Best Tuner around leicester?
#82
No1 Blower.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess if you have optimised the ignition on the dyno you wouldnt want to change it on the road as you would have no idea if it was better or worse....
That plug ionisation gadget is mega.........
You wanna check that one out boys..
That plug ionisation gadget is mega.........
You wanna check that one out boys..
#83
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Rushden, Northants
Posts: 3,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Phil
Surely as a rolling road tuner you'd know better than to start quoting guestimate flywheel figues though
On a more serious note, good debate lads
I've been out with Karl setting my own car up and I must say it is very difficult to test things on the roads, trying to keep grip and the pwoer down long enough to see all the revs before you brake to avoid hitting the back of someone etc..
With enough patience it can be done on the roads, but my personal 'money no object' preference would be to map it in a proper engine dyno cell for all the testing (at absolutely every possible load point etc) and then tweak the map at Brunters or somewhere similar to check everything is fine 'in car'
A question to the mappers, can you see things like ignition etc having to be altered between a dyno cell and road situation or is it mainly fuelling/charge temps that differ...
On a more serious note, good debate lads
I've been out with Karl setting my own car up and I must say it is very difficult to test things on the roads, trying to keep grip and the pwoer down long enough to see all the revs before you brake to avoid hitting the back of someone etc..
With enough patience it can be done on the roads, but my personal 'money no object' preference would be to map it in a proper engine dyno cell for all the testing (at absolutely every possible load point etc) and then tweak the map at Brunters or somewhere similar to check everything is fine 'in car'
A question to the mappers, can you see things like ignition etc having to be altered between a dyno cell and road situation or is it mainly fuelling/charge temps that differ...
what happened to your engine phil???
Dingy, a certain weight takes certain power to get to a certain mph over the line, use 2 of the 3 factors you can calcutate the missing factor as rule of thumb, yes optimum gearing will effect 1 maybe 2 mph but thats all, my car was running a 3.31 ratio on a T5 box with 25.8 dia tyres and this is far from perfect for that low power with grip hence my time lost bogging on the line. BHP dont mean shit but it does take a certain amout to achieve things. I'm off now so happy chatting
#86
Danny, a 300bhp scoob can get 115 over the line, so you could have 320 going on that theory...
Weight is important but so is grip, and yours grip's like fuck regardless of pwer...
i still think 347 is a little high for that turbo at that boost, not trying to be funny, i am sure you could work out the exact bhp it could make on a 2litre engine also.
Weight is important but so is grip, and yours grip's like fuck regardless of pwer...
i still think 347 is a little high for that turbo at that boost, not trying to be funny, i am sure you could work out the exact bhp it could make on a 2litre engine also.
#87
Originally Posted by Danny B
oh and tim will run 116 with said 270hp as its lighter, less power will mover lighter load
good night
good night
#88
No1 Blower.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance is about the area UNDER the curve, Dinky, not the peak value anyway, surely?
Why does your car only give 350 bhp with 29 psi boost, is it an old crossflow or something? Do like them old pushrods.......
Why does your car only give 350 bhp with 29 psi boost, is it an old crossflow or something? Do like them old pushrods.......
#89
dan, just being realistic, not talking bout BS power fgures adn that was @ 5200
My car is faster now than i has ever been its probably 370bhp in reality at 2.3 bar.
PMSL @ the power under the curve, talk about missed my point....17psi @ 347bhp i think is not possible, sorry.
My car is faster now than i has ever been its probably 370bhp in reality at 2.3 bar.
PMSL @ the power under the curve, talk about missed my point....17psi @ 347bhp i think is not possible, sorry.
#90
No1 Blower.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE:-17psi @ 347bhp i think is not possible, sorry.
