TeamSwift

Home of the Suzuki mini-compacts ! Your Home for all things Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Holden Barina, Chevy Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, and Suzuki Cultus. TeamSwift is a technical performance oriented community!
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:43 am

Underbody braces, turbos and more!

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
This is my first post to this site. I've been reading weeks worth of information and feel I have hardly scratched the surface. I love it and hate it at the same time. All my questions have probably been answered, but I haven't found the answers yet.

I love the idea of a 1.6L DOHC but they quit production before OBD2. In Arizona where I go through emissions they plug the car in and if there are no faults you pay and leave. Almost no inspection at all. I want to keep this ease for future testing. My thoughts were to use a 1.6L from either a 1998 Esteem or a 2004 Areio. This should give me the size and OBD2 at the same time. Problem is, both of these cars have a 4 inch wider stance. Will these motors mate to an older trans or will I need custom axle shafts?

My other thought will be to turbo my G-10. Most posts say the +10 cam gear is a great benefit to the new cars. My thoughts in reading the turbo forums is with factory retarded timing, could I add more boost without detonation in keeping factory timing?

I have a 1998 Chevrolet Metro. G-10 I believe 1.0L 3cyl. I will be doing compression checks in upcoming weeks but feel I am missing mpg's. I consecutively run 36-38 mpg, air conditioner on or off, hot rod or Gramma style. 50mpg may be a far reach but mid 40s would be acceptable. With my current low numbers loads more power with the same mpg's would be acceptable.

Recent replacements: plugs, wires, cap, rotor, brakes, fuel pump, belts, and a cheap set of tires at 44psi (recommended sidewall). Is 36 low for this year car? I dream of the 50 I keep reading about. 1 of 2 things will happen for sure, 1) 28% increase in mpg or 2) 100%+ in usable power.

Thanks for your time,
Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:50 am
Posts: 504
Location: UK
The 98 Esteem has the same G16 as the swift, it will mate with an older tranny.

_________________
I ride a Honda, but I drive a Suzuki.

99 Honda CB600F Hornet
90 Suzuki Swift 1.6 GLX 4WD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
perfect. now i go back to the boards looking for info on power adders and cam and piston combos for max power. maybe turbo the 1.6 instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8033
Location: Ontario, Canada
I don't think the 98 Esteem had a 1.6 in north america. It was a 1.8 dohc (J18), and the Arieo had a 2.3 dohc (J23)

It would be far easier to turbo your 1.0

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:50 am
Posts: 504
Location: UK
suprf1y wrote:
I don't think the 98 Esteem had a 1.6 in north america. It was a 1.8 dohc (J18), and the Arieo had a 2.3 dohc (J23)

It would be far easier to turbo your 1.0


Not sure about US, but if you find a 1.6, it's definitely a g16

_________________
I ride a Honda, but I drive a Suzuki.

99 Honda CB600F Hornet
90 Suzuki Swift 1.6 GLX 4WD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8033
Location: Ontario, Canada
Yes, but I don't think the 1.6 was available in 98, and t certainly wasn't dohc

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
i am not used to doing research on world wide cars. ill have to look back into it to see if what i found was a n america car. that thought never even crossed my mind. thanks for the heads up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 1403
Location: Alberta, Canada
I know the 1.6 did indeed come in Canadian esteem models, i have fixed up a few. It's Sohc, almost looks like a twin to 1.3 16v Sohc in 98-01 swift/metros. The 1.6 does make a ton of useable power, moves the larger esteem wagons really effortlessly. User vr4 swapped to this engine and documented the swap really well in a thread, search that out for reference.

_________________
1995 Swift w/16V 4.39s, 3tech cam, Esteem t-body, Header, needs more.
1995 Gt Mustang "Boss Shinoda" package.
1999 F150 4x4 Supercharged
1967 Mustang 428 auto, never ending expensive project
1993 Civic si h22a, fell in my lap, couldn't resist!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Vancouver, WA
Esteem here got the 1.6 up to 99. Though it its hard to find a 99 with the 1.6 most got the 1.8


Do the big block with the sohc head. its better than the dohc. You will need to build the trans to fit. We didnt get the swift with a 1.6 here so that trans will be hard to find.

