skyline map touch up yesterday less boost more power :)
20-12-2009, 04:20 PM
#1
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
skyline map touch up yesterday less boost more power :)
my fuel pump was loosing a bit of preesure so when it was fixed had the map altered a bit to suit. i was previously running 536 bhp at 1.4 bar, im now running 1.2 bar at 544 bhp 
we did see 555 bhp but that was injectors 98 % and abit more ignition than hed like to run so pulled it back to safer level. my 660cc need uprating for 800cc injectors now and 600 hp should be in site at 1.4 - 1.5 bar
we did see 555 bhp but that was injectors 98 % and abit more ignition than hed like to run so pulled it back to safer level. my 660cc need uprating for 800cc injectors now and 600 hp should be in site at 1.4 - 1.5 bar
Trending Topics
20-12-2009, 04:47 PM
#8
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
there is one for sale 600 bhp mint rb motorsport built done i think 4k miles but its Ł15000
,its hard to argue with that,must get lots of sideways action mate
20-12-2009, 05:27 PM
#19
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
while richard was mapping he said its making very good power for the boost and is a fuel hungry engine. normally 660 cc would make 600 bhp.
tr racing said the head has had extensive porting work and inlet matched so im assuming thats why its making such good power and using so much fuel at such low boost. afr was 11.8 on boost to 11.5 near the limiter.
wheel bhp was 460.1. they were very good gave me 10 printouts showing all boost settings, afr etc.
tr racing said the head has had extensive porting work and inlet matched so im assuming thats why its making such good power and using so much fuel at such low boost. afr was 11.8 on boost to 11.5 near the limiter.
wheel bhp was 460.1. they were very good gave me 10 printouts showing all boost settings, afr etc.
20-12-2009, 05:31 PM
#21
while richard was mapping he said its making very good power for the boost and is a fuel hungry engine. normally 660 cc would make 600 bhp.
tr racing said the head has had extensive porting work and inlet matched so im assuming thats why its making such good power and using so much fuel at such low boost. afr was 11.8 on boost to 11.5 near the limiter.
wheel bhp was 460.1. they were very good gave me 10 printouts showing all boost settings, afr etc.
tr racing said the head has had extensive porting work and inlet matched so im assuming thats why its making such good power and using so much fuel at such low boost. afr was 11.8 on boost to 11.5 near the limiter.
wheel bhp was 460.1. they were very good gave me 10 printouts showing all boost settings, afr etc.
A ported head certainly shouldnt make the engine consume more fuel for the same power for example, so it would be interesting to hear what he thinks is causing the problems?
20-12-2009, 05:44 PM
#22
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Assuming your fuel pressure was correct etc, if you are putting that much fuel in without making the power, it implies the engine isnt efficient somewhere as its certainly not running mega rich at that AFR (which can drop power), timing would be the obvious place to look but im sure he has done that.
A ported head certainly shouldnt make the engine consume more fuel for the same power for example, so it would be interesting to hear what he thinks is causing the problems?
A ported head certainly shouldnt make the engine consume more fuel for the same power for example, so it would be interesting to hear what he thinks is causing the problems?
richard doesnt think its a problem he said to me you cant generalise with these things all engines are slightly different. he could of made maybe 560 - 565 bhp but injectors would of been 100 % and he said he wont run it any higher than 90% so it has some headroom incase any fuel pressure issues arise. pressure is set at 3.5 bar base and its holding 4.7 bar on full boost. when the 800cc injectors are fitted it will be back down to 3 bar base. he had it at 555 bhp but said to me hes got to take abit of ignition out so its safe. im gonna run it about abit now til i get used to it and want more , atleast i have plenty of tuning headroom left with the engine not needing to be touched internally.
20-12-2009, 05:47 PM
#24
Is he not comparing it with other engines of the same type though?
Why should yours have a 10% lower BSFC than other RB lumps he tunes?
Just curious mate, im sure you couldnt care less about on boost economy anyway, so im not saying it actually matters in that respect, I would just want to know why, could be indicating oil contaimination limiting the timing etc.