Well Pingu,
Not possible? Try 590+ bhp on 1.1 bar with 2.8 litres(F40)
Or 450 bhp from 2.1 litres at 1.2 bar (RS200)
Or 280 bhp @ 1 bar from 1900cc CVH (Q673 RNV been in the odd mag don't you know 13.1@110. 0-160 in 32 sec-in under 1 mile)
Or 455 bhp from 1781cc vw at 1.5 bar (Dubsport's Golf ran 10.99 with full steel body, all glass windows, full comfy trim, heater etc -been in mags all around the world that one)
Or 1100 bhp from 0.8 bar from 5 litres (Porsche 917 circa 1973)
Or even 800bhp from 2.65 litres from 1.2 bar (Indycar)
Fact is, if you are needing to use 29 psi to get that sort of power you have a serious volumetric efficiency deficiency mister, so why not get yourself down here for a good engine build and some binary refinery for lower times, EGTs, boost levels and running costs!
Well Pingu,
Not possible? Try 590+ bhp on 1.1 bar with 2.8 litres(F40)
Or 450 bhp from 2.1 litres at 1.2 bar (RS200)
Or 280 bhp @ 1 bar from 1900cc CVH (Q673 RNV been in the odd mag don't you know 13.1@110. 0-160 in 32 sec-in under 1 mile)
Or 455 bhp from 1781cc vw at 1.5 bar (Dubsport's Golf ran 10.99 with full steel body, all glass windows, full comfy trim, heater etc -been in mags all around the world that one)
Or 1100 bhp from 0.8 bar from 5 litres (Porsche 917 circa 1973)
Or even 800bhp from 2.65 litres from 1.2 bar (Indycar)
Fact is, if you are needing to use 29 psi to get that sort of power you have a serious volumetric efficiency deficiency mister, so why not get yourself down here for a good engine build and some binary refinery for lower times, EGTs, boost levels and running costs!
#92
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 17psi with a T34 .63 on a very worked YB engine will produce no more than 300bhp sorry to burst the bubble ..You just can not do enuff to an engine to produce that power @ that pressure on a T34...IMO of course
PS F40 was twin turbo wernt it?
PS F40 was twin turbo wernt it?
#93
No1 Blower.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to start getting rude is there.
Engine efficiency is what we are on about here.
Big power figures with minimal boost..!!
WRC cars run a restrictor on their turbo and still make over 500lb/ft.
Now that suggests a proper ENGINE to me....
DRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Engine efficiency is what we are on about here.
Big power figures with minimal boost..!!
WRC cars run a restrictor on their turbo and still make over 500lb/ft.
Now that suggests a proper ENGINE to me....
DRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#95
Not getting rude mate, but that above post aint done you any favours...
The F40 as far as i know has 2 T4 style turbo's to make that power @ 1.1 bar.....what has that got to do with a t34....?
IF i strap a GT30 on my engine it will make 500bhp......so the engine aint the restriction, its the fact the t34 dont flow enough air to make the power.
The F40 as far as i know has 2 T4 style turbo's to make that power @ 1.1 bar.....what has that got to do with a t34....?
IF i strap a GT30 on my engine it will make 500bhp......so the engine aint the restriction, its the fact the t34 dont flow enough air to make the power.
#96
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Rushden, Northants
Posts: 3,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok your welcome to put MY engine in your car and it WILL run more MPH than your engine will at less than 20psi boost, dont care what power it is as its the PERFORMANCE that matters. we put both engines in and run same boost see what the out come is, wayne map mine and karl map yours but they both go in your car and we get 3 runs each.??????????
#97
my car is shit @ pod tho mate
made 124.9 tho....
What does your engine rev too btw ?
apmsl if you think @ 20psi it will be quicker over the line, no chance.........but u cant fooook off if ya think i am changin engines cause the RR says its got that power. What was the power @ the wheels @ that boost btw ?
made 124.9 tho....
What does your engine rev too btw ?
apmsl if you think @ 20psi it will be quicker over the line, no chance.........but u cant fooook off if ya think i am changin engines cause the RR says its got that power. What was the power @ the wheels @ that boost btw ?
