cra1g

Im thinking of taking my saff cos 4x4 to stage 1, not sure wich way to go about it though. Do i just by a plug in chip and see how things go or do is going to be better to take it some were and have them set it up and remap it.

All opinions are welcome.

daviddunlop83

iTrader: (7)

A custom remap will always bet slightly better.

Why stage 1 and not a bit more. Chip/map, injectors, map sensor and actuator?

martysmartie

iTrader: (1)

Imo it's best to look at the engine spec first to determine the engines health, milliage etc, for example if it still has it's original head gasket which is a weak point.

Yes stage 1 is just a remap essentially along with a higher boost pressure.

You can do it DIY, but it's not just a case of 'plug and play' as many think!

Take it to a tuner if you do to get your AFR, ignition etc checked.

Martin

opposite lock

iTrader: (3)

I had a stage 1 and setup done by MSD on 2wd it must of been pretty bad as the conversion transformed the car. Before they saw to it the engine ran lean at higher revs on standard boost.

LHD220Turbo

iTrader: (4)

for stage 1 its simple to set up yourself, but i would recommend getting the fueling checked.

but as said above, what state is the engine in to begin with?

NMS do a great gunship conversion for stage 1

rog

iTrader: (2)

Rsmat

iTrader: (2)

I believe of the same person I've just spoke to you at the side of my 3dr...if You want stage 1 get the bits from Msd and I will fit it you... But my preference on a 4x4 would be go straight for stage 3.

cra1g

Engine is in good health, its done 108k with full service history and 6 months before i bought it (4 years ago) it had a full head rebuild at Hendy ford Southampton i have paper work to back it up. Its done no more than 3000 miles since.

I dont really have the money to spend on stage 3 as i am also upgrading breaks and suspension.

Thats why im lookingat stage 1.

cra1g

Yes Mat its same person. Thanks for the offer of fitting, that not really a problem for me. Main reason for stage 1 is stage 3 abit out of my budget for now.

Your car is looking mint by the way, money well spent.

oldford

You also have to consider fuel prices nowadays.
The higher you go in stages, the more fuel you need.

Stage 1, when properly done, will be a big step.

plynchy

Found stage 1 to be a nice increase from standard on mine 10 years ago and it's ran sweet as a nut ever since.

I'm in the process of upping it to stage 3 now, which was prompted by the MSD xmas sale...

Only had the car 16 years, am I being hasty?

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

That depends on the usage really,

If you put a T3 std car next to a 500BHP T4 car, the T4 car would actually be better on fuel on the motorway at 70-90 mph as it will never be on boost and can stay at lambda 1 for much longer than a smaller Turbo.

My T4 car was doing almost 38mpg on a run!

Obviosly, flip the coin and use it hard, and big power cars drink fuel as they require more fuel to keep a safe AFR under hard load.

Stage 1 is very simple to do, works really well, but they do have a habit of leaning out at high revs, so its always worth having a pro check it over, or ideally go for the 803 greens so you can run the T3 hard. The Std injectors are really a bit too small.

It doesnt have to be that much more expensive to go the stage 2, 803s route.

oldford

Hm, I didn't need turbo boost until 115mph, so 90mph shouldn't be that different.
And yes, that was "only" stage 1. The rest of the car was completely standard except for a small change to the amal valve.

JamesH

iTrader: (21)

NMS Gunship

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

In general day to day use, you will be off boost much more in a bigger turbo powered car. Thats just generally the way it is, the boost threshold is totally different.
My T34 car was making 36psi at little over 2.5k, With a T4 it will be more like 3.5-4k at a minimum, they work well living around 5k.

Its really common for people to see some cruise mpg gains going up in power,if they step to a larger turbo.

oldford

You are trying to tell me dat a BIG disadvantage of Big turbo's is actually a blessing in the sky? I am more fond of low down torque my self. And what's that going to mean for the mileage? Not great news I suspect, unless you're a shareholder of an oil company.
And if you drive normal with the flow of the traffic you don't need turbo boost. You never need it for cruising at speeds up to 115 mph. So with a speed limit of 70 in the UK most of the driving will be off boost, no matter how big the turbo is.

I have driven more than 200.000 miles with stage 1 chips (both 2wd and 4wd) and never had the urge for more. Besides, even in Germany a good stage 1 goes right up to the top of the tacho (7000 rpm) in 5th gear. That's enough for me.

v man

big plus 1

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

I'm not saying its a blessing, but it's a fact.

You say bigger turbos and power need more fuel and will be more thirsty, and all I'm saying is the lower half of the fuel map is quite the opposite it will probably have less fuel in it. So if you drive in these areas if the fuel map you won't use more fuel at all!

Stage 1 is great if your not after much power. If sticking to a T3 I would always advise 803 greens where possible as they suit the T3 perfectly and it can be allowed to work a little without the issue of going lean which all stage 1 cars will have because the Injectors are too small and the boost will have to tail off at high rpm to keep a stable safe afr

If you cruise a stage 1 car at lambda 1 and then swap injectors and do the same with a T3 803 setup the fuel consumption would be identical as the engine will need the same fuel quantity to run lambda 1. Only becomes heavier on fuel if driven harder.


