Are these worth having on a 300 - 330 Brake engine?

What will it do?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=022

 

no point what so ever Glen

Me being me when i got the escos went and got one of them and had to put it back on flebay as there was no point in having it

your BT inlet is good for 450HP then a ST one is good for 500 and the RS500 580+ then i think you would need a spacer for more flow

im not 100% on the above but i know it goes somthing like that and i am 100% sure you do not need one for anything like the power you want/have Total waste of money when it could wind up making the engine feel more laggy at that power, smallest displacement for the amount of power you have

I.E. if you only want 300-330, stick with original exhaust and inlet manifold change your .63 T34 to a .48, RS500 intercooler, Greens and a 3 bar map sensor and an exhaust you will have one hell of a drivable Road going escos IMO

Im currently looking for a ST escos to do the same as above but with the small turbo for driveability

 

Well said Ben, most definetly no need to increase inlet volume for that power figure.

Glen, dont waste your money mate.

 

 

in theory its a larger volume to fill, the knock on effect albeit possibly very minimal will be that it adds to the lag.

the BT inlet plenum is more thank capable to aid you in achieving your desired power figure so why alter it!?


But nice link Glen, Martin told me i need one for my engine

 

is that because you are sticking with the BT inlet Kelv?

 

ST inlet Ben, then with the spacer aswell.

 

Cheers You 2... More than explained it. Just came across it and have seen a few and heard about spacing out the plenum, just wondered what it did and if it was worth it with the Power i will have in a month or so.

I will put my £45, to a carbon Fibre Idea i have instead...

Ben, yeh i am changing my Housing to a .48, but will be after i have the greens, 3 bar etc etc and clutch, then prob do the .48 housing along with 2wd manifold.

All im aiming for is a Solid 330, as i still want drivabilty as well as reliability... I know thats hard to come by, but im only subject to the odd track session here or there and a few runs at the Pod, so i dont have to go mad as 330 will be more than enough for the road.

 

Glen, you got a new engine coming or had a little step up in spec?

 

Specing up after 4 years of owning the old girl... Needs a bit of Top End TLC too, but getting the stage 2 / 3 treatment at the same time with most other stuff to follow, i.e Fuel Pump, clutch, brakes, but the main bit is getting done and i will just take it easy until all the rest around the engine is done. Cant wait.

 

I wouldnt even bother with the 2wd manifold mate again more work and money for fuck all at that power level

 

good stuff, so like so many of us that have considered selling up at some point - youve now put a few more £££ into the old girl and making it more fun.

hope its exactly what you want when finished mate

 

you edited before i finished my reply.

again as Ben says - i wouldnt waste the effort in putting the 2wd manifold on either, extending the downpipe etc.

330bhp for road use and the odd track session will be prefect imo.

 

I thought the spacer was to allow better flow to the trumpets, not just for a larger size plenum?

 

If you want to get away from LAG CITY that is escy, then mod the head, by DE SHROUDING, the best £275 you will ever spend on bang per buck, it does not increase BHP , but my god the torque curve is MONSTROUSLY DIFFERENT.
I did this to mine(2wd sapph, T3/34) get on 803's 150lbft@1500rpm, 330lbft@2200rpm, but STILL 330lbft@6500rpm!!
The way it pulls to 7300rpm in top is amazing, just keeps accelerating hard all the time as the torque is there, no downside at all, so long as you discount the rear tyres not lasting!!
tabetha

 

What is De Shrouding, i am having the Top end rebuilt, so the Head will no doubt come off.
Wont having to worry too much about tyres with 4x4 as much as you would with RWD.

 

408bhp is more than one would expect on 803's and a T3/34 mate, are you sure thats the correct figure?

 

Chip, maybe im blind mate - but were the hell have you got the figure of 408bhp from?

 

Can't see it either ?

What bhp can a .48 make max?

Paul

 

I too was confused about 408bhp!!
I do know that a T34.48 will run to 400bhp though.
De-shrouding, is a clean up of the area immediately next to the inlet valves, as it is a bit poo here as std, and causes a restriction, no doubt intentional for emissions reasons, leaving the ports the same diametre for gas speed, but it is about 6/8 hours of work, but really effective.
I used DARREN at DAMICO, which is in EAST HARLING, NORFOLK 01953 717784.
he has many many years experience at all levels on most heads, certainly loads on cossies, n/a and turbo, has engine dynos, flow rigs, so not a guesser.
I must admit it is F*****G SCARY in the wet, I scream like a little girl!!
tabetha

 

What he said...

 

i kind of presumed you were a girl with your user id - so screaming like one would make perfect sense

 

You just said it made 408bhp @ 6500rpm

Here:
That is 408bhp

 

330lbft is always 408bhp then is it?

not an arguement response, more curious how you have come to that equation!?

 

At 6500rpm, yes 330lbft is ALWAYS 408bhp

That never changes, EVER, not even on a wednesday mate, not just for a YB, not just for petrol, its the same for a diesel 77 cylinder engine with yellow spots on the side

 

ah yellow spots on the side, not seen one of those engines in a while

Fair do's chip, not being overly gullable there but id say i trust you as your understanding of engines and torque curves and mathmatics around power figures is far superior than mine, i get baffled by some of the things.

just dont tell me at a later date that you were pulling my leg

 

BHP = Torque(lbft) * RPM / 5252

408 = 330 * 6500/5252




Thats how BHP is defined, its as set in stone as the fact there are 3 feet to a yard.

 

Correct.

 

So, who thinks tabetha really made 408bhp on his t3/t34, or do we think he is mistaken?

 

i think she could be mistaken.

i never even claimed mine had 400bhp when i was on a UT T38 and greys - i always thought a realistic 380bhp was possibly closer to the truth.

 

So whats happen when my mates saph went on the rollers, got a solid 330BHP, but had more than 330lbft of Torque, i thought Torque was down to Compression ratio's, low comp etc etc. Didnt think BHP was calculated just by the amount of Torque you have.





Oh and so the Inlet Plenum Spacer are no good then. LOL

 

torque AND rpm

Thats the defintion of BHP

Like MPG isnt dependant on just how many miles you drove, but also how many gallons you used.

 

She's a he and is often mistaken

 

Where have you been!

 

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

 

Mate, whats the point in putting numbers down that are ABSOLUTE bollocks though?
Seriously 330 and 288 is just such a world apart, and the reality is that I get at 6500rpm it was actually more like 250!

Its cool you are trying to help, but making stuff up is a bit pointless if it means others get led into believing it.

 

I didn't make things up, I misunderstood and didn't think about what I was told, my fault entirely, for which I have appologised.
Whether you take it or not I don't give a rats arse, I really could not care less, not even one little bit.
There was a problem with the rollers(figures) that I did not notice on the printout till I got home, when I phoned and questioned it a few days later I was told there was a technical fault with the rollers, which I took to be the case, I am not conversant with the technicalities of the rollers actuall functioning, so didn't question it.
The difference between now(stage3) and before(stage1) in low down power is immense, so had no reason to doubt that it was in fact a lot more than the graph showed.
All I got from the original chip supplier was it needed live mapping to eradicate the massive hole in the power band from 1800 - 2500rpm, at great expense of course, well more expense than a after market ecu, so that is the route I have now taken, as local to me, but unfotunately he does not do w/m, I am glad as I think they are an atiqauted piece of crap personally, not even very good in thier day.
View it how you like, I will still sleep at night NOT worrying about it, I have appologised, and will not do so forever, I did so as I thought it was appropriate to do so, whether you accept it is not anything that concerns me.
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 .

 

Learn something new everyday