#104
Jeebus
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Posts: 8,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kept blowing the pressure cap on the header tank at the end of a run at Brunters (standard dash mounted water temp guage seems to run about 20 seconds behind the actual water temperature so only went up when I was slowing down and SECS monitor read temp to be fine)
Thought i'd fixed it by bleeding it through, next run melted number 4, melted plug and had dropped bits of the 2 exhaust valves...
Thought it would be water pump but that looked fine once removed, metal headgasket was fine, no cracks in the block or nothing so I never really did find out! Air lock at back of head is my only real guess...
Thought i'd fixed it by bleeding it through, next run melted number 4, melted plug and had dropped bits of the 2 exhaust valves...
Thought it would be water pump but that looked fine once removed, metal headgasket was fine, no cracks in the block or nothing so I never really did find out! Air lock at back of head is my only real guess...
#106
Jeebus
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Posts: 8,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dingy
The map says different phil
Admittedly previous head skimming would have taken the CR up slightly past 7.2:1 but i'm not sure if that would be a cause of what happened...
#107
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NORTHAMPTON
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 17psi with a T34 .63 on a very worked YB engine will produce no more than 300bhp sorry to burst the bubble ..You just can not do enuff to an engine to produce that power @ that pressure on a T34...IMO of course
You could leave the t34 in the boot then?
Volumetric efficiency is what it's all about at the end of the day..... but then you must know that I'm sure....
We've seen 300 bhp from an old pinto at 17 psi with it's crap head design, poor valve train geometry etc. so surely an efficient(ish) 16 valve, pent roof, plug in the middle, everything in it's favour type of motor should do a lot better.....
BTW, F40 has two little IHI turbos, about the same size as a t25, but the engine has very good volumetric efficiency....... those two words just keep coming up don't they?
Brake specific fuel consumption gets involved too when it comes to how much power you'll get, but then I'm sure you know that already......
BTW, what ever happened to John Walker from Bosch Motorsport?
#108
Thought this post had well and truly died.
I may know very little about cars and mapping, but at least I don't call MYSELF a specialist
I never thought I'd see the day that a "specialist" could register a 9.5 on my recently patented "bullshit-o-meter"
Dear oh dear
I may know very little about cars and mapping, but at least I don't call MYSELF a specialist
I never thought I'd see the day that a "specialist" could register a 9.5 on my recently patented "bullshit-o-meter"
Dear oh dear
#109
How much BHP @ wheels is danny's car jamie ?
its a fuckin f40 tho.......
karls @ 1.5 bar made 530@ wheels who gives a fook about comparing totally different speced cars.....v8 twin turbo vs a 2l single turbo
its a fuckin f40 tho.......
karls @ 1.5 bar made 530@ wheels who gives a fook about comparing totally different speced cars.....v8 twin turbo vs a 2l single turbo
#111
Caraholic
iTrader: (3)
If by "dyno" Wayne means "bench" or "engine" dyno, then I agree with the majority of his comments . However, if by "dyno" he is referring to a "rolling road", then APMROFLOL.
A rolling road is a fantastic diagnostic tool, but with it's inability to replicate "runs", it is nothing more than that.
I would also point out that on an engine dyno that a TO3/4B with a 0.63 a/r would achieve no more than a peak of 320bhp @ 17psi, no matter who mapped it. Given this, I would say that the 347bhp from Jamsport's flywheel calculated figure is no worse than other flywheel calculated figures. 320bhp equates to 275-280bhp@wheels...
Regarding the mention of the high torque figures from the rally cars with restrictors, these run up to double figure compression ratios, 119 RON fuel and almost 3 bar of boost (tailing to 7psi by the limiter due to the restrictor) to achieve these torque figures , so can hardly be compared to road cars of any description .
The F40 runs two IHI turbos and a friend of mine who has one that runs 1.2 bar reckons that this is supposed to equate to 525bhp. Having been in it, I would say that is a fair assessment.