_________________
98 swift 1.6 16v swap
03 cobra bolt ons
97 3000gt vr4 e85, high comp, bolt ons
too many others to list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
VR4 is the sohc motor a 16 valve as well? what makes it better than the dohc? sorry for the beginner questions. i am all very new to this type of motor and car. fabrication and engine swaps are nothing new to me however. i have been on the other side of the motor world building monster trucks and sand cars with an occasional boat in the mix. all most all domestic iron big blocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Vancouver, WA
The intake (and maybe exhaust...i need to verify) valves are larger. The read is rumored to flow better but I have yet to see flow bench numbers for either head.


I do know when mine was still 1.3 I didn't have trouble keeping up with a gti. Stick a cam I'm the sohc and it wakes up.
The esteem 1.6 is 16v. not sure when it started. The swift 1.3 sohc is 16v starting with 98. Same head on both engines.

_________________
98 swift 1.6 16v swap
03 cobra bolt ons
97 3000gt vr4 e85, high comp, bolt ons
too many others to list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:48 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8033
Location: Ontario, Canada
That 16V sohc head isn't even close to as good as the dohc head. The valves are insignificantly larger, the ports are ok, but the rocker/spring/cam arrangement make it unsuitable for real high performance work.

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
suprf1y is a dohc arrangement that you speak of suitable for a turbo? real engine work is a relative term to me, depending on how much power i was trying to make. lets base these heads on 100% reliable engine with only standard maintenance as per service cycles. meaning i have built solid lifter motors that need valve adjustment every 1k miles at maximum; opposed to essentially never on hydraulic roller lifters. is there an approximate peak hp rating at standard service intervals, we could assign these heads to clear up this debate for me please

also doing a rough power to weight ratio estimate i have come up with 211HP in my metro would be aprox the same as my friends 2005 corvette. does this sound accurate? my car, 1998 chevy metro, weighs in at exactly 1700 lbs given the local rock scale. her car weighs 3250 lbs per same scale. this car lists as 405 hp stock. i would love to take my hatch to the strip and blow the doors off her hatch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:32 am 
Offline
Suzuki Elder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:47 pm
Posts: 11669
Location: columbus, ohio
$uperJoe wrote:
suprf1y is a dohc arrangement that you speak of suitable for a turbo?


there surely are a bunch of guys who have turbocharged the dohc 16v g13 already who are going to be bent out of shape if we tell them that the engine isn't suitable for a turbo. :lol:

all you have to do is search for the 300hp australian racer or just read in the turbo and nitrous section of the forum.

_________________
1991 Blue Geo Metro Convertible highly modified 1.0L Turbo3 5 spd. - 1991 Red Geo Metro Convertible customized with a Twincam 5 spd.

My Turbo3 Project
My Cardomain Page -Ol' Blue
My YouTube Channel
My Photo Gallery
SAAB Sonett II


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Vancouver, WA
The sohc head doesn't like rpm. Doesn't mean it can't make power. Just makes it in a different rpm range.

Personally ill take a lower revving torque motor when using the g16 bottom end any day. If I wanted rpm I would go honda crank.

_________________
98 swift 1.6 16v swap
03 cobra bolt ons
97 3000gt vr4 e85, high comp, bolt ons
too many others to list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 1403
Location: Alberta, Canada
Agreed. Having run both (1.3 Sohc 16v vs 1.3dohc) the 16v does offer a lot of useable power that works great for a driver car. It's easy to make mine with very minor mods pick up as fast as a gt, but for max performance, it won't keep up with a gt engine on the top end.
If your building a metro to keep up with a 05 vette, good luck. It will take a ton of work, lots of money and time to still lose to the vette. Im sure it can be done, but I don't think it's a very realistic goal for someone just getting started in the Suzuki world.
As far as hp vs weight, I think torque comes into play as well in a race. I have a 2.2 civic that weighs about 2000lbs and a 225ish hp mustang that likely weighs 3500+lbs. Both cars run 14sec quarters. Similar hp, nearly twice the weight, same basic quarter mile times. There are other factors, traction being a major problem with the civic but the torque of the v8 carries the bigger car despite the low hp rating. Not sure on 05's but safe to say that vette in stock form would eat either of my cars!
Build the metro to have fun with, not win races, thats what I learned with my metro. It feels fast, it's a blast to drive and gets good mileage. But I just can't imagine trying to build it to keep up with the civic or mustang!

_________________
1995 Swift w/16V 4.39s, 3tech cam, Esteem t-body, Header, needs more.
1995 Gt Mustang "Boss Shinoda" package.
1999 F150 4x4 Supercharged
1967 Mustang 428 auto, never ending expensive project
1993 Civic si h22a, fell in my lap, couldn't resist!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
codyb76 thats a very good point. i didnt think of the other aspects i should have considered, such as torque. :mrgreen:
being said a fun driver car may be more suited for what i do. you speak of good mileage in your post and thats never something ive considered in a fast car. never before was it an option really. what kind of mileage are you getting with your car? in regular driving with regular bursts of speed and also regular trailing grandma off the light.

