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 Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:57 pm

Underbody braces, turbos and more!

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 29
Location: CT
Hi Team

I'm new to this site & have a few questions. I Hope I have this in the correct forum.

We are entered into the X Prize competition & are deciding on which car & engine to enter. We like some of the European Diesels, but are not sure we will be able to import them. So of course the Geo is on the short list.

I know its old, but it's simply, & we want to showcase our fuel & other technologies Vs building a whole new car.

Our patented fuel technology is a new zero emission fuel that puts out 130+ octane.

My question to the team is if you had to build a fuel efficient 3 cyl 1.0 what would you do to it using 130 octane & do you feel you could achieve 100mpg in a modified metro? Highly efficient engine, less weight, better aero, etc.

I'm hoping we can get a compression ratio of at least 18:1 NA. Is that possible with piston & valve clearance in the 1.0, or do we need to go forced induction? That is my big concern, as we want to take advantage of the high octane which is one of the benefits of our fuel.

We're open to building what ever intake (direct injection) & exhaust manifolds that are needed, lighting parts, balancing, blueprinting, porting, cam grinds, etc.

Is there a trick Suzuki parts supply guy out there?

I thought they used these motors in air planes? Is there a supplier?

Any tricks on transaxle, higher final ratios (turbo cars) or gear sets, light weight wheels, etc.?

Thanks in advance.

X Guy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 3130
Location: Brantford, Ontario, Canada
Welcome to teamswift

superf1y (mike) makes cam shafts.
read around, theres a lot of info.

_________________
93 Swift GT White 3Tech cams, Sandro's chip, Lightned flywheel, Genie exhaust, Cultus header, Intrax springs.
08 Civic Wife's car


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:26 pm
Posts: 70
Location: Port Orchard, Washington USA
There are several X prize competitors already out there using the Metro as a base.

I've read about one who is at 18-1 compression ratio.

I state this only to point out that to win one has to be better than the rest.

I'd think it is too heavy, that one needed to be way less than 1000 lbs to be competitive.

But yes one could achieve 18-1 compression by skimming the head AND reshaping the combustion chamber.

20 years ago in 1988 Osamu Goto was using a fuel which was 80% toluene to realize incredible fuel economy.

TH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 29
Location: CT
Thanks Guys, I will contact superfly on the cam.


TH

Yes, I do know of at least one team planning on using the Metro.

We do feel our technology is superior as we will be the only team with this fuel. Plus it being zero emissions puts us in an advantageous position.

We also have new tech for tires, aero & AC that we want to showcase.

Can you give me a little more detail on the 18:1 engine?

I have only seen pics of a 1.0 with the head off & the stock pistons have clearance for the valves. That was my concern at stock compression, so I am cautious as to how high we can go.

As far as weight, what do these cars weigh stock?

Thx

X Guy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:46 pm
Posts: 1099
Location: Abbotsford, BC
X Guy wrote:
Thanks Guys, I will contact superfly on the cam.


TH

Yes, I do know of at least one team planning on using the Metro.

We do feel our technology is superior as we will be the only team with this fuel. Plus it being zero emissions puts us in an advantageous position.

We also have new tech for tires, aero & AC that we want to showcase.

Can you give me a little more detail on the 18:1 engine?

I have only seen pics of a 1.0 with the head off & the stock pistons have clearance for the valves. That was my concern at stock compression, so I am cautious as to how high we can go.

As far as weight, what do these cars weigh stock?

Thx

X Guy


I recommend you look at suzukird.com and try and order as many performance enhancements as possible. BTW do you have a home-page for your build or the competition ?

_________________
1995 Firefly 1.3 SOHC 8VALVE MANUAL
2000 Firefly 1.3 SOHC 16VALVE AUTO. Goals: full restoration, achieve stock MPG and HP or higher, finished look should be 'stealthy' and unassuming. Engine will need to be rebuilt later on to restore compression levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 29
Location: CT
firefly

Thanks for the link, I will call them this week.

We are in the process of getting a web site. I will post it ASAP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 379
Location: Tempe, AZ
X Guy wrote:
... or do we need to go forced induction? That is my big concern, as we want to take advantage of the high octane which is one of the benefits of our fuel.



Forced induction will not be of any help to you in trying to achieve high economy numbers, to make use of your 130 octane you could be running 30psi boost and make lots of power but that isn't your goal is it? Higher compression is a must, if you cant get near your 18:1 goal then in my opinion it will be pointless to use a 130 octane fuel. You could advance timing and lean it out a bit but I dont think either of those gains would be very significant.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 29
Location: CT
Tom93R1 wrote:
X Guy wrote:
... or do we need to go forced induction? That is my big concern, as we want to take advantage of the high octane which is one of the benefits of our fuel.



Forced induction will not be of any help to you in trying to achieve high economy numbers, to make use of your 130 octane you could be running 30psi boost and make lots of power but that isn't your goal is it? Higher compression is a must, if you cant get near your 18:1 goal then in my opinion it will be pointless to use a 130 octane fuel. You could advance timing and lean it out a bit but I dont think either of those gains would be very significant.