A rolling road is a fantastic diagnostic tool, but with it's inability to replicate "runs", it is nothing more than that.
I would also point out that on an engine dyno that a TO3/4B with a 0.63 a/r would achieve no more than a peak of 320bhp @ 17psi, no matter who mapped it. Given this, I would say that the 347bhp from Jamsport's flywheel calculated figure is no worse than other flywheel calculated figures. 320bhp equates to 275-280bhp@wheels...
Regarding the mention of the high torque figures from the rally cars with restrictors, these run up to double figure compression ratios, 119 RON fuel and almost 3 bar of boost (tailing to 7psi by the limiter due to the restrictor) to achieve these torque figures , so can hardly be compared to road cars of any description .
The F40 runs two IHI turbos and a friend of mine who has one that runs 1.2 bar reckons that this is supposed to equate to 525bhp. Having been in it, I would say that is a fair assessment.
#112
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NORTHAMPTON
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:-....It does? Karl said it looked OK for a car running 7.2:1 when he loaded it up onto his PC and we didn't have any problems testing (but then you can only get limited testing done on a damp busy road!! ... Unquote..
So is this an admission that mapping on the road is sub standard, with the limited space/ grip available on her majesty's (often wet) public highway?
BTW, we were led to believe that Ranjs Escort popped because the ATS failed, causing the motor to go lean and advanced, as it does don't you know? If a file is optimised on the dyno and some component fails which alters the settings then it is likely to cause a problem, innit? Life is like that when stuff breaks. It's a shame that the short-sighted amongst us want to apportion blame for a component failure when the component was not manufactured by ourselves.
Has everyone forgotten how long that car ran fine after we did it six years ago, without a problem?
So is this an admission that mapping on the road is sub standard, with the limited space/ grip available on her majesty's (often wet) public highway?
BTW, we were led to believe that Ranjs Escort popped because the ATS failed, causing the motor to go lean and advanced, as it does don't you know? If a file is optimised on the dyno and some component fails which alters the settings then it is likely to cause a problem, innit? Life is like that when stuff breaks. It's a shame that the short-sighted amongst us want to apportion blame for a component failure when the component was not manufactured by ourselves.
Has everyone forgotten how long that car ran fine after we did it six years ago, without a problem?
#114
impreza wrx sti version 8
iTrader: (2)
JAMBO,
thats a good job it was a ahmed map then isent it
Quote:-....It does? Karl said it looked OK for a car running 7.2:1 when he loaded it up onto his PC and we didn't have any problems testing (but then you can only get limited testing done on a damp busy road!! ... Unquote..
#116
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NORTHAMPTON
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WAYNE SCHOFIELD
I was directed to this thread by a collegue who thought I'd find it amusing...........
So you can map a car on the road accurately can you. Er no.
I do ECU mapping all day every day and my cars have won six championships last year alone including Brit Car, Belcar, Porsche Club, Rallycross stock hatch (won every single round), Rallycross modsaloons and BMW Khumo.
You don't win races and championships with cars that do not give good power and you do not win championships with cars that blow up.
You CANNOT tell on the road that your engine is running with optimum ignition values as the values are often short of the point at which det sets in. It is also VERY dangerous, for yourself and the general public, and if you are happy for a 'tuner' to run your car in excess of 100mph on the public road then you , by vertue of the fact that you know that it is being done, makes you jointly liable for any DEATHS that might occur from this outragous activity. I am sure that any insurance company would invalidate any claim and this would leave you paying out for the rest of your life both fiscally and with guilt. Go make your choice!
Plug ionisation equipment will tell you much better than det cans if det is occurring but even these, a snip at eight grand, do not tell you when peak power is being made. For this you NEED to use a dyno.
Fuelling is simple enough in either scenario. A combination of wide band lambda and a Gas Analyser with a high volume pump will tell you what you need to know. You all SHOULD know that there is more to setting up an engine than just fuelling.