PS its my fault for not telling so nothing on you for assuming i am new to suzuki. just new to cars. i have built a few sidekicks, as well a a few samuaris. all 4x4 platforms. nothing that required any power at all due to super light weight (comparatively) and axle gears.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:37 pm
Posts: 784
Location: Palmdale, Ca
Yeah the vette's traction is going to make up for a pretty decent power/weight disadvantage. Limited slip rear diff, better weight distribution, better suspension, and fatter tires are a huge advantage over a Metro with similiar power. Also these transmissions are geared for fuel economy. You could have better power to weight than that vette and equal acceleration but every shift it's going to gain on you. You're also going to run out of gear way before the vette. A stock ls6 vette runs the quarter in low 12s. There are some of these cars running that or better but they are far from daily drivers. You can definitely have a fun daily driver Metro. You may not beat the vette in the 1/4 but on the streets you could sure give 'em a surprise at the lights.

_________________
1987 Chevrolet Sprint Turbo under construction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Vancouver, WA
FWIW an LS2 vette will be in the high 12/low 13 second range for 1/4 mile.

dont even bother doing this with a swift. sure it can be done but itll be retarded expensive to be reliable. quite honestly the cheapest method would be to swap in a honda k20. this will also be by far the most reliable. should do a 12 right out of the box with some sticky rubber

most fun IMO.....mid engine V6 swap from your choice. personally i would do a 6G72TT (know them inside out) or a nissan VQ.

_________________
98 swift 1.6 16v swap
03 cobra bolt ons
97 3000gt vr4 e85, high comp, bolt ons
too many others to list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
mid engine rear wheel drive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Vancouver, WA
$uperJoe wrote:
mid engine rear wheel drive?

Yup. Not exactly a swift at that point but should make for a fun little rocket

_________________
98 swift 1.6 16v swap
03 cobra bolt ons
97 3000gt vr4 e85, high comp, bolt ons
too many others to list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
ya not really. i think it would be a killer good time but i have this car to be a car primarily. have to keep that going for it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 1403
Location: Alberta, Canada
It's been awhile since I drove the swift regularly with that setup, and I didn't directly monitor fuel mileage. It basically used very little, not like a three cylinder but really really cheap to run. I think 40mpg fairly easily, with spirited driving. The swap to 1.3 16v Sohc is fairly basic, but really needs a donor car, sourcing all the little stuff will drive you nuts otherwise. Your 3cyl trans is great behind the 16v engine, as it is 4.39 final drive vs 16v's 3.79, at the expense of higher highway rpm of course.
I did this swap to the 16v because I lack time on my own cars, this was a plug and play factory swap. Adding turbo would make a great, torquey car, but will likely cost more if done properly, and will require some amount of fabrication/ adaptation, either swapping to a factory t3 setup or going standalone fuel system.
I would compare the 1.3 16v to the 16v engine in the 4dr sidekicks, torquey, efficient, but it tops out at 6500. For street zipping around that seems to work really well. I just got my first samurai after owning a few trackers, so I'm the opposite of you on the Suzuki knowledge base, I'm learning about some of the sammi tips tricks and such.

_________________
1995 Swift w/16V 4.39s, 3tech cam, Esteem t-body, Header, needs more.
1995 Gt Mustang "Boss Shinoda" package.
1999 F150 4x4 Supercharged
1967 Mustang 428 auto, never ending expensive project
1993 Civic si h22a, fell in my lap, couldn't resist!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 15
Location: Arizona
40 mpg and fun would be a great time. i am 36mpg and feels like my car is slowly dieing. its basically hot rod around to keep it safe in traffic. after the other responses i feel the best kind of go would be a good mpg and a fast acceleration opposed to a top speed car. too much to reengineer to make it super fast, fun, reliable, and SAFE. could you share more about your swap please


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Vancouver, WA
My last 2 fillups have been 39 mpg. so far I've been averaging about 37mpg in the winter. Seems I lost 2-3 mpg and imo worth the loss.


I hope to gain the mpg back after some other mods but ill still be more than happy if it stays above 35

_________________
98 swift 1.6 16v swap
03 cobra bolt ons
97 3000gt vr4 e85, high comp, bolt ons
too many others to list


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group