i belive my new figures of 245bhp so my conclusion is that just about every vee owner on hear has proberbly a lot less than that if they are standard or with slight modification soif you think you have 230-240-250 you havent for an industry thatworks i thousands of an inch rolling road figures are a make it up that looks right can we get away with it lets pretend how do we make it look good fiddleling fairy tail misleading bollox but if it makes you feel happy seeing your graph say 300 hores power when it isent good luck to ya when spending lots of money on work i want to know the truth [smilie=boohoo.gif]
There is more to life with TurboRenault.co.uk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
HORSE POWER =BULLSHIT
- Thread starter ray
- Start date
- Status
ray":221o33j4 said:
I think you might have hit the nail on the head there Ray !
I think many of us take RR figures with a pinch of salt because of the wide variations they give and some of the 'agendas' they may have to 'big up' the figures. It is good that you have found one that you trust and could be used to baseline accurate power figures. Maybe a couple of other Vees should be tried on it to benchmark say a stock Mk1 and stock Mk2 against your modified one. That way you can establish whether your car is delivering the increase over stock that you would expect ...
A guy on the GT4 owners forum did a simple boost upgrade, air filter and exhaust on a stock ECU and the RR he used said he had 310 BHP when stock is 259 BHP. He wouldn't have it that this figure was wildy high and couldn't possibly be accurate, but the 310 BHP figure is prominent on his signiature in each post, in bold type aswell.
I have only ever used a RR twice, and on both occassions that was a dyno shootout for the same make/model car to get a comparative 'on the day' figure of the differences between the cars and mods done. It is often recommended to use the same RR for comparative figures as modifications are done to establish the benefits of each mod but again, you have to trust the RR first etc.
I guess finally, it is pretty hard to get big power increases from an N/A engine so I would assume spending big money for relatively small increases is a fact of life - and that you would want every HP that you pay for to be deilvered and measurable. Unlike turbo cars where increased BHP almost seems like getting money for old rope - until your engine goes pop of course due to too much boost and detonation - been there, done that !
Martin
Over the years I've had lots of cars (hundreds!) tested on various rolling roads - here's my twopenneth FWIW
Manufacturer figures can't really be compared as they are produced on an engine dyno (where the engine is out of the car). Often they will be without the silencing arrangement that eventually appears on the car, with as much 'optimisation' as they can muster and under very controlled conditions.
When you go to 'tuning' rolling roads you need to decide why you are there. If you want figures for willy-waving purposes, it's easy to find several candidates that can oblige
The best advice I can give is to be consistent. Choose a rolling road and have the car tested BEFORE laying a single spanner on it. Now you have the baseline.
Once you have made changes, go back to the same rollers, at the same time of day and with the same weather. This week we have had 22 degrees on Wednesday and likely to be 10 degrees by the weekend. I'd cancel and wait for something more similar rather than skew the results. When I was tuning Evo's, we tested at 7.30am EVERY time, just to get the best chance at getting consistent conditions. Really, these 'shootouts' are only any good for the banter and the coffee - between car 1 and car 20, conditions have changed drastically, with car 1 having a massive advantage!
Never try to 'compare' rolling road outputs as there are just too many variables to make the results worthwhile - temperature, humidity, operator, airflow, fuel quality - they all make a difference.
Doing it this way means that when you go back the next time, if the figures improve, then work out the % over the previous time. I'm not over bothered whether the rally car shows 300 or 200bhp, I just work out the percentage improvement/decrease from the ORIGINAL (not the last time!).
Approach the whole thing as a measure of your own relative improvement and it can be useful, getting hung up on on 'absolute' figures will make you bitter and twisted
Manufacturer figures can't really be compared as they are produced on an engine dyno (where the engine is out of the car). Often they will be without the silencing arrangement that eventually appears on the car, with as much 'optimisation' as they can muster and under very controlled conditions.
When you go to 'tuning' rolling roads you need to decide why you are there. If you want figures for willy-waving purposes, it's easy to find several candidates that can oblige
The best advice I can give is to be consistent. Choose a rolling road and have the car tested BEFORE laying a single spanner on it. Now you have the baseline.