More power doesn't always mean worse economy. I just depends how you use the car.

oldford

You are contradicting your self. Only the 2nd statement is correct. When running closed loop there's only 1 possible setting for the lower half of the fuel map.

I had a customer that was running one of my stage 1 chips in his 2wd Sierra.
I claimed 261 bhp and 360 Nm for that, which was measured on a very professional engine bench. The specific fuel usage was measured at 320 grams/Kw at WOT, more than enough, maybe even a little bit too much, so I saw no problems with the injectors.
At that time I had no stage 2 available and the customer ordered a 280 bhp set from the UK.
803's, 3-bar map sensor, the works. He drove around with it for a couple of days and then went back to my stage 1 chip. His explanation was that the car was simply faster with my chip with the added advantage of being more fuel efficient.

JamesH

iTrader: (21)

I wouldn't bother banging your head against a brick wall arguing mate

Anyway, all this T4 rubbish has nothing to do with stage 1. Gunship is a great conversion, and Karl really knows what he's doing

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

No im not mate,You just dont understand.
On a big turbo it wont be making boost where a smaller T3 will be. So there is less fuel in the map there.
Compare a T3 fuel map with one from a T4 and you will see the fuel map is totally different (As you would expect!).
The low down part of a T4 map has much less fuel in it as the car is always off boost down there because the turbo is more lathargic, where as the T3 wants to make boost early.
The breakpoints are even shifted around low down as the T4 map will not need as many load sites, and can make better use of them higher up in the table.

Scenario 1 was a swap to a bigger turbo.(they will have less fuel low down in the map, thats a fact Because the turbo makes its boost Higher!)
Scenario 2 was with both cars on a T3. (running bigger injectors doesnt mean it will use more fuel at cruise and idle, infact it will be the same if the same target AFR is used.)

The chip you used must have been terible then, as its almost impossible to make the same engine, with the same turbocharger slower by allowing it to run more boost, All i can say is the fuelling must have been horrific, as a good 803s T3 car is actually pretty fast, and would kill any stage 1 car as you would imagen because it can hold higher boost levels. Combined with the way the T3 makes boost really early and low down, they are a great road car.

But hey, what do i know, i do this and map these cars for a living.

From reading your replies, it sounds like you have never been in a T4 powered car, to see they are off boost far more often than a little T3.

I wasnt saying your original comment about more power meaning more fuel was wrong, im just saying it totally depends how the car is used and driven, so its not as clear cut as you made it out to be.

oldford

Well, it seems other reputable tuners do agree with me that making more power will use more fuel. I did a 300 bhp Sierra 4x4 set for Green Ligth Tuning from Gerard Sauer and was allowed to use 25% more fuel.

After a bit of struggling with the fuel usage I decided to take a look at the software for the L8 and found the bugs why it was using so much. Changed the software and got a perfectly good running car.

Gerard Sauer is not the man to take just your word, so he went to the Millbrook Proving Grounds with a completely standard car and the one with my chip (and injectors and 3-bar map sensor) in it.
He couldn't believe the measurement he got and rerun his test twice.
And that included a couple of laps at top speeds on the high speed oval.
The result was 23.6 mpg for the standard car and 24.1 mpg for the 300 bhp set.
So it all depends on the software and whether or not there are bugs in it.

I still do not agree with what you say about fuel maps and making boost.
Even the smallest turbo you can find will not make boost when you do not press the accelerator. So, also a T3 will not make boost unless you press the accelerator enough.

But hey, I am only in the (chip) tuning business for 25 years now, so what do I know about it.

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

Im not saying making more ultimate power will not use more fuel, of course it will, on boost under load, no doubt about that whatsoever. A T4 car at 32psi on 83s will return 7-10mpg under hard load if you are lucky.because it flows more air, so in turn requires far more fuel to maintain a safe AFR. That point is not in question.

But the bigger turbo powered cars will spend more time off boost, thats my point.

it comes down to usage. so its not a simple as "if you fit bigger injectors or a bigger Turbo it will use more fuel" because that is not true, it depends on many other variables.

I have used all manner of spec Cosworth cars for many years on daily basis, completed 75k miles in 3 years in my last one.
And if i were to use a T3 powered car today for my trip to work there are a few places i could see some boost, but swap to a T4, no chance i doubt i would ever see positive pressure on a daily basis. And thats my point. It comes down to usage.

Also the smaller turbo exhaust housings are a massive restriction in the exhaust, by fitting larger housings the engine becomes far more efficient.

As for stage 1 economy, well its pretty easy to improve over the std map, it was far from perfect, and there are many areas for improvment, not just in the fuel map.

If you 255 the top line of the fuel map, you can still go lean on a T3, as the turbo can outflow the std injectors. so you cannot allow the turbo to do its thing at high rpm,the boost has to be capped. which is why i advise 803 greens, as they outflow the T3 which is always by far the safest option.

You get a similar situation running 803 greens on a T34, where the turbo can outflow the injectors, so boost has to be capped. In that case with a T34 i would advise 55lb Siemens, so the turbo can be used flat out.

oldford

I am not to worried about outflowing the standard injectors or 803's for that matter.
The Weber-Marelli software has a unique feature that will lower the turbo boost when the injection times are longer than the time needed for 2 engine revolutions.

