sbd16v

its a trick of the camera the lead will come out 90 degs to the car

Rs1

iTrader: (1)

Interesting graph.
The evo is has the edge low down with a 2.3cc and a .63 35r..... the 40r twin entry spools similar to a .82 35r so with my powers of deduction a housing change to the evo would bring those graphs even closer together right?..... in favor of the yb,lol.

I would of thought a .63 would be slighlty restrictive on the evo... especially seen as it a 2.3, whats the deal there? Its whacking out some proper numbers and still has good low down.

Charlie Chalk

iTrader: (1)

Went out in YUM, Sadly not for a full blast on this new engine, but what Dave showed me.. It was simply awesome!

Simon, I got to go out in yours soon

Si B

iTrader: (59)

Righty then, replies to everyone who asked a question or I wanted to add something:

Cheers Stu, nice as it is comparing them, simply speaking, both are flipping awesome IMHO

Good memory, Dave confirms it a little lower down.

Mad Mile would have been great, I drove it once with Helen and I can see why it would be a popular run at night when the roads would have been quieter!

Not sure on Dave's, my full road trimmed Saph was 1400kg on our work's weighbridge. He must have lost loads with the interior removal, but even with a good T45 cage, he's probably added 50 kgs plus back into it.

My Evo currently stands at 1440 kgs, fully road trimmed, wet weight inc spare wheel.

Maybe Dave knows or can estimate his?

Sure it would have been Tim, I know there's a lot more to it than just the power, but I bet there wouldn't have been a lot in it full stop. Perhaps I'll get to race around with one of the other big spec cars soon enough (prod prod to Martin / Mike Rainbird etc!)

Thanks Dave, mine made 476 bhp at the wheels against your 491 bhp. Looks like we both have been using a 20% transmission loss.

Here's a vid of mine on the rollers back in April, can't find pics or vids from my November visit

I have no sound card on this PC, so no idea if this is a good video or not - sounded awesome in person is all I remember - knowing my luck I've just posted a vid of the car warming up on the rollers

Also this was before I had my silenced decat added, map tweaked, and valve stem seal failure sorted by Mark Shead, so excuse the smoking which is now cured



I'd say so, but I'm biased! As I said at the top though, 2 very different cars for different needs. Mine is a road biased track car, Dave's is perhaps a more track biased road car to sum them up.

Hi Nick, good post / point raised , so can I pick your brain on it please? Or anyone else that knows:

In Laymans terms, how might one gearbox shape the graph differently to another car? My run was done in 3rd of 5 gears. IIRC Dave's was also run up in 3rd of 5 cogs.

Very interesting point

Sure it would be Spikster, not going to happen now, but I'm sure I can find another decent spec Cossie to hassle!

Thanks Rich, knowing how my car goes, I'd have loved to feel how Dave's car went too I'll have to go out in his Clio or whatever track runabout they have bought to see what that's like instead

Thanks Glen, hopefully everyone will keep this on track like it's supposed to be.

Good point, will get a mod to delete any drivel from here, as this is looking like a well received and interesting post

Yep deffo. It's done 194 mph at god knows what RPM. Mine currently with the Evo VI 5 speed box tops out around 170 ish on the clock, 165 on the GPS. On my original box which lasted 4 days under my driving , it was an Evo 8 box, together with a longer final drive ratio - in those 4 days I had it off the end of the 180 mph clocks several times.

I'll be rebuilding that box and putting it back in, as the gears go by way too quick at the mo

My old box:



I'll post up one of Simon Norris' Evo engine graphs if it comes to seeing what engine comes out on top Know of many 1000bhp + Cos YB engines do ya?

Yay it's Mike Nice to have you back or more obviously posting on here. Love the banter with Rich Plus you bring a knowlegeable response and genuine interest to the post.

My at the wheels figure is 476 bhp, Dave's is 491 bhp.

Dave's posted his graph above, mine is "in the post" and has been for the last 3 weeks Triton Motorsport being slow to forward it on.

25.5% losses for Dave, 24% losses for mine so same end result with the graph pretty much

Some of the lads on the MLR work things out really oddly - for example my 476 bhp @ wheels / 0.76= 626.3 bhp. So depending on how they have worked it out, some of the MLR figures need taking with a pinch of salt.

Have you a graph for your car at all? Old or newest engine spec?

As above post, 24% losses for me, 25.5% for Dave, so same end result if I used the ATW graphs, more or less.