If we were going to run any forced induction it would have to be very low. As you state it won't help us achieve our mileage goals at high boost. Still researching to see how high we can go on the 1.0. They make a lot of stuff for it. Very cool.

Our fuel produces 130+ octane while also emitting zero emissions. Our goal is to license or sell the technology for retrofit & new vehicle production. At the new vehicle level they can build high compression engines very easily to take advantage of the octane. No more need for expensive catalytic converters & complicated emission systems. This will make the efficiency of the engines jump dramatically while also increasing MPG.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:09 pm
Posts: 4998
Location: Palm Springs: Too hot from June to Oct.!
X Guy wrote:
We are in the process of getting a web site. I will post it ASAP.


Could you explain?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Washington, DC
X Guy wrote:
Hi Team

I'm new to this site & have a few questions. I Hope I have this in the correct forum.

We are entered into the X Prize competition & are deciding on which car & engine to enter. We like some of the European Diesels, but are not sure we will be able to import them. So of course the Geo is on the short list.


Hi, X guy. You really ought to call it a Metro for clarity, GEO had a bunch of different cars from different manufacturers.

X Guy wrote:
I know its old, but it's simply, & we want to showcase our fuel & other technologies Vs building a whole new car.

Our patented fuel technology is a new zero emission fuel that puts out 130+ octane.


Do you have a special exception for this fuel? They're saying they provide the fuel, gas, E10, E85, and electricity.

X Guy wrote:
Is there a trick Suzuki parts supply guy out there?

I thought they used these motors in air planes? Is there a supplier?

Any tricks on transaxle, higher final ratios (turbo cars) or gear sets, light weight wheels, etc.?



SuzukiRD has a lot of things listed on their website, mostly racing type things, pretty wild hp claims and some reports of spotty quality. Be aware of that, but the only source for many items.

Superf1y at 3Tech makes cams and mods heads, probably more experience inside the G10 than anyone. I think he was involved with a Bonneville run (I might be hallucinating that bit, had a pretty wild time back in the day)

Raven Redrive converts G10s for light aircraft use, they also sell a performance cam for automotive use. http://www.raven-rotor.com/html/main.html

There are basically four gear ratios available:

4.39 89 - 94 convertibles and 95 - 00 three cylinders
4.10 89 - 94 base and LSI Metros
3.79 89 - 94 XFI and 95 - 01 four cylinders
3.52 89 - 94 four cylinders

SuzukiRD offers higher numerical gearsets but I assume you want lower numbers for economy.

Weight varies from 1600 lbs to 2000 pounds depending on year and equipment.

XFI was the mileage king BY FAR so I think that would be a good place to start, it's already the lightest and has one of the best gear ratios. Never was built with air conditioning but it can be easily retrofitted. Strange rule that one, but whatever they say is law, they're the ones waving the money around. Speaking of rules, there is no Metro that would be legal to sell today, seems to me that part of the rules state that you've got to be ready for production including meeting all NHTSA safety requirements for production cars. Maybe I'm misreading that.

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Oklahoma City
Woodie wrote:
3.79 89 - 94 XFI and 95 - 01 four cylinders

I believe that the 89-94 XFI, the 88 Sprint Metro, and the 86-87 Sprint ER use 3.85, and that 3.79 was used on certain 4 cylinder models, the details of which I am not familiar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Washington, DC
89 - 94 XFI absolutely got 3.79, all the sales brochures and service manuals agree.

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Oklahoma City
Woodie wrote:
89 - 94 XFI absolutely got 3.79, all the sales brochures and service manuals agree.


http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.p ... -2358.html
http://www.livesteaming.com/metro.htm
http://metroxfi.com/2008/04/metro-trans ... formation/
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=37943&start=25


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 11:55 pm
Posts: 524
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Quote:
Our fuel produces 130+ octane while also emitting zero emissions


So with no emissions there's no need for an exhaust system? haha...

This claim is confusing the hell out of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:35 pm
Posts: 2433
Location: Regina, SK
l4mbch0ps wrote:
Quote:
Our fuel produces 130+ octane while also emitting zero emissions


So with no emissions there's no need for an exhaust system? haha...

This claim is confusing the hell out of me.


It's clean burning, aka Air/Water come out the exhaust pipe.

You could in theory suck on the exhaust pipe and not die. Some European cars manage to produce cleaner exhaust than the air they take in. :mrgreen:

_________________
My cars:

J. McBean: '98 Suzuki Swift 1.3L 16v SOHC 5sp+ "Mk5" Made in Canada
The Mini Rattler: '94 Suzuki Swift .993L 6v SOHC 5sp+ "Mk3" Made in Canada *The Winter Beater*
B. Berry: '90 Chevrolet Turbo Sprint 1.0L 6v SOHC 5sp+ "Mk2" Made in Japan

I got 18MPG in a 3cyl with a 5 speed manual 4dr, '93 Metro! :yeahyeah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Oklahoma City
gamefoo21 wrote:
It's clean burning, aka Air/Water come out the exhaust pipe.