Once you have made changes, go back to the same rollers, at the same time of day and with the same weather. This week we have had 22 degrees on Wednesday and likely to be 10 degrees by the weekend. I'd cancel and wait for something more similar rather than skew the results. When I was tuning Evo's, we tested at 7.30am EVERY time, just to get the best chance at getting consistent conditions. Really, these 'shootouts' are only any good for the banter and the coffee - between car 1 and car 20, conditions have changed drastically, with car 1 having a massive advantage!
Never try to 'compare' rolling road outputs as there are just too many variables to make the results worthwhile - temperature, humidity, operator, airflow, fuel quality - they all make a difference.
Doing it this way means that when you go back the next time, if the figures improve, then work out the % over the previous time. I'm not over bothered whether the rally car shows 300 or 200bhp, I just work out the percentage improvement/decrease from the ORIGINAL (not the last time!).
Approach the whole thing as a measure of your own relative improvement and it can be useful, getting hung up on on 'absolute' figures will make you bitter and twisted
My thoughts on this...
Clearly Ray's car is not making 290+bhp at the moment. Whether it's 245, 225, 265 etc is down to each RR and its operator's application and interpretation on the day but it's pretty safe to say it's not knocking on the door of 300bhp. As Ray says the difference between the two is huge and not simply down to standard variables. What's needed is a bit more background info and some members have alluded to this with questions about current and past performance. Big power increases (claimed) on our n/a engine don't come with similar big increases in torque as well so although the car should undoubtedly accelerate a bit quicker than a standard car the more noticeable benefit of such an increase would be an improvement in top speed. The standard cars don't have the power to reach the rev limit in the tall top gear and so a Mk2 should pull somewhere near 153mph. A car with a 40-50bhp increase should get more than that, though how much more I couldn't say. A side by side comparison with a standard car would have been interesting with both in standard aero trim (no spoilers/splitters). A similar comparison today would also be helpful and possibly more indicative of the current performance than a range of dynos.
Was there a noticeable difference in performance when the car was first delivered back? Were any comparisons made to suggest such an improvement? Does the car feel the same now as when delivered back? ( if that's possible to genuinely judge).
My first thoughts on getting a result like that would be to get a few checks done to test things like compression level, fuel pressure, afr, injectors,,, to see if there are any reasons that might point to such a disappointing result. Did the dyno operator make any comments? I believe the original mods and mapping were carried out a few years ago so there is potential for something to have changed. Mine certainly did over time and benefitted from remapping occasionally. For the record I feel the suggested result (292 I believe) was optimistic from the modifications done but that is based purely on a wide reading of many websites and forums where people have modified their cars and had them tested and from talking to various people and dyno operators all more qualified and experienced than myself.
Having seen and personally experienced hugely varying results on the same car in the same state on different dynos it is entirely possible that the original result was say 20bhp on the generous side ( my current base engine made 272 at Norris Designs on an engine dyno with then similar mods to Ray's) and the more recent result could be 20bhp on the pessimistic side. That allowance would mean a difference of only 10bhp after 3 years or so and leave a car that is still better performing than standard.
It should be pointed out that the dyno where the car was originally mapped was neither owned nor operated by the person who carried out the work. Owen Developments have a good reputation and are well used to mapping race cars where the numbers are irrelevant but the real world results on track are.
Ray has obvious concerns that he has wasted money, I have been there and sympathise, it's one of the pitfalls of trying to modify a rare car that has no background of modifying to call on. Much of what is available is not widely tried and tested, if at all, some of it is pure chance as to whether it will be an improvement. MikeT bought his car and almost immediately began down the supercharged route and the car passed through several different hands, at huge expense, sometimes a step forward, sometimes two steps backwards but finally ended up running untroubled before breaking a conrod.....not the fault of any previous person, simply a car producing so much power and torque consistently, that a standard component, not built to those tolerances, failed.
I hope Ray can get to the bottom of his results. I doubt the work done would have produced a car essentially no more powerful than standard nor do I believe it was quite at the numbers suggested. I suspect that over time some issue has developed, maybe as a result of the original work, maybe completely unrelated, but that may be difficult to discover either way.
