mantadoc, on 15 December 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:
Something in my mind says the 1.6 crank had less main bearings than the 1.9 + so wasn't as sturdy
Youre dead wrong mate
See this is something only us old crackers know

The 1,6, 1,9 and 2,0 has the same amount of bearings, largely the same engine block, the same stroke on both crank and rods. Only difference to those 3 engines are the bore of the block.
So why use a 1,6 crank ?
Here´s why. The 1,6 crank is very similar to the 2,4 crank, except for the stroke. It does however have double counterweights, and this is a BIG advantage. The reason for this is that you have a smaller circumreference, therefore also a smaller inertia torque, and you get less vibration when in the high revs. A standard 1,6 crank that has been weighed in and balanced by todays standards will handle 7-8000rpm no problem. Over that, you will need some forged parts instead.
This is a 1,9 or 2,0 crankshaft:
This is how a double cw CIH crank looks like (when redone a bit

)
You can clearly see the difference.
The not so good part is that if you want to stroke the engine the 1,6 crank is out the window. The maximum you can do with a 1,6 crank is 2,1 liters with a 97mm bore. For bigger displacement you will need the 2,2 or 2,4 cranks.
Regarding the 1,9 engine block, this is the ideal block to tune on when tuning CIH´s. It can take a overbore to 2,0 liters displacement, but the real advantage is the cooling channels in the block. They are much closer to the cylinders than on the 2,0, 2,2 or 2,4 block. That is why most still use a 1,9 block for tuning today. Especially in historic motorsports where they are often regulated by homologations to run a maximum of 2,0 liters displacement.
The 2,0 and 2,2 block seems to have some problems with the cyl 4 cooling. When theese engines break, its always cylinder 4. I have had one that pushed out the rod and piston through the engine block knocking off my starter engine

and a racing buddy of mine had one that pushed the piston up the cylinder sideways
Bearings are also a problem on the CIH when tuning, so when you are in the process of tuning a cih you will need to get the crankshaft bearing locations downsized to 1/10th of a mm more than the book says. This will make enough room for clearance as the crank sits on a layer of oil and should never touch the bearings. It will not sound that good during startup but as soon as there´s oilpressure you will have an engine that purrs
I agree on the 3,0 12V part. Those goldtop engines are really gold.. Had one in my previous Monza A 78´. Replaced the old 2,8 unit with a goldtop, fitted a mild streetcam, and a set of tripple 40 Dellorto´s + a modified 3" single tube sports exhaust system from a Carlton GSi. It showed 240bhp on the dyno, so pulling some massive power from those engines are VERY easy.
If i ever go to work on a B series Manta again, this is the engine i will use. The weight ratio problem can be fixed by lightening the front end, and using fibreglass parts like they did on the A series TE2800 where they actually succeeded in getting a weight ratio the same as a original GT/E

Regarding the best way to go, XE or CIH, i´d say XE if your car is a daily driver, or if you have a big engine budget. The XE is a fast 150bhp, but if you want more than the 150bhp it will get VERY expensive VERY fast. A set of racing cams for the XE will cost you the same as a complete tuneup of the CIH head (porting, larger valves, flowmeasuring and the sickest cam out there, steel gaskets etc).
If your car is not a daily driver and you dont need more than 200hp i will take the CIH any day., They sound absolutely fantastic, and they can make some serious power. The whole retro thing should also be considered.
My guess is that if you can assemble the engine yourself, you can rebuild a standard 2,0E so it is brand new, and tune it to around 150bhp for the same money that a XE build will cost you. And then you will have a 150bhp XE that has driven god knows what miles, vs a brand new 2,0 CIH with the same 150hp
Edited by monzta, 16 December 2011 - 11:49 PM.