So... you patented hydrogen? This is starting to sound like something I would likely take a dim view of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Washington, DC
sbergman27 wrote:



You're quoting a bunch of people on the Internet who are all repeating the same bad information. Parts of the third link support your theory, parts of it show it to be wrong. The fourth link is probably the most accurate as it consists of a guy who is actually taking transmissions apart and counting teeth. It starts out with him saying 3.85 and eventually comes around to him agreeing that it's 3.79.

Here's the moment of truth from the thread you suggested as support for your theory:

dont know if this will help but i just pulled trans out of a 1990 xfi 1.0 metro and crownwheel has 72 teeth

Teamswift Racer

Good stuff thank you, it does look like mk2/3 xfi's are indeed 3.79, will double check my other source. Thanks.


Meanwhile, my information comes from ALL the printed material from the manufacturer. I have the sales brochures from 90 - 00, absolutely EVERY one of them shows a 3.79 gear ratio, not one of them shows a 3.85 as being available. Same with the service manuals and list of option codes. I have found minor errors in the sales literature before, but it's always corrected in the next years' edition. For something that glaringly wrong to be in every brochure and every service manual (which are written by different groups) is not possible.

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Oklahoma City
Woodie wrote:
sbergman27 wrote:
Here's the moment of truth from the thread you suggested as support for your theory:

Support my theory? I presented evidence, which was not at all hard to gather since 3.85 is claimed more often than 3.79, which was not in agreement with your claim. Having a 1988 Sprint Metro myself, I'm perfectly happy with 3.79. And I'd be interested in whether the Sprint Metro had the same FD as the XFI. I'm only assuming so.

BTW, I'm not quite sure why you want to be so confrontational. I defended you in another thread, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Seems to me that a bit of diplomacy would help keep these threads on topic, and somewhat more pleasant.

BTW, can you point me to a sales brochure which mentioned the final drive ratio of the XFI? Seems an odd piece of information to put into a glossy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 11:55 pm
Posts: 524
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Quote:
So... you patented hydrogen? This is starting to sound like something I would likely take a dim view of.



This sounds like a Browns gas type deal to me... I hope you have performed the appropriate calculations to determine the volumetric requirements of the engine you will be using... from the latest that i've read, you need approximately 40 liters of Browns gas *per minute* to run exclusively... that is without using it to supplement your gasoline usage.

Further details would be great... if it's patented, you have no risk of infringements i should think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Washington, DC
sbergman27 wrote:
Woodie wrote:
sbergman27 wrote:
Here's the moment of truth from the thread you suggested as support for your theory:

Support my theory? I presented evidence, which was not at all hard to gather since 3.85 is claimed more often than 3.79, which was not in agreement with your claim. Having a 1988 Sprint Metro myself, I'm perfectly happy with 3.79. And I'd be interested in whether the Sprint Metro had the same FD as the XFI. I'm only assuming so.

BTW, I'm not quite sure why you want to be so confrontational. I defended you in another thread, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Seems to me that a bit of diplomacy would help keep these threads on topic, and somewhat more pleasant.

BTW, can you point me to a sales brochure which mentioned the final drive ratio of the XFI? Seems an odd piece of information to put into a glossy.



Your evidence consists of people on the Internet, no different from you and me, writing what they think. My evidence consists of what the manufacturer said, in writing, many times over a ten year period. Here's a scan of the gear ratio chart from the 98 brochure, the only reason I'm putting this one here first is that it was already in my gallery.

Image

I have all the brochures from 90 - 00, every one from 90 - 94 says 3.79 XFI, 4.10 base, 4.39 convertible. Every one from 95 - 00 says 4.39 three cylinder, 3.79 four cylinder. (except for the occasional faux pas such as the one above where they say 3.79 sedan by which they really mean four cylinder, that mistake was fixed for the 99 model year) Just discovered this second that the 91 brochure shows the base car having a 3.95 final drive ratio. I think this is also a simple mistake as it is the only time this ratio is mentioned and I don't believe that single model year would have a different transmission. I just spent half an hour trying to upload the relevant page from the 90 brochure here but I've got it in TIFF and PDF file types and I'm not bright enough (or have the proper program) to convert it. I'll be glad to e-mail it to you but trust me, it says right at the bottom of the chart "**3.79 axle ratio for XFI Hatchback" as do all the others from 90 - 94. My 89 and 91 service manuals are long gone as are the applicable cars but they, and also my 98 service manual agreed on those drive ratios.

I know nothing about MK1 cars, I'm talking about 89 and newer.

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Oklahoma City
Quote:
Your evidence consists of people on the Internet, no different from you and me, writing what they think.

My evidence was in support of the fact that there seemed to be conflicting statements, and not that the 3.85 figure was the correct one. Although 3.85 was the number I had initially thought was correct.

Anyway, I think we've pretty well established in other threads that the actual ratio in question is 72/19, which is 3.789:1.

The current mystery engaging my attention is the fact that an '86 Sprint ER owner here seems definitely to have a 3.52, and my 1988 Sprint Metro (ER, by any other name) is the expected 3.79. Any ideas on where we might get information to establish the standard FD for the 1986 Sprint ER?

-Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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