I would be very wary of trusting implicitly everything I'm told by a new tuner. It is a classic ploy, sometimes unintentionally, for them to talk down any previous work done elsewhere so as to appear more knowledgeable and trustworthy and to encourage you to put your money into their business. I work in retail and often hear customers describing what they've been told at other businesses, sellers being very dismissive of a product or service a customer is interested in that they are unable to supply to them themselves.
Everyone on here loves these cars and no one wants to see a fellow owner's misfortune with their car. Whether it is completely standard or highly modified, it's that mix of owners and experiences that makes the forum so interesting for me.
My advice would be not to rush to any conclusions. Get some more testing from different independant and unrelated testers and get some comparative results from standard cars to pin down what the current situation is. Try to eliminate any possible problems as mentioned earlier such as compression, fuel pressure etc. I'm sure Ray is onto this and will keep us infomed.
Best wishes Ray.
Tim
Clearly Ray's car is not making 290+bhp at the moment. Whether it's 245, 225, 265 etc is down to each RR and its operator's application and interpretation on the day but it's pretty safe to say it's not knocking on the door of 300bhp. As Ray says the difference between the two is huge and not simply down to standard variables. What's needed is a bit more background info and some members have alluded to this with questions about current and past performance. Big power increases (claimed) on our n/a engine don't come with similar big increases in torque as well so although the car should undoubtedly accelerate a bit quicker than a standard car the more noticeable benefit of such an increase would be an improvement in top speed. The standard cars don't have the power to reach the rev limit in the tall top gear and so a Mk2 should pull somewhere near 153mph. A car with a 40-50bhp increase should get more than that, though how much more I couldn't say. A side by side comparison with a standard car would have been interesting with both in standard aero trim (no spoilers/splitters). A similar comparison today would also be helpful and possibly more indicative of the current performance than a range of dynos.
Was there a noticeable difference in performance when the car was first delivered back? Were any comparisons made to suggest such an improvement? Does the car feel the same now as when delivered back? ( if that's possible to genuinely judge).
My first thoughts on getting a result like that would be to get a few checks done to test things like compression level, fuel pressure, afr, injectors,,, to see if there are any reasons that might point to such a disappointing result. Did the dyno operator make any comments? I believe the original mods and mapping were carried out a few years ago so there is potential for something to have changed. Mine certainly did over time and benefitted from remapping occasionally. For the record I feel the suggested result (292 I believe) was optimistic from the modifications done but that is based purely on a wide reading of many websites and forums where people have modified their cars and had them tested and from talking to various people and dyno operators all more qualified and experienced than myself.
Having seen and personally experienced hugely varying results on the same car in the same state on different dynos it is entirely possible that the original result was say 20bhp on the generous side ( my current base engine made 272 at Norris Designs on an engine dyno with then similar mods to Ray's) and the more recent result could be 20bhp on the pessimistic side. That allowance would mean a difference of only 10bhp after 3 years or so and leave a car that is still better performing than standard.
It should be pointed out that the dyno where the car was originally mapped was neither owned nor operated by the person who carried out the work. Owen Developments have a good reputation and are well used to mapping race cars where the numbers are irrelevant but the real world results on track are.
Ray has obvious concerns that he has wasted money, I have been there and sympathise, it's one of the pitfalls of trying to modify a rare car that has no background of modifying to call on. Much of what is available is not widely tried and tested, if at all, some of it is pure chance as to whether it will be an improvement. MikeT bought his car and almost immediately began down the supercharged route and the car passed through several different hands, at huge expense, sometimes a step forward, sometimes two steps backwards but finally ended up running untroubled before breaking a conrod.....not the fault of any previous person, simply a car producing so much power and torque consistently, that a standard component, not built to those tolerances, failed.
I hope Ray can get to the bottom of his results. I doubt the work done would have produced a car essentially no more powerful than standard nor do I believe it was quite at the numbers suggested. I suspect that over time some issue has developed, maybe as a result of the original work, maybe completely unrelated, but that may be difficult to discover either way.
I would be very wary of trusting implicitly everything I'm told by a new tuner. It is a classic ploy, sometimes unintentionally, for them to talk down any previous work done elsewhere so as to appear more knowledgeable and trustworthy and to encourage you to put your money into their business. I work in retail and often hear customers describing what they've been told at other businesses, sellers being very dismissive of a product or service a customer is interested in that they are unable to supply to them themselves.
