carbs on a mk4 polo?

we're not talking about big american motor, or a 3.8 / 4.2 jaguar engine either..

it's a 1.4l, 8v polo engine.

tbh, it doesn't change my stance if it were either of those. I suspect both engines would make much more power, and be more driveable using electronics to control them.
 
a lot of people get strung up on 'bike carbs', when what they often really mean are individual throttle bodies. Anyone i've spoken to who has fitted 'bike carbs' has actually fitted ITBs from a modern bike, they're still fuel injected.
Weird, that...Everyone I know with 'Bike carbs' has fitted bike carbs and everyone I know with 'bike throttle bodies' has fitted bike throttle bodies.

The only difference really is that you end up with a seperate throttle body for each cylinder, and (most of the time) a badly designed inlet tract and a massively high, unsuable powerband. I doubt that engine would survive long with the nuts being revved off it to stay in the power.
Not quite true. Carbs are carbs and throttle bodies are throttle bodies. Your powerband will remain as wide and usable as it was before fitting bike carbs.

If you really are talking about carbs, then i think you're a bit dim. It's old tech, very hard to get right and keep right (ever tried to balance two carbs?)
If you're saying that kind of thing about bike carbs then I think you're either a bit dim or completely ignorant of the technology and are under the impression that they are like a pair of old SUs or Webers.

Modern bike carbs are great pieces of kit.

They are constant velocity so you get the right fuelling all the way through the rev range whereas with 'car' carbs you have to optimise the fuelling at a single point and run everything else as a compromise.

You can throw 1bar of positive pressure at them without having to modify them. Simply stick them in a plenum and feed the plenum from your turbo or blower.

They don't go out of balance (dunno why you mentioned that as balancing traditional carbs is simple with a length of hose and a good ear) and once fitted don't need refettling every few months like Webers.

As for 'a badly-designed inlet tract', literally all you need to do is ask your local machine shop to copy an inlet manifold gasket for your engine in 12mm steel then weld on stubs of steel tubing angled to match the carb spacing, use silicon tubing and jubilee clips to mate them to the carbs and you're away. Just remember to use the fuel pump from the bike you got the carbs from.

- it's as daft as wanting to remove an electronic ignition system and replace it with a dizzy, and start faffing about with vacuum advance units, weights etc etc.
No it isn't. At all.

The 'best' option is individual throttle bodies per cylinder. Whether you spend £1,500 on a setup sold for cars or £150 on a setup from a superbike, you will get the same result. A single throttle plate per cylinder and aftermarket management to control them.

Second best is bike carbs. As I've outlined above, the technology is great and a far cry from seventies car carbs.

After that, OEM spi or mpi setups.

In short, don't bother.

In short, they are fantastic and can genuinely give a cheap and effective performance increase but look at your engine package as a whole before making any decision.

*n
 
it is ignorance of the technology on my part, but even with a bit of it explained to me like that (ta), i still can't see the point in bike carbs. I don't understand why when the technology is avaible, fuel injection wouldn't be used. It is surely infinietly more tuneable, how does a carb adjust for varying IAT, or just coolant temp for that matter ?

with regards to the manifold design, i know that in theory - but i also know the lengths of the runners greatly effect the characteristics of the engine - hence my comment about normally ending up with a poorly designed manifold, it might end up being comprimised to fit inside the bay of a polo.

but look at your engine package as a whole before making any decision.

exactly, hence - don't bother, on what sounds like it is otherwise a stock 1.4 8v polo.

re balancing traditional carbs, again - simple in theory, but keeping them balanced when the weather changes for example is pain.
 
The reason that I'm an advocate of bike carbs on pre-cat cars that can get away with them come emissions time is that you can get them set up and working for under £300...and that you will get no better result unless you spend £500+ on bike ITBs and Megasquirt or £1,500+ on Jenveys and another £800 on an ECU.

Have you seen the results the pug 106 GTi/Rallye boys are getting from bike carbs?

Om nom nom.

*n
 
i haven't, no. I've sure i've seen one in PPC running on ITBs and MS though ;)

but then a mk4 polo isn't a pre-cat car.. hence "don't bother"

you got any links with some reading on bike carbs, i'm intruiged now - like i say, i just assumed they were similar to what cars used to have.
 
Oh and as for runner length, you simply tune it with trumpet length. :)

Depending on your setup, the carbs may work best of you can fit the stock airbox to them and feed it from a cold air intake...

*n
 
I dont understand this, i have a classic mini and without doubt if i had the cash i would be running a pair of TB's on it with mappable fuel and ignition so i can do away with my carb. Although carbs are simpler you just cant adjust them to the same level of accuracy as an injection system. Stick to the injection mate, if you want more power get throttle bodies and a decent exhaust.
 
[huzeeee];11608213 said:
I dont understand this, i have a classic mini and without doubt if i had the cash i would be running a pair of TB's on it with mappable fuel and ignition so i can do away with my carb. Although carbs are simpler you just cant adjust them to the same level of accuracy as an injection system. Stick to the injection mate, if you want more power get throttle bodies and a decent exhaust.

But the difference in cost (as penski points out above) is huge compared to the gains made. Bike carbs make perfect sense if money is not limitless.
 
Modern bike carbs are great pieces of kit.

They are constant velocity so you get the right fuelling all the way through the rev range

They are simply a modern take on the old SU, and hence the calibration is determined by the needle taper as well as the main jet size and any other air correctors etc. Unfortunately they are calibrated well only for the engine they came off, as with any other carburettor. Fitting them onto a different engine requires re-calibration, which to some means drilling the main jet out a bit until it runs ok.

Unfortunately, unlike an SU you can't readily get different needles, so calibration is invariably not perfect when used on car engines...
 
Most bike tuners will stock the necessary kit. There are also specific aftermarket bits to suit most popular car applications.

*n
 
suspect because you are already getting all your air from one source (the turbo), so there is no point in then splitting it through ITBs. Unless you have one turbo per cylinder :p

on an n/a itb setup, each cylinder is given the chance to draw the amount of air without restriction that it wants, doesnt happen on a turbo setup eh!
 
Whys that?

Is it because you can set how much air you are pumping in with forced induction?

It's all to do with throttle area.

Say you have a n/a 3 litre straight-six with a single 85mm throttle body.

The 'throttle area' is 5,674.5mm^2.

Now swap that single, large TB out for six individual 36mm TBs and you have a total 'throttle area' of 6,107.3mm^2.

Make those TBs 40mm each and it jumps to 7,539.8mm^2.

42mm and it is 8,312.7, 44 and it is 9,123.2, 48 and it is 10,857.3 - virtually twice the area.

But other than sheer area, you also have the fluid effects of air to think about; when air is close to the 'wall' of a TB, it will flow faster (the same principle behind multi-valve heads ;))...So lets take our original 85mm single and 36mm individuals as they have pretty similar total areas.

The Single 85mm TB has a circ of 267mm.

The six 36mm TBs have a combined circ of 678.6mm.

But that is getting into curtain area and other dull things...

Basically, ITBs get more air in faster than single, larger TBs. They are also more finely controllable for total airflow etc.

With a forced induction setup, the difference in flow is negligable and doesn't make up for the added complexity of designing and implementing an ITB setup.

*n
 
Back
Top Bottom