Tim

iTrader: (1)

Your cooler is deffo workin well
Sat 6th May Nobles Chesterfield a post will appear soon hopefully will keep you posted date anygood for ya.?

DaveEscos

6th may?


could well be up for that.. mine should be complete by then!


this time, no police helicopters or escorts!!!

Tony Turbo

Yeah mate, sounds cool

Linsay

AndyRST

Tim what ACT's were you seeing on PE rollers then ?

mad max

hi their yes it was noisey little sod ,boost controller was playing up it should have been over 400bhp it needs re mapping still good day out

Beach

Im up for that

kennyA

MadRod

That 60 - 100 time of just over 3 secs, brilliant.

0-130 in 10.6 secs, is that about a 1/4 mile?

kenny.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

I just CANNOT believe that you NMS boys are pinning all your blame about the Rolling Road results from PE on these 2 subjects.

1. The Peak torque WAS NOT made at 5700rpm on yor car Tim. Just like it wasn't made at 5900rpm on mine. It was a simple software glitch. My results were SO close to the ones I got at SCA. It's common universal practise for a Rolling Road operator to end the run when the car stops making significant power. If mine made Peak power at 5900rpm, then why rev it out? I can assure you, it did rev out. The Rev limiter banged and the Boost Controller RPM reading both confirmed that.

2. The Cooling was NO WAY as bad as some are trying to suggest. I ran a 2-Bar peak on that day. Making references to the Cooling being only adequate for moderately powered cars is ridiculous. I bet its a whole lots harder cooling 2-Bar in a 300bhp RST than it is cooling 2-Bar in a 400bhp Cossie, mainly due to Airflow and Intercooler size. From experience, I know for a fact that the ACT gauges are far faster to react than the Management sensors. I have watched the 2 side-by-side.

The only fault with the PE results is the suggested peak power point. Ignore that and the results were exactly as expected.

Tim

iTrader: (1)

1. The Peak torque WAS NOT made at 5700rpm on yor car Tim. Just like it wasn't made at 5900rpm on mine. It was a simple software glitch. My results were SO close to the ones I got at SCA. It's common universal practise for a Rolling Road operator to end the run when the car stops making significant power. If mine made Peak power at 5900rpm, then why rev it out? I can assure you, it did rev out. The Rev limiter banged and the Boost Controller RPM reading both confirmed that.


who said anythin about a software glitch news to me?

2. The Cooling was NO WAY as bad as some are trying to suggest. I ran a 2-Bar peak on that day. Making references to the Cooling being only adequate for moderately powered cars is ridiculous. I bet its a whole lots harder cooling 2-Bar in a 300bhp RST than it is cooling 2-Bar in a 400bhp Cossie, mainly due to Airflow and Intercooler size. From experience, I know for a fact that the ACT gauges are far faster to react than the Management sensors. I have watched the 2 side-by-side.

The cooling was pants ive never seen my fans on on the power run before that was a first for me as for the act gauges it read 35 after a run so it may have been in the 40's who knows if so then the act protection would retard the ignition no if's or but's.

facts dont lie 2 runs no alterations except much better cooling the results speak for themselves,or have you a better explaination?
Maybe Nobles over read by 25 hp who knows lol.


As for us NMS Boys pinning the blame on anything thats not the case it was just very strange where peak power was made something just doesnt add up so obviously you dont ignore it do you you investigate to see what was up.

Keith B

Haven't been on here for a few days and I was looking forward to reading this thread.

I find Karl's petulence hysterical - espeically when Tim himself comes on here with total humility.

Comments about high temp spots in the engine are churlish - people doing donuts for minutes on end or burnouts without any cooling are taking a chance but I've never heard of any problems and all these comments made about the PE RR on a freezing cold day!

Grey RS's car (formerly mine) has had 13 previous dyno runs at PE over the years varying from scorching hot summer days to icy winter days and the car never suffered from anything relating to temps. That engine did over 170k miles in a high state of tune without any problems.

I'd certainly use Karls services but I'd prefer to have someone like PE set it up.

foreigneRS

how much power are you making when doing a donut or a burnout? i don't think that the engine is at it's highest load once the coefficient of fricition of the tyres has been overcome is it?

it takes a lot of torque to unstick the tyres, but once done you can normally ease off the throttle and keep the donut or burnout going. or even if you hold it at WOT and bang it off the limiter, it won't necessarily be under full load, so the heat produced will not be as much as a rolling road run.

of course a typical power run is usually finished quite quickly so you might think that nothing has time to get hot, but all that power has to go somewhere.

le-claw

Interesting.