'Dynamic pressure' is what is responsible for the potential rise in pressure at high speed. The equasion for dynamic pressure ( in pascals) is '0.5 x fluid desity(in kg/meter cubed) x the speed squared (speed in meters/sec). This does not take into account the fact that the airbox is not designed to make perfect use of dynamic pressure so, by that vertue, the pressure in real life will be lower and could even be negative.
So, in regard to the comments made about the rise in pressure in the air box, You do the sums. You might next consider that the atmosphere we sit about in is generally accepted to be 101,300 Pascals. Compare the numbers with atmospheric values and you will see that basically, until you are doing over 150 mph, it makes three fifths of sod all difference- even in a perfect world. You might also consider that on a Cosworth system, using a MAP sensor as a load reference, any such pressure is compensated for anyway! 'Mute point' I think they call it.
As for the Depression created behind the car causing scavenging behind the exhaust- OH REALLY! Show us a relavant equasion then! Just how fast do you think a car goes compared to the speed of the gas exiting the tailpipe? Why do you think the F1 boys have done so much work with regard to positioning of the exhaust outlets so that it increases downforce on an F1 Car? Why would this be so if it were not exiting rearward faster than the car goes. Hot gas is, of course less dense than cold so this reduces the effect. Hot gas is also more viscous which also detracts from the effect but still the F1 chaps, who I am led to believe do actually know what they're doing, use the high speed exhaust gas to increase down force.
They also use dynos, a lot, by the way.
Fact is that there is some importance to TRACK testing (I am off to Elvington myself with a 593 bhp F40 next week, all being well) but the vast majority of PROFESSIONAL mapping is done on dynos. Period. No point arguing, you will lose.
I expect that there will be a plethora of replies to this post, some with limited merit, and some with none.
I am very keen to separate myself from other 'engine mappers' who are getting the industry a bad name through poor, dangerous, practices. They can afford to charge less money for a job because they have not made the necessary investment to do the job safely and properly. It makes me wonder where else corners may have been cut with their practices that the customer might not be aware of. I hope I do not get 'tarred with the same brush' as some other people claiming to do a proper job.
I am here posting just the once only to try to put the record straight between the professionals, the amateurs, those who understand and the generally misled! I am not here to plug my services, sell my wares, have bits of flash or java running through what I offer onscreen before your eyes. I never advertise anywhere because I do not have to. Reputation keeps me busy enough for me not to have any spare time left to plug my stuff on any forum- let alone host one!
Have a nice argument boys!
So you can map a car on the road accurately can you. Er no.
I do ECU mapping all day every day and my cars have won six championships last year alone including Brit Car, Belcar, Porsche Club, Rallycross stock hatch (won every single round), Rallycross modsaloons and BMW Khumo.
You don't win races and championships with cars that do not give good power and you do not win championships with cars that blow up.
You CANNOT tell on the road that your engine is running with optimum ignition values as the values are often short of the point at which det sets in. It is also VERY dangerous, for yourself and the general public, and if you are happy for a 'tuner' to run your car in excess of 100mph on the public road then you , by vertue of the fact that you know that it is being done, makes you jointly liable for any DEATHS that might occur from this outragous activity. I am sure that any insurance company would invalidate any claim and this would leave you paying out for the rest of your life both fiscally and with guilt. Go make your choice!
Plug ionisation equipment will tell you much better than det cans if det is occurring but even these, a snip at eight grand, do not tell you when peak power is being made. For this you NEED to use a dyno.
Fuelling is simple enough in either scenario. A combination of wide band lambda and a Gas Analyser with a high volume pump will tell you what you need to know. You all SHOULD know that there is more to setting up an engine than just fuelling.
'Dynamic pressure' is what is responsible for the potential rise in pressure at high speed. The equasion for dynamic pressure ( in pascals) is '0.5 x fluid desity(in kg/meter cubed) x the speed squared (speed in meters/sec). This does not take into account the fact that the airbox is not designed to make perfect use of dynamic pressure so, by that vertue, the pressure in real life will be lower and could even be negative.