Everyone on here loves these cars and no one wants to see a fellow owner's misfortune with their car. Whether it is completely standard or highly modified, it's that mix of owners and experiences that makes the forum so interesting for me.
My advice would be not to rush to any conclusions. Get some more testing from different independant and unrelated testers and get some comparative results from standard cars to pin down what the current situation is. Try to eliminate any possible problems as mentioned earlier such as compression, fuel pressure etc. I'm sure Ray is onto this and will keep us infomed.
Best wishes Ray.
Tim
I dont know much about the technical side of cars but from this thread it seems like there are an awful lot of variables in play with regards to RR tests. I can appreciate your frustrations Ray over all of this it would drive me insane too! I think the one option that this thread has highlighted is testing your vee against stock vees. The percentage difference/increase can then be measured over stock vees. I know it doesnt give you an outright bhp reading which is what you want but at least you have an idea over the performance increase. In other words you can test my vee on the RR! I would be fascinated to know my BHP output and for you what the difference is to stock. Only problem is finding a day off to do it! Take Steven up on his offer seems like a good idea. Good luck with it all and I hope you get some answers.
As it's been mentioned a few times in this topic, new RR owners will be telling you different things, some will be telling you want they want to gain from, and some what you want you want to hear after you've handed over the cash of course. This will apply to the new engineers who hope to gain your next wedge of cash. "Oh it's a bag of nails mate". Been there and really it wasn't such a bag of nails as they said. Also been there and it was a bag of nails, but that was totally my fault, I abused the car badly.
Take a perfectly well running car to any new place and they'll tell you it has so many things wrong with it. I once saw a big notice on the workshop foreman's desk which said "If there's nothing wrong with it, find something"
Pointlessly harping back to mine which was also modified a very long time ago, untried and tested new ideas cost money and sometimes don't work out. (Even to the sum of £27K). Perhaps they might even work for just a short while? who knows for sure with this stuff. There's no written certificates of guarantee for X amount of years in the future.
Many years later and wiser it's just a memory and a lesson learned I guess. Yes it niggles, but that's cars for you I suppose.
Take a perfectly well running car to any new place and they'll tell you it has so many things wrong with it. I once saw a big notice on the workshop foreman's desk which said "If there's nothing wrong with it, find something"
Pointlessly harping back to mine which was also modified a very long time ago, untried and tested new ideas cost money and sometimes don't work out. (Even to the sum of £27K). Perhaps they might even work for just a short while? who knows for sure with this stuff. There's no written certificates of guarantee for X amount of years in the future.
Many years later and wiser it's just a memory and a lesson learned I guess. Yes it niggles, but that's cars for you I suppose.
Ain't it a bloody journey owning and tuning a performance car ?!
I made a concious decision NOT to tune my Vee as the cost v return was prohibitive, based partly on what was being said by some of you guys (even years back), the relative lack of knowledge/tuning parts and that the engine is N/A - where I am used to turbocharged cars and the relatively low cost to tune (within reason).
I am sure we can all see, from this thread and others, the highs and lows of embarking on what can be a costly road to more Vee engine performance. If the Vee was more of a mainstream car undoubtedly the costs would be lower and the tuning knowledge and options greater, but perhaps then we wouldn't own them ? Add to that the element of trust you have to put in other people to give you the best advice, deliver quality work at a fair price and not to be treated as a cash cow ...
After all we could just go and buy any number of other cars and make them go fast for a lot less money & hassle - but where is the fun in that ?
All this doesn't change the fact that we all have different interests in our cars and objectives and I for one watch with interest and respect to see how each owner treads their own path whether it be engine tuning, bespoke developments, cosmetic changes, even the dreaded repairs ...
Martin
I made a concious decision NOT to tune my Vee as the cost v return was prohibitive, based partly on what was being said by some of you guys (even years back), the relative lack of knowledge/tuning parts and that the engine is N/A - where I am used to turbocharged cars and the relatively low cost to tune (within reason).
