If it's turbo, then 200hp is way too low power figure for 16v 2.3 redblock with Penta crank, as you get the 200hp from B200ET with weaker con rods just by raising the boost.. Generally anything below 400hp with turbo will do fine with ported 531, I've seen 580hp redblock with 8V 531, though that's quite extreme but still there's no reason to put 16V head in with turbo engine if power figures are in range of 200 to 400hp. 16V means everything in the head costs double, more work, more money, so no need to go 16V unless it's really needed. Of course there's always the coolness factor of the 16V head, but that doesn't make you go any faster.
If it's N/A, then 200hp sounds quite right if cams, valves, exhaust etc.. are stock.
Volvo R-Sport - Equipment for the car enthusiast.
“Buy land, they're not making it anymore” - Mark Twain
"There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games." -Ernest Hemingway
The problem with modifying a 1400 is that it's significantly underpowered to start with. You could turbocharge it (Renault 5 GT-T kit), and it's still be barely quicker than a 360. I'd stick an exhaust and air filter on it if you're feeling adventurous...other than that, stick some pennies in the bank and save up for something faster when the insurance becomes more reasonable. The 1.4 isn't much slower than the other 300s, in stock form...so I'd enjoy the cheap insurance/tax/fuel while you can
Fuse wrote:there's no reason to put 16V head in with turbo engine if power figures are in range of 200 to 400hp.
Volumetric efficiency? The 8v CC design is decades old...and it shows
I agree with Fuse on the 8v v 16v subject. The old 8v is not a bad head at all.
If you wanted to liven up the 1.4 more than breathing will do but dont want mega power the I would go with a 1.7 - not much quicker but loads more low down and pleanty of potensial.
Don't get me wrong, I love the 8v cylinder head, and it's pretty damn good as they go....however there's no disguising that it gives away significant VE to the 8v. Building a bit of an NA screamer, I should really go for a 16v swap (B204 head from Italy?), but I prefer the idea of an 8v.
A pair of mates in the US had almost identical cars, except that one had a 16v swap, while the other ran a stock 8v with a hot cam. The 16v made marginally more power at half the boost pressure.
There are extra problems associated with going to 16v (manifolds, etc), but you'll gain power, fuel efficiency, etc.
Having said all of that, I do agree that it seems to be the latest "OMG, I want 300bhp therefore I MUST HAVE" item on Turbobricks....like 13mm rods
ok then.How abouts 250bhp NA.£100 16 valve engine,£20 for B230 engine,£400 penta engine,all work done e.g.headwork putting it together done myself.Does'nt sound like much expenditure to me for that much power .Unless your a eighteen year old on minimum wage that is????????????????
clitti wrote:all work done e.g.headwork putting it together done myself.Does'nt sound like much expenditure to me for that much power
How much does that expertise cost?
On that note, what have you done to extract the extra power, as an AQ171 didn't make anywhere near 250bhp. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt you for one moment - the marinised exhaust system and dubious twin carb arrangement won't be good for power - but I'm interested to hear what setup you're running.
Generally anything below 400hp with turbo will do fine with ported 531, I've seen 580hp redblock with 8V 531, though that's quite extreme but still there's no reason to put 16V head in with turbo engine if power figures are in range of 200 to 400hp. 16V means everything in the head costs double, more work, more money, so no need to go 16V unless it's really needed. Of course there's always the coolness factor of the 16V head, but that doesn't make you go any faster. 
Think of all the cool cars which are automatically excluded. Who makes these rules, the V8 appriciators society? 