So, in regard to the comments made about the rise in pressure in the air box, You do the sums. You might next consider that the atmosphere we sit about in is generally accepted to be 101,300 Pascals. Compare the numbers with atmospheric values and you will see that basically, until you are doing over 150 mph, it makes three fifths of sod all difference- even in a perfect world. You might also consider that on a Cosworth system, using a MAP sensor as a load reference, any such pressure is compensated for anyway! 'Mute point' I think they call it.
As for the Depression created behind the car causing scavenging behind the exhaust- OH REALLY! Show us a relavant equasion then! Just how fast do you think a car goes compared to the speed of the gas exiting the tailpipe? Why do you think the F1 boys have done so much work with regard to positioning of the exhaust outlets so that it increases downforce on an F1 Car? Why would this be so if it were not exiting rearward faster than the car goes. Hot gas is, of course less dense than cold so this reduces the effect. Hot gas is also more viscous which also detracts from the effect but still the F1 chaps, who I am led to believe do actually know what they're doing, use the high speed exhaust gas to increase down force.
They also use dynos, a lot, by the way.
Fact is that there is some importance to TRACK testing (I am off to Elvington myself with a 593 bhp F40 next week, all being well) but the vast majority of PROFESSIONAL mapping is done on dynos. Period. No point arguing, you will lose.
I expect that there will be a plethora of replies to this post, some with limited merit, and some with none.
I am very keen to separate myself from other 'engine mappers' who are getting the industry a bad name through poor, dangerous, practices. They can afford to charge less money for a job because they have not made the necessary investment to do the job safely and properly. It makes me wonder where else corners may have been cut with their practices that the customer might not be aware of. I hope I do not get 'tarred with the same brush' as some other people claiming to do a proper job.
I am here posting just the once only to try to put the record straight between the professionals, the amateurs, those who understand and the generally misled! I am not here to plug my services, sell my wares, have bits of flash or java running through what I offer onscreen before your eyes. I never advertise anywhere because I do not have to. Reputation keeps me busy enough for me not to have any spare time left to plug my stuff on any forum- let alone host one!
Have a nice argument boys!
Chassis dynos (AKA rolling roads) have better repeatability than many of you might expect and the flywheel figures are arrived at by measuruing the overrun losses and adding them to the wheel power measured. Most of the good chassis dyno manufacturers will tell you that the repeatability is within 1% run to run. Over time there will be some temperature 'creap' which causes the rolling resistance of the tyres to change and a slight change in trans losses but if you do 'back-to-back' runs, repeatability is good.
Camber, toe, tyre width, section depth etc all affect measured wheel power so just quoting wheel power is not good either. It is a comparison tool at the end of the day, better is better, however you measure 'better'.
You absolutely cannot feel a 1% difference on the road, so what's the point arguing the merits of mapping in one or other scenario?
Just accept, please, that mapping on the road IS dangerous and fatally flawed at best. The best scenario IS to start on an engine dyno, do some further work on a chassis dyno 'as installed' and then to finish off on a test track to do the dynamics and transients. Fact. Sorry if you don't accept the above but fact it remains.
For us, and many championship winners around the country, the best compromise is the rolling road. There have been a great many more rolling roads sold in the UK than engine dynos and this alone should tell a story for those open minded enough to actually THINK about things.
#120
impreza wrx sti version 8
iTrader: (2)
Chassis dynos (AKA rolling roads) have better repeatability than many of you might expect and the flywheel figures are arrived at by measuruing the overrun losses and adding them to the wheel power measured. Most of the good chassis dyno manufacturers will tell you that the repeatability is within 1% run to run. Over time there will be some temperature 'creap' which causes the rolling resistance of the tyres to change and a slight change in trans losses but if you do 'back-to-back' runs, repeatability is good.