Why should yours have a 10% lower BSFC than other RB lumps he tunes?
Just curious mate, im sure you couldnt care less about on boost economy anyway, so im not saying it actually matters in that respect, I would just want to know why, could be indicating oil contaimination limiting the timing etc.
,get it out in the snow and, man up lol
20-12-2009, 05:55 PM
#26
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Is he not comparing it with other engines of the same type though?
Why should yours have a 10% lower BSFC than other RB lumps he tunes?
Just curious mate, im sure you couldnt care less about on boost economy anyway, so im not saying it actually matters in that respect, I would just want to know why, could be indicating oil contaimination limiting the timing etc.
Why should yours have a 10% lower BSFC than other RB lumps he tunes?
Just curious mate, im sure you couldnt care less about on boost economy anyway, so im not saying it actually matters in that respect, I would just want to know why, could be indicating oil contaimination limiting the timing etc.
forgot to say it was richard bell at rising sun performance.
20-12-2009, 11:38 PM
#27
Yeah I saw on the graph it was Rising Sun.
It's where you said "normally 660 cc would make 600 bhp. " that made it sound to me like there was therefore an issue if your engine couldnt make as much power as other RB's on the same injectors.
But If Richard Bell says its fine, then im sure it is, might be as simple as something like having more overlap on your cam timing than most other people or whatever, or maybe he normally finds they prefer being in low 12s which would see a lower BSFC.
If it was mine, I would just want to know WHY it was different, so I would know if that was a good or a bad thing.
It's where you said "normally 660 cc would make 600 bhp. " that made it sound to me like there was therefore an issue if your engine couldnt make as much power as other RB's on the same injectors.
But If Richard Bell says its fine, then im sure it is, might be as simple as something like having more overlap on your cam timing than most other people or whatever, or maybe he normally finds they prefer being in low 12s which would see a lower BSFC.
If it was mine, I would just want to know WHY it was different, so I would know if that was a good or a bad thing.
21-12-2009, 12:03 AM
#28
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Yeah I saw on the graph it was Rising Sun.
It's where you said "normally 660 cc would make 600 bhp. " that made it sound to me like there was therefore an issue if your engine couldnt make as much power as other RB's on the same injectors.
But If Richard Bell says its fine, then im sure it is, might be as simple as something like having more overlap on your cam timing than most other people or whatever, or maybe he normally finds they prefer being in low 12s which would see a lower BSFC.
If it was mine, I would just want to know WHY it was different, so I would know if that was a good or a bad thing.
It's where you said "normally 660 cc would make 600 bhp. " that made it sound to me like there was therefore an issue if your engine couldnt make as much power as other RB's on the same injectors.
But If Richard Bell says its fine, then im sure it is, might be as simple as something like having more overlap on your cam timing than most other people or whatever, or maybe he normally finds they prefer being in low 12s which would see a lower BSFC.
If it was mine, I would just want to know WHY it was different, so I would know if that was a good or a bad thing.
sorry mate i got that a bit wrong
richard said from the start hes unsure on injectors and its gonna be very tight.
ive read on the gtroc forum people saying there good for around 600 bhp.
but thats owners i guess and not tuners.
21-12-2009, 10:15 AM
#33
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
current rear wheel power is 460 bhp. ran in 2wd as his rollers ar only 2wd.
should be over 500 rear wheel bhp at 1.5 bar.
21-12-2009, 10:21 AM
#35
10K+ Poster!!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
same make but different garage.
he did a run before anything was touched and i have a before and after graph.
but its only correct up to 6700 rpm as it was getting abit lean so he backed of.
red is old set at 1.4 bar.
blue is new set at 1.2 bar.
:
460 is rear wheel bhp, graph showing boost and afr curves.
he did a run before anything was touched and i have a before and after graph.
but its only correct up to 6700 rpm as it was getting abit lean so he backed of.
red is old set at 1.4 bar.
blue is new set at 1.2 bar.
:
460 is rear wheel bhp, graph showing boost and afr curves.
Last edited by scoooby slayer; 21-12-2009 at 10:33 AM.