I am sure we can all see, from this thread and others, the highs and lows of embarking on what can be a costly road to more Vee engine performance. If the Vee was more of a mainstream car undoubtedly the costs would be lower and the tuning knowledge and options greater, but perhaps then we wouldn't own them ? Add to that the element of trust you have to put in other people to give you the best advice, deliver quality work at a fair price and not to be treated as a cash cow ...
After all we could just go and buy any number of other cars and make them go fast for a lot less money & hassle - but where is the fun in that ?
All this doesn't change the fact that we all have different interests in our cars and objectives and I for one watch with interest and respect to see how each owner treads their own path whether it be engine tuning, bespoke developments, cosmetic changes, even the dreaded repairs ...
Martin
Just my personal opinion and from my own experience. Its pointless making your rolling road/engine dyno results the be all and end all. It gets you nowhere. You find that "dyno queens" end up being a bottomless pits of money and spoil the fun of tuning your project car and the general ownership of it. Mainly because you find yourself chasing a meaningless number i.e bhp and lf/ft. At the end of the day there are only 3 "basic" factors to getting a motor running to its optimum with any spec regardless of how much money youve spent on it, how much machining work youve done to it or how much boost your running through it. Fueling, ignition and cam timing.....obviously! If they are all correct and you haven't reached your goal you will no doubt feel pissed off. Not because its running incorrectly or the rolling roader hasnt done his job right but beause the hardware you have simply isn't up to making your goal and we all know the next step from there. Get the wallet out and spending more monies! Then you find yourself back to square 1 again.
Some of the quickest cars Ive been in and seen have never been on a rolling road. A fair few were live mapped in real world conditions. I was speaking to a chap at the pod a year ago who was running a 1000bhp+ motor in a GTR Skyline. His intensions wasnt at aiming for a set bhp or lb/ft figure but making it as damn quick as possible. It showed too because there was no way a sub 1000bhp car would run times he was.
My opinion, nuts to rolling road figures. They are all a load of old bollox. Spec the car how you want, get it running correctly and go and drive it. I wasted 20 odd grand on an engine the year before last chasing the big number. I wont be doing it again. Don't get me wrong, I will no doubt spend wedge on a motor again but this time to make it quicker, not an X amount of bhp higher than previouse.
Good luck with it it Ray. Hope you get things how you want in the end :approve:
Some of the quickest cars Ive been in and seen have never been on a rolling road. A fair few were live mapped in real world conditions. I was speaking to a chap at the pod a year ago who was running a 1000bhp+ motor in a GTR Skyline. His intensions wasnt at aiming for a set bhp or lb/ft figure but making it as damn quick as possible. It showed too because there was no way a sub 1000bhp car would run times he was.
My opinion, nuts to rolling road figures. They are all a load of old bollox. Spec the car how you want, get it running correctly and go and drive it. I wasted 20 odd grand on an engine the year before last chasing the big number. I wont be doing it again. Don't get me wrong, I will no doubt spend wedge on a motor again but this time to make it quicker, not an X amount of bhp higher than previouse.
Good luck with it it Ray. Hope you get things how you want in the end :approve:
Take this as my opinion if you wish, but most of what I will say is the workings of the physical universe we occupy, so take it up with the big man (Prof. Brian Cox, not GOD) if you have issues.
Firstly, a BHP is a BHP......no if's and but's, It is 33,000 ft.lbs per minute. Just as an inch is an inch. Sure, there are small variations historically but even the metric PS is only, actually, 1.4% less than an old unit HP.....so variences are nothing to worry about. SAE/DIN are more to do with certification on the testing method and corrections. But for arguements sake, the RR in question is operated by a motorsport calibration SAE certified engineer, a qualification that has to be re-certified annually.
So.......
I really dont hold time for the arguements of different readings from different dyno's/operators simply because if it is your job/business then when you are, in its simplest form, measuring a force (torque) and deriving a work done (BHP) value through a known, and fundamentally sound, set of calculations.....you have no real scope for mis reading by large amounts.
So before you start argueing about this and that, lets think as simply as possible. When calibrating the load cell on your dyno you have a moment arm and and the vector, weight. So.....a 5 foot arm with 100lbs on the end is.....500 lb.ft. Calibration of the load cell done in essence, mess that one up and you really shouldnt be bothering. From that point forward, bhp is 'work done' or force x distance (torque x rpm in this case) again a mathmatical function we cannot deviate from.