Made more power at less boost with a better power curve than when it was setup by PE. Also the 170k bottom end is a mystery as you can see daylight past the pistons .

So why would you want it set up when its making better power for less boost than it did before, that doesn't make sense.

As for the cooling, was pretty lame but then the rollers were all broke and anyone that actually takes the readings as being correct is kidding themselves. Same day, same rollers nothing more.

Billabong

Nick, I think Keith is reffering to lack of airflow over the IC when doing doughnuts..

foreigneRS

don't think so bill.

but that also proves my point that your not making much power (and hence not generating as much heat) when twatting about like that as you would doing a power run.

dumped

Not entering an arguement but I have seem many many american rolling road vids of very high hp/rpm supras etc running on VERY hot days with the smallest fan ever/sometimes none. They run mental race fuel so dont have the low det limits that we do but their engines must get stinking hot yet they are not suffering the localised hot spot failures or they would have changed to larger fans. I dont think its as big a problem as is being made out here. Not enough cooling for ACTs is a different matter imo.

foreigneRS

i'm not saying that the hotspots thing is a problem, or that a lack of airflow is a problem. just that it could be a problem that you should be aware of if you're going to do a power run.

not enough cooling for ACT's is not a problem, if compensated for properly in the mapping, it just means that you won't make as much power

Billabong

Doh! was skim reading both general forums and failed to fully read Keith's whole comments

Keith B

Le Claw:

My car made 224bhp and 210lbft of torque at PE with 125k miles on the bottom end running 18psi through a TT stage 2 hybrid and Pace Intercooler. It was a normal autumn day – not especially cold.

Linsay made 231bhp and 218lbft at PE with a run-in blue printed PE bottom end (same top end but cleaned up) and running 16psi through a larger TT stage 3 hybrid and huge GRS intercooler on a cold day.

7bhp and 8lbft from a new bottom end, a lot larger intercooler, and a turbo with greater mass flow capabilities for lower boost – can you see the differences?! – come back when you know what you’re talking about.

As a ForeignRS alluded to - tuners setting RS turbo’s up without the benefit of diagnostics and a rolling road seems very ‘ball park’ Perhaps that’s why there is advice of not running on the rollers etc. And dont forget the sales side - reputations for performance and reliability are made and lsot in the communications mecca of the internet. Bad news travels very fast – not good when you’ve got a crust to earn

ps: I'll be sure to tell Cosworth not to run their engines on an engine dyno incase they get 'hot spots' due to the lack of air flow in one of those places - or maybe they can phone Karl and ask him if its OK

Rick

Was going to say, it's now on a .48 housing and 230bhp for the boost and spec is bang on. My old engine used to make 210bhp @ nobles on a std head and a std turbo with 16psi, just a chargecooler and a cam. The current made 210bhp at 11psi with a 4by cossie turbo and Karls head.

The old bottom end was tired @ 170k. It didn't use oil - probably helped by the breather, but at 15psi it was flat. You could tell it was worn as i had to depress the metering flap to get it to start when it was hot, as there wasn't sufficient vacume for it to pulse. However, it did last and was reiliable till the end - just not big power.

le-claw

Keith, very funny.

I am not disbuting the small differences at all ffs...

The bottom end shouldn't make any difference to the power, just more reliable as the cc and compression would be the same (aside from the lack of contact between rings and bores )
The head was Karl tidied up, i know exactly what goes on there LOL....so the only thing in common with the old engine is the cam aint it. So actually comparing figures like you are doing is totally pointless, cause the only thing thats the same is the car it sits in. Its just good to see how things move on.

What you said was you prefered PE to set this up, when its clearly stronger now in this spec, its just a bit strange thats all and the only reason it doesnt make 250 at 18psi is the fact it needs more fuel.

Again i have no idea what i am talking about.
PE's rollers are awesome, the true mimic of 140mph flat in 5th from the huge fans is simply out standing.

Keith B

'The bottom end shouldnt make any difference to the power' - Why am I bothering to moot this thread?!

My basis was I'm surprised it only made 7bhp and 8lb/ft more with the differences.

No issues with the fans at all - its a 30 second test at full engine load. No cause for concern there. No one got high water or engine temps.

I have a feeling that there's something else going on here more to do with the owner of the car than the car itself. Who said shivelry was dead?!