Fair point though, if I had the ATW graph for my car I would have done that, as what get's to the wheels is most accurate and relevant.

Cheers Charlie, horses for courses and all that, but I too would take either. Dave's is worth a lot more than mine so I'll struggle along with my Evo for the time being

Good work, looks just like the graph I had already posted in my first post though

Tis true in this case, smaller turbo and larger motor = get going quicker!

Shame we'll have to stay hypothetical on this, but I seriously think there'd be very little in it on the average circuit.

That'll be up later when I get off my arse and add them

Good impartial review, I'm sure you're right, and yes this comparison is only looking at a very mild version of Dave's engine. Totally different story if his car was finished I'm sure.

Yep, as nice as my Silver one is to drive, the Black one is nicer still at normal speeds. I am very impressed how responsive / non laggy my Silver car is though for a 600 bhp engine, way way better to drive than my low comp T4 Cossie for example - Silver cars drives sweet from 1400 rpm upwards, and is very happy round town.

I'm keeping my keys closely covered up when near you Helen, at least if it's gone I'll know who too look for

1440 kgs, Carbon roof, bonnet, boot and spoiler all help. Air con removed as per Chip, but I have now bought all the bits to put it back in - weighs 24 kgs

The previous owner thought that 24kgs might stunt the 590 bhp performance

It's a 100% road car, so it has all creature comforts and will retain them. I missed the air con this year, so it will be back in asap.

Risky post on a Ford forum, but broadly speaking I'd agree. 15-20 years of newer development should see a normal Evo being better than a normal Cos.

However with Dave's mods - like the beam and very trick Leda coilovers, proper stiff shell etc I bet the old Escort would shift round the bends as well as the straights.

Not yet, I plan to soon as I can get to see JJ and nick his Performance Box.

Also entering the MLR 30-130 competition whenever that is announced. Will prob run it at the Pod at Central Day too.

A head to head with your Astra would be cool

Deffo not a one trick pony, your Cossie can deffo get round corners fast as well as belt down the straights.

My BC Coilovers brand new were Ł750, I'd hazard a guess 3 way adjustable Ledas were a tad more right?

Hi Pete,

Mine is only the small GT35 with .63 housing, with a .82 it would make more. Also the map is very conservative as I do a lot of track work. Leaning out the mixture might lend perhaps another 20-30 bhp maybe?

Also, I'm on standard head, standard inlet manifold and throttle body - all ok at this level, but really need work if more power was wanted. I would expect in the region of 650-680 bhp if I threw a lot more money at it.

I would also expect the box to die a lot! I'm still on a totally standard box, and diffs etc, they seem to just about hang on to 550 bhp, any more is really borrowed time

Shame we'll never know, so I'll just speculate that I'd kick Dave's arse! Especially seeing as we'll never know for sure

Shell V Power for me, although my car has the standard ECU in it, so will happily run on normal 95 ron unleaded or any other brand of Super, as the standard knock control is retained and is very effective on Evos.



Think that covers that lot, next up, torque curves to be added

Si B

iTrader: (59)

Good summary of things there, I'd agree fully.

Regarding how the car does it, I wonder if this has anything to do with it: My car is an Evo 8, but the engine and ECU are from an Evo 9 - so I have a MIVEC engine, unique to the 9 and improved again for the Evo 10.

My inlet cam has variable valve timing that is controlled by a serperate MAP on the ECU, giving the car good low down numbers, complete with better lift at higher RPMs. Best of both worlds.

Prob more to it than just that, but I'm sure that helps at the bottom end of the graph.

Next track day matey, you're always welcome if you see me there, jump in!

AlexF

1440kgs?

And people say skylines are heavy!!!

Mines about 1460kg (R33 gtst)

Alex

rapidcossie

do both these cars idle at 4 thousand revs?