Correction factors which become a massive point of arguement, are up to a point, the free will of the operator. But in the grand scheme of things, you'll have to fudge the figures a fair amount considering, all things are constant, a relative temp change in the air of 30 deg results in a net 10% change in air density, and a theoretical resultant change in power. However, with the machine in question, it has its own weather station and SAE correction, so it is not something to realistically worry about on 'small' output engines where percentage points only make up fractional output changes.
I am waffling now, so i'll stop. But the real point is not to cause upset in the community or between companies, but simly rays car was stuck on to see where we were starting from, and the real figure we are looking at is wheel hp. The RR in question also has recieved no money, nor are they chasing work as they do not 'tune' cars, they simply calibrate and test control systems. So what I am really trying to say, is that I have no doubt or failure to trust the figures we have seen.
On the flip side, the map on the car is fine, there are no major issues and fueling curves hold within an afr point of target.
What I must take up issue with is the constant nonsense that these engines are different or some sort of mystery to tune. They arent new, they arent of a radical design and they operate within the same laws of physics as any other engine. Parts might be hard to find because they arent labelled 'clio v6', but they are out there and have been for years. These engines are running around in the Belgian touring car series with 420 bhp and are used in other forms of silhouette racing platforms. The V6 might present its own difficulties with installation and resultant compromises, but by no means is the engine an unknown. In fact, due to its large capacity and initially low efficiency (bhp/ltr of 85 at its theoretical ideal) it could be argued that there is scope to make easy bhp gains simply because the multiplication factor is larger than a 2ltr engine.
Firstly, a BHP is a BHP......no if's and but's, It is 33,000 ft.lbs per minute. Just as an inch is an inch. Sure, there are small variations historically but even the metric PS is only, actually, 1.4% less than an old unit HP.....so variences are nothing to worry about. SAE/DIN are more to do with certification on the testing method and corrections. But for arguements sake, the RR in question is operated by a motorsport calibration SAE certified engineer, a qualification that has to be re-certified annually.
So.......
I really dont hold time for the arguements of different readings from different dyno's/operators simply because if it is your job/business then when you are, in its simplest form, measuring a force (torque) and deriving a work done (BHP) value through a known, and fundamentally sound, set of calculations.....you have no real scope for mis reading by large amounts.
So before you start argueing about this and that, lets think as simply as possible. When calibrating the load cell on your dyno you have a moment arm and and the vector, weight. So.....a 5 foot arm with 100lbs on the end is.....500 lb.ft. Calibration of the load cell done in essence, mess that one up and you really shouldnt be bothering. From that point forward, bhp is 'work done' or force x distance (torque x rpm in this case) again a mathmatical function we cannot deviate from.
Correction factors which become a massive point of arguement, are up to a point, the free will of the operator. But in the grand scheme of things, you'll have to fudge the figures a fair amount considering, all things are constant, a relative temp change in the air of 30 deg results in a net 10% change in air density, and a theoretical resultant change in power. However, with the machine in question, it has its own weather station and SAE correction, so it is not something to realistically worry about on 'small' output engines where percentage points only make up fractional output changes.
I am waffling now, so i'll stop. But the real point is not to cause upset in the community or between companies, but simly rays car was stuck on to see where we were starting from, and the real figure we are looking at is wheel hp. The RR in question also has recieved no money, nor are they chasing work as they do not 'tune' cars, they simply calibrate and test control systems. So what I am really trying to say, is that I have no doubt or failure to trust the figures we have seen.
On the flip side, the map on the car is fine, there are no major issues and fueling curves hold within an afr point of target.
What I must take up issue with is the constant nonsense that these engines are different or some sort of mystery to tune. They arent new, they arent of a radical design and they operate within the same laws of physics as any other engine. Parts might be hard to find because they arent labelled 'clio v6', but they are out there and have been for years. These engines are running around in the Belgian touring car series with 420 bhp and are used in other forms of silhouette racing platforms. The V6 might present its own difficulties with installation and resultant compromises, but by no means is the engine an unknown. In fact, due to its large capacity and initially low efficiency (bhp/ltr of 85 at its theoretical ideal) it could be argued that there is scope to make easy bhp gains simply because the multiplication factor is larger than a 2ltr engine.
