
Larger valves.

I posit the following, without have a strong opinion either for or against this idea:

We want swirl to make more power, because we believe it will increase knock resistance.

Achieving this by running less valve size and less valve duration than would otherwise be the case will decrease VE. All else being equal, that decreases power.

It's possible that we may be able to subsequently increase the timing advance enough to overcome this loss. It's possible that we may not.

In the NES video game Kid Icarus, there was a type of enemy character who, when encountered, imparted a curse upon the protagonist which hampered his mobility.

Try it and see what happens. I'm not aware of anybody actually doing this on a miata, so I doubt you'll find any data. I personally would probably never try this, but if I someone DID try it and got results, then I'd be a lot more willing to try it myself. That's generally how testing ideas works, people aren't going to do it until someone else proves it's worth doing.

There are some people here that would rather talk shit, or have off-topic jokes, or try to troll you, or carry on their inside joke rather than contribute to what you're trying to discuss. That's just how it is, and you can't change that here. Despite these "distractions" this is still the best miata-technical forum I've found, so I just accept that's how it is around here.

Agreed.

My thought would be to say, go up 1 or 2 mm on just one valve. And do the same porting/unshrouding for each valve. But if you went say +2 on your big valve, that could potentially induce a little bit of swirl. My lack of knowledge on this is hinting it wouldn't be enough though, I think what you wrote about changing the cam duration is probably what's required to get enough swirl to make it worthwhile.

Thanks for the honest reply. Because there is no easy VVT option for me, the dual duration, staggered valves may be as close as I get. As I mentioned earlier, I have Pistons designed to promote swirl and I picked up 28 WHP ( V8) but I had other mods as well. I come to the 4 & 6 cyl. Forums because you guys have been doing DOHC for a long time. I have applied lots of ideas that I picked up from listening.

I have never been a fan of "trick" spark plugs, especially in 2v wedge style heads but it seems like they might have some merit in a head design where there are centered. Any opinion ?

For the record, and I'm fine if nobody cares about my non Miata engine, I make 1.5 HP per cubic inch N/A, totally streetable and 11:1 on 92 pump gas with no knock on the data logger. I may have come off as a jerk when I started but I can for sure tune. Thanks.

<p></p><p>So on a Miata engine thats like 20hp more than stock 10:1 comp? Sounds like &quot;eh&quot; tuning to me.</p>

1.5hp per .016L
so 150hp per 1.6L
so basically 20hp more than a bone stock miata? that runs 9.0:1 comp and is considered a slow turd, wheezing through restricitve oem components
and 35y/o engine design

*edit: aidan beat me to it lol

He didn't say what motor, if it's a push rod 2-valve that's respectable power. Obviously for DOHC I4's that's basically stock, honda has bested that!

Man, you guys are brutal ! Lol. I am also running tech that was designed 35 years ago by a company that was another 10 behind the foreign market. It took forever for an American manufacturer to produce anything close to 410 real HP from 279 cubes, so I am not ashamed. Be fair, you guys only had to find 20 HP, the factory did all the hard work for you. I had to find 135. Oh, and I can pass a tractor trailer without turning over 2000. I don't want to measure junk here, I want to learn from you guys. Please, just give me a chance, I actually have something to offer. For instance: I looked at the post yesterday with dyno graph and the dip on the torque curve and I know what is wrong. I just don't think anybody would listen. Yes, some of it is VVT tuning and the dip will get " better" so the owner might stop there but they will still be down on the power they could make.

enlighten us

be very specific. I'll be honest and tell you if you're right too