And as I said earlier, a specific fuel usage of 320 grams/Kw is more than enough.
I do limit the turbo boost, but that's because you can't measure more than 1.1 bar with a standard map-sensor and I do need a small window to regulate the boost pressure.
I consider using more boost than you can measure very, very bad practice and I wouldn't use such a chip anyway nor would I advice anybody to buy one. In the contrary, I would advice strongly against it.

As for the bigger turbo's spending more time off-boost, that's what I call a BIG disadvantage. It will also lead to drivers staying longer in a lower gear and making more rpm's to get a decent acceleration. And that only benifits the oil companies and their share holders.

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

it may well be a big disadvantage for drivability, and again i completly agree. But on general daily use it would be better on fuel in most cases, because of the disadvantage it has.

Using higher RPM is all part of owning and tuning a car with a large turbocharger. Which is why i would always find out what the customer wants and intends to use the car for, before specing a turbo/engine.

803 greens T3 packages will use a 3 bar sensor which covers more than enough scope for a T3.
The Boost on the T3 will always tail, no matter what you do as the compressor is so small the engine can easily consume all the air it can make at high RPM as VE increases.

The same with our 55s T34 Packages, we peak at 32psi, but from then on the waste gate is closed and the turbo runs flat out. The boost will naturally drop as the engine starts to consume more and more air, so the turbo cannot maintain high plenum pressure.
As far as safety goes, its the best way to go, you could weld the wastegate shut, and still not go lean and melt and engine, as they fuel the turbo flat out anyway.

RSRoy

Please delete

CHUNKYS RS

i have a stage one chip from yourself and am very happy with it but after reading this thread am now thinking it would be safer to get some 803s ,do i need to change the chip again if so how muchand do i need a 3 bar map sensor

oldford

Are you really recommending spending several thousand pounds on a turbo, injectors, chip, etc., just to save a couple of penny's during daily driving? That is if you can control your self and don't press the throttle too much and don't use higher revs.

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

Jesus fuck is this guy retarded???

It is a VERY simple concept!!! Let's work through it together

For example:

1) a car running a T3 turbo, at 1 bar/ atmosphere ( 0 on the boost gauge, neither vac or pressure) @3000 rpm on a cruise throttle, required 5cc of fuel per pot ( example figures!) to maintain an AFR of 14.7:1... If it is running standard yellow injectors, that could be 40% duty cycle, or 50mS.. For exactly the same conditions, but running green 803 injectors, the duty cycle would be lower, say 30% and 40mS due to it being a higher flowing injector... However, the TOTAL amount of fuel injected is STILL 5cc per cycle. You could use a 83lb injector, and be only at 5% duty cycle & 10mS, but it will STILL be injecting EXACTLY 5cc of fuel per cycle to maintain the 14.7 AFR!

2) a T4 turbo has far less back pressure than a T3 turbo, and does not produce useful boost until 1500RPM later (again example figures!) ... It stands to reason, for the same Rpm, say 4000RPM @ 80mph, the T3 will be in its boost region, and have a good deal more back pressure, than the larger, free flowing T4 turbine...this creates more pumping losses, So the T3 will require more fuel at the same RPM to maintain a constant speed!

3) it is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that once the T4 comes on boost, it will require MORE fuel than the T3, due to the vast amount of extra air being provided!!

Is it REALLY that hard?

The point James is making is that a larger turbo is more efficient for cruise due to lower pumping losses!! It is not rocket science

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

Fuck, I'm turning into Chip

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

Who's recommending anything?

I'm simply replying to your post regarding more power means more fuel, and my answer to that is, it depends on the cars use.

If a customer came to me for a road going car using it for his daily drive to work, would I recommend a T4? Lol no, nothing would be a worse choice as the car would be lathargic, laggy, off boost almost all the time during his daily drive, not good for performance at all in that situation.

But it would be better on fuel. That's a fact!

So your bold statement was wrong IMO. Big power cars are not always more thirsty, IT DEPENDS HOW YOU USE IT.

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

At last! Lol

More efficient and off boost alot more often, my T4 car was doing 38mpg on a run, I've heard people say they have seen 40mpg

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

New chip, but I can do a full refund on your old one against the cost

Need a 3 bar and a set of 803s

foreigneRS

what we've learnt from this thread: wil can explain things better than james

Rsmat

iTrader: (2)

Hey presto...!!!!!!...

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

I agree, although I don't believe I should have had to even try to explain something like this to someone in the tuning industry lol

Rsmat

iTrader: (2)

He didn't quite...grasp what you was saying after 36 replies...

botters

iTrader: (2)

funniest thread ive read in a while that guy was a proper retard
reckons he is mapping cars for a living but wouldnt want to use any boost on one as thats giving money to the oil companies! why fucking map onethen? bin the yb and fit a diesel if you dont want to use fuel lol!

KSA-Cossie

iTrader: (4)

Sorry James but,

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

Hey we still don't know if he gets it yet