Originally Posted by
tabetha
You are indeed quite correct, and yes mike I do get things wrong, all the time, and am man enough to admit it.
I did not consider this detail, as got other more serious things on my mind at the mo.
The RR printout is odd as it shows 288 lbft, just 10lbft more than my stage one, but the difference is immense, really strong even at the top end, when queried(afterwards) I was told it would be around the same torque as bhp(329).
The curve for the torque is pretty flat from around 3300 to around 6300, so it may be a case of I misunderstood what I was told, not trying to decive as I don't give a toss what others think, just trying to do my little bit.
After two unsuccesful trys at using a chips(2) from someone on here, I took it to a RR and used thiers, and the problems vanished on the spot, but the company did give a full refund with no questions asked, well plenty as they werte concerened as to why they would not work, and did their utmost to help, so credit to them.
I appologise for any errors on my part.
tabetha
Even 288lb ft @ 6500 = 356bhp, so something's still not quite right given you say 329bhp is your peak?
Working back from that 329bhp figure (and assuming that peak power was made at 6k where it normally is on a 0.48 a/r turbo), then the torque would be 288lb ft @ 6000rpm - which ties in with what you say
. Perhaps the rpm figure of 6500 is just incorrect - either from your memory or from the rollers?
Whichever way you look at it, it still sounds like a very nice responsive conversion
.