Si B

iTrader: (59)

Fraid so Alex

One trader on the MLR who has a lot of money, lightened everything he could, and then some to the point of OTT, and with cage I think he got near 1090 kg dry. That would be nice, but I don't have the money to do that and don't want to ruin a nice comfy car

wozzy

yeah but a proper skyline weighs more

Si B

iTrader: (59)

Yep, lumpy cams you see



Nah, some of my lower figures are on page one in the table. The Yum run seems to have started recording at 4k and up, so that's where my comparison graph starts. My graph starts at around 2000 but I didn't post that as I didn't have anything to compare it to.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

if you have a 6 speed box, the drop between the gears will be less and you can stay right within the power band, if you change that to a 5 speed box, you've got to spread the ratio's a bit so you spend fractions more time out of the power band

and if the box is rated to max out at 165 and daves maxes out at 200, you've got an even bigger spread of gears in the esco than you have in the evo, so you gain more and more advantage than you would loose with the 100 or so bhp deficit on a short twisty track

the power really makes itself known when you get to the top speeds as it'll still keep pulling whereas yours might still keep puling but it's simply run out of gearing

would still have been awesme to see both cars ding a timed lap of a circuit with different points for speed and time dotted around the track for comparisons

turnover

in my opinion i thought it would produce more power @ 1.9 bar on a gt40,with all the other goodies ie inlet tubular cams etc,as my gt35 is not far off that figure at simular boost with standard 2wd manifold.On race fuel it is obviously alot more but on v power makes around 600hp,just seams a little low ?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Mark builds his engines to work with the turbo, he likes a lot of boost and the engine is specced accordingly, if 1.8-1.9 bar was the ultimate aim of the engine, I suspect it would have been specced slightly differently to give better figures at that boost, but that then would have compromised it elsewhere in dave's case as 2.4 bar was the plan of course

Si B

iTrader: (59)

Ok, new graph with torque figures overlaid onto it

Dotted lines are the torque curves.






Could have been tricky to organise, but then I remembered the simple use of one of those Performance / V Boxes would have got us that exact data. I think I'm going to save up and get one. Loved the data Lee Cav Turbo got for me from Castle Combe.

As Chip says below I'm sure:

As already mentioned before, the comparison isn't scientific at all, Mark hadn't finished mapping Dave's car, so it's miles off full potential. I could only guess at the figures, but with a 2.4 bar plus boost spike like Mark likes to run, the torque would have been mega.

As it stands currently, I have a tad more torque

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

chip the only thing mark specs different to run such high boost that i can see is that he obviously runs less ignition???as cr and ports and cams are very similar to many other big engines around???i cant see how else it works...as said 1.9 bar isnt considered low boost to most on a yb especialy at 8.4cr and said engine spec...
cheers danny

Steven_RW

Firstly - both great cars and in the real world, loads of fun and awesome.

As for this comparison, (based on the limited handful of facts and the rest filled in with speculation) it really draws out some amusing perspectives.

I also love the terminology of high and low boost.

low being 28 psi and high being 35 when rounded.

When low boost is 80% of high boost, is it really that 'low'

As said, love both motors, just can't see the benefit in a comparison like that.

Cheers

RW

Si B

iTrader: (59)

Hi Steven,

Comparison was just for the hell of it really. Not a lot better to do yesterday evening while trying to wind down for the night.

How about this graph for you - Yum, my Evo and an Engine that Norris Designs have done for a customer, that will also make it's way into the Bogie - makes interesting viewing:



Fancy a race round the Ring in May 2010?

Steven_RW

That is a more worthwhile comparison. As even when you take into account the error element created by the differing situations (engine in car, out of car on dyno, low boost, high boost, gear ratio comparisons, ambient air temp differences, variance in 'stickyness of tyres', differences in rollers (age, calibration, operation, location, run down technique when used for flywheel and so on)) the green line/Norris engine, is very much likely to be a considerably faster car than the other two, assuming what we know about the bogey current setup, stays constant. Whereas it is very tricky to say the same about the original two under going comparison in the rest of the thread.

Potentially I should just type bah humbug.. after all it is just guys shooting the shit over fast cars...

Cheers,
RW

kouzman

Very interesting comparo guys! Bravo!

YUM Cossie is one of my favourite. Excellent power and torque!

The EVO is good too! Glad to see Dyno Dynamics graphs so i can have comparos with my car too...

Love the torque curves in both cars. Of course the extra displacement helps.
This is my LAAAAGGY lil car's dyno. A 2.0 stock bore, stock head, intake manifold, throttle body, with a 63mm billet Precision turbo with 0.82 a/r...