So In short I have a some questions.
Has Ray spoken to Owen Developments and asked them why they think his car isn't showing what it was 3 or 4 years ago?
Is Ray's car now at Owens being dealt with?
Does Ray's car feel a great deal slower than it did all these years ago?
What was the reason for recently taking the car to the RR?
Has Ray spoken to Owen Developments and asked them why they think his car isn't showing what it was 3 or 4 years ago?
Is Ray's car now at Owens being dealt with?
Does Ray's car feel a great deal slower than it did all these years ago?
What was the reason for recently taking the car to the RR?
Quite simply James, I put Rays on the dyno for my own reference, nothing to do with anything else as i had no idea what the bhp was or what it was meant to be. When the car came in I had no idea which components the Motec was running and what was still being passed via the OEM ecu.
I simply relayed the info to ray and he does what he wants with the info. This has nothing to do with bashing any other firm (on my own premise) as there was no 'problem', the car, as it stands runs fine and is mapped fine as well, apart from some iffy cold start.
I simply relayed the info to ray and he does what he wants with the info. This has nothing to do with bashing any other firm (on my own premise) as there was no 'problem', the car, as it stands runs fine and is mapped fine as well, apart from some iffy cold start.
Possibly the impression comes from customers that don't get to see a catalogue of aftermarket parts to chose from as with Ford, Subaru, Evo, Honda etc.
Basic engine tuning principles are similar the world over as Ben implies.
Maybe the Europeans have a list of goodies we could try...? I'd love a copy of that catalogue to peek at.
All we are aware of are standard Mk2 upgrades (for a Mk1), some TWR development bits, (mystery) cams and non-specific filters and ecus and a range of exhausts/backboxes. Plus Jenvey.....
I'm more interested at the moment in understanding Ray's numbers, as I'm sure, of course he is.
I don't believe Owen Developments could or would obtain the figures they did on the car in the same state as when Ben has tested it.
Basic engine tuning principles are similar the world over as Ben implies.
Maybe the Europeans have a list of goodies we could try...? I'd love a copy of that catalogue to peek at.
All we are aware of are standard Mk2 upgrades (for a Mk1), some TWR development bits, (mystery) cams and non-specific filters and ecus and a range of exhausts/backboxes. Plus Jenvey.....
I'm more interested at the moment in understanding Ray's numbers, as I'm sure, of course he is.
I don't believe Owen Developments could or would obtain the figures they did on the car in the same state as when Ben has tested it.
Isn't the solution rediculously simple?
Take the engine out (you're clearly not shy of spending money) and get it put on a real dyno where you're not subject to flattery or the subjective estimations of "transmission losses", ambient temp corrections, poor cooling blah blah.
But ask youself first does it matter? Is the car better than it was for you? Do you need to attach an arbitary number to it in order to in some way vaildate the choices you have made? If you enjoy the car and you sense an improvement then go with it and just be happy.
The one thing I've learnt from all of this is that actually having the car and driving it matters so much more than a piece of paper with a graph that most people can't interpret and is largely found on a bunch of, at best, semi-educated guesses.
Cynical? yes, but after 3, nearly 4 years of watching and participating in this community and others it has become clear that it all counts for diddly squat and driving the things and enjoying them is what matters.
Take the engine out (you're clearly not shy of spending money) and get it put on a real dyno where you're not subject to flattery or the subjective estimations of "transmission losses", ambient temp corrections, poor cooling blah blah.
But ask youself first does it matter? Is the car better than it was for you? Do you need to attach an arbitary number to it in order to in some way vaildate the choices you have made? If you enjoy the car and you sense an improvement then go with it and just be happy.
The one thing I've learnt from all of this is that actually having the car and driving it matters so much more than a piece of paper with a graph that most people can't interpret and is largely found on a bunch of, at best, semi-educated guesses.
Cynical? yes, but after 3, nearly 4 years of watching and participating in this community and others it has become clear that it all counts for diddly squat and driving the things and enjoying them is what matters.
- Status