Red line is the dyno on 93 R+M/2 octane at 27psi max boost, 3rd gear, 10.9-11:1 afrs...
460awhp / 325 ft-lbs



At ~30psi same tune the car ran a 11.36 @ 132mph @ 3370 lbs with me in...

turnover

All im saying Chip is i would of expected more power from such a big turbo,with all the correct parts Dave has on his engine,obviously will be a quick car,and agree that any Gt series turbo ran at 34/36 psi makes alot more power but obviously increases the bore pressure dramatically and wont be as realiable,
Just seems low bhp for the turbo and supporting mods,my opinion ovcourse,,,,,

Chip

iTrader: (3)

500bhp @ the wheels is a shitload of power mate, I think there are too many people claiming this sort of power without actually having it making it seem easier to achieve than it is TBH

I wouldnt have expected anymore than that personally, 100bhp less than it made at 2.4 bar seems perfectly reasonable to me.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

is that saying 970 brake

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Si,
Can we have the link to Mr Norris's Supercharged / GT45 thread?

MikeR

For you Mr Rainbird,

http://www.lancerregister.com/showth...hreadid=295077

Simon also says there is another 100/150bhp left it this engine

Mike

pee vee

Si...
at what point do you expect your car to be slower than yum??

you get more torque and more BHP earlier on, in a car with better suited transmission and possibly a lighter shell???? and a better chassis..

the only time Daves YB makes more of anythin is above 6500, and you aint spending THAT much time up that high on track to make it chalk and cheese.

Both are obviosly fukking brutal cars though.

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

Great thread ..Pretty much what I would have guessed/expected to see with the extra capacity and the difference in bore and stroke ratios..

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

theres more than just boost missing there as i cant see 7-8 psi of boost making 100 bhp difference at that level...you didnt answer my question yesterday chip about the differences or reasons why mark uses so much boost????iv never seen 7-8 psi make a 100 bhp before you???

cheers danny

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

Danny,

I was told on an efficient engine 1psi extra equates to 8-10 bhp.

MikeR

Fucking hell Rich becarefull there, people will start saying you think Marks engines are more efficient

Mike

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

rich iv seen alot of ybs on the engine dyno and on the rollers and once your upto that level its more like 5-7 max per psi...id understand if the mapping wasnt finished but it had been dynoed already to 2.4 bar so not mapping...mind you the first time my engine was dynoed it did 582 bhp and only 539 in car...over the last year iv changed a few things and got it upto 592 in car on same rr at 1.9 bar at 2.2 bar it done 602 bhp so i gained 10 bhp with .3 bar just for example...
cheers danny

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

lol. I didnt hear that from Mark which is probably why it is inaccurate

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

it is funny though because so many think theres something special about marks engines,like he uses something us other tuners dont or cant..maybe it is just magic.lol..obviously he builds a good engine uses a reasonable management and is willing to try new products (turbos etc) but at the end of the day were talking ybs here, theres only so much you can do to one....thats why i respect martoon so much as hes is very different from many others and it fucking works even though there were many doubters...

cheers danny

Its Dave

iTrader: (4)

Nothing special, just builds a good engine

Hows the 200mph car going? Got a engine for sale that will give you the double ton but then you know that already

turnover

[QUOTE=Chip;4548902] I think there are too many people claiming this sort of power without actually having it making it seem easier to achieve than it is TBH

the figure is very easy to achieve,but obviously we dont all have buckets of money to spend

dojj

iTrader: (3)

you want to see that pic of rod's graph, where it virtually doubles it's power within a few hundred revs

obviously mark's got matching turbo's to engines down to a fine art form and is not really wrong by more than a few bhp

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

yeah your right he does build a very good engine and id never doubt that....the double ton project isnt even going mate as the guy isnt giving us any funds!!!i can actualy build your tall engine for around what you want for it so not realy vaible for me even though id love to buy it just to see what magic there is in there..lol..
cheers danny

Benni

I see you don't mind baiting other people, but it's not so funny when it's happening to you or Helen. If that was the other way around, you'd be crying for it to be locked by now.

Benni.

Mark Shead

Go and look at Daves engine dyno graphs and its plain to see what the diff is, 100ftlb and 64hp for the extra boost and I would expect it to transfer the same amount in to the car.

Mark

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

that has nothing to do with my reply mate were talking bhp gains per psi on the same engine thats already been mapped to max boost...
if you got rods engine and turned it down 7.5 psi it wouldnt loose 100 bhp is what im saying...
as for ppl saying its easy to get 600+ bhp well its not just about money as you can do it the cheaper way it just wont last as long but its not as easy as just bolting things together its about getting the right combos and mainly about the right mapping with the right combos hence why we all end up using the same parts or there abouts..
cheers danny

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

64 bhp extra for 7 psi of boost is 9bhp per 1 psi so what i was told many years ago, by my mate with a bleed valve wasnt far off