The next step. More power!

[Peter255]

OK so just got the car back, had some scran and scanned the dyno traces in.

First impressions VERY Good! Loving the Pipercross noise (more on that in a minute.) and seems to pull noticeably harder.

Headline figures,
before (massive overfuelling) 228.6BHP
after (with BMC still fitted) 248.2BHP basically +20BHP

Now that may seem dissapointing but since then to sort out some niggling induction kit to sidpod pipe issues I asked Scott for the easiest solution which is to switch to Pipercross (due to pipe sizes). This has been done since the power runs. And what did we find? Well i think the existing filter had not been cleaned for 3 years! Ooops. It has sure done its job tho! The amout of crud that came out of it was frigthening. I've just had a quick go at cleaning it and an awful lot of crud came out. I am sure thats knocked a few ponies off the top end. Also and maybe to re-iterate the point, the second trace below is the same car, same configuration but giving ATW figures of 15BHP more a year ago. Either the car has lost 15BHP ATW (highly unlikely) or the dyno used this time is quite conservative. :wink:

Anyway I'm happy the fuelling is now spot on and i've got back up towards the expected figures. About 250BHP with a 3year old air filter on a conservative RR is not bad. I WILL get it on the rollers ASAP to see what difference the clean filter makes tho.

Cheers
Peter

Yesterday with dirty BMC still fitted

A year ago but same spec this shows the ATW figure for comparison showing +15BHP

 

[Mike T]

thats a massive improvement for an NA setup - I suggest Scotts advice may have been proven right again, it couldn't have been easy to get Mark to map something non Motec either!!

 

[Peter255]

And the above was with this filter in place! [smilie=icon_aaargh.gif] Thats gotta hit the flow at high revs!

BEFORE, utterly clogged!

AFTER, briefly washed out.

Peter

 

[Peter255]

thats a massive improvement for an NA setup - I suggest Scotts advice may have been proven right again, it couldn't have been easy to get Mark to map something non Motec either!!

The new dastek setup was suggested by Owen developments to Scott. Top bit of kit, which is much improved over old versions. Capable of managing a turbo'ed gallardo (run as their demo car).

Peter

 

[Duncan]

Its a great result Peter, i definately think you made the right move.

look forward to a good drive this weekend!! :approve:

 

[Peter255]

The Datek is £1k fitted and mapped.

The version of unichip I have is new. Its only just been launched. So it wasn't available for you (Tim) when you got your car done. At the time Motec was best option. As you said times have moved on. You do have much more options in future, its just a much bigger initial outlay.

On reflection the pipercross doesn't growl like the BMC did, it screams instead. A different sound. But its easier to fit so i'm happy.

Peter

 

[Mike T]

Motec is hugely more flexible for future developments and systems controls - hence the price difference.

It is the Mutts nuts but some may suggest a large investment for a road car!

Mike

 

[Peter255]

Motec is hugely more flexible for future developments and systems controls - hence the price difference.

It is the Mutts nuts but some may suggest a large investment for a road car!

Mike

Definately. For your setup Mike Motec is essential. Its the best, just quite costly. There is no point keeping anything from the standard setup when you completely change the whole drivetrain! You get to use all the extra features. For me I don't need all the features so this makes more sense.

Peter

 

[Peter255]

RR session booked for Sunday.

Will check the AFR post change of the induction, and see if any ponies have been released! Fingers crossed the map doesn't need adjusting!

I'll post up the results Sunday eve.

Cheers
Peter

 

[SteveT2]

How did you get on Peter, any good?

Steve

 

[Peter255]

Well if you believe the figures are comparable then the ATW figure is now slightly higher.... BUT the calculated flywheeel figure is lower. [smilie=doubt.gif]

And i do know that the car was tested in different gears and they used different methods to estimate or calculate the losses.

So i can pretty much draw feck all conclusions form the exercise. :evil:

But it was quite fun. I DID have the loudest car there. And the fuelling is now spot on. [smilie=icon_cheers.gif]

Peter

 

[Peter255]

What i really want is a dyno trace from a std car? Anyone?

Conclusion:
From what I can see the gains for the decat are smaller than hoped (only a few BHP), same for the remap. I'm now looking into plenum / headwork....

tbc. :wink:

Peter

 

[Peter255]

Modified inlet plenum is go. :approve:

Hopefully there are worthwhile gains to be had from better / more even flow across the cylinders.

Could we sneak upto 255BHP? [smilie=doubt.gif]

I'll get it on the rollers ASAP and let you all know. :wink:

Peter

 

[Peter255]

Speak to AWT if you are looking at head and plenham work as Ben is specific in this area and knows what hes talking about Peter - always worth a second opinion if you have access to one.....

Flow dynamics and not just "bolting parts on" are two worlds apart but im sure youve been advised correctly and given information across the different areas of this already.....

Looking forward to your results soon......

Tim [smilie=icon_chef.gif]

Ben's doing the work! :wink:

But thanks for the advise! :approve:

Peter

 

[v6Max]

Get BenR to drop the engine and put it on a "proper" dyno - it's the only way that'll you get true/accurate at the flywheel data.

As you've already experienced there are simply too many variables/methodologies involved in calculating the flywheel figure on a rolling road. You should also achieve better mapping with the engine out and on a dyno.

 

[Peter255]

I know what you mean about dropping the engine out and getting proper figures, BUT i'm trying to avoid that for obvious cost reasons.

I'll run this on the same dyno as before and may go back to Owens if fuelling is an issue (with the benefit of another more controlled power run).

The dyno guys i'll use know nothing about the mods, and have no connection to AWT so the test is unbiased, just a little inaccurate. [smilie=doubt.gif]

We shall see....

Peter

 

[v6Max]

I think the other way to look at this is that getting accurate power figures is only a "value add" from having the engine on a proper dyno - the real benefit comes from the ability that it presents to the people doing the mapping to hold the engine at specific load sites, more accurately, for longer blah blah.

 

[Peter255]

I think the other way to look at this is that getting accurate power figures is only a "value add" from having the engine on a proper dyno - the real benefit comes from the ability that it presents to the people doing the mapping to hold the engine at specific load sites, more accurately, for longer blah blah.

True enough! The thing is will i gain enough mapping on a bench dyno over mapping on rollers to justify the significant extra cost? I'm doubting that. [smilie=doubt.gif]

However if i go for cams / headwork etc (which is already engine out) then that does sound like the way to go.

Peter

 

[v6Max]

I think the other way to look at this is that getting accurate power figures is only a "value add" from having the engine on a proper dyno - the real benefit comes from the ability that it presents to the people doing the mapping to hold the engine at specific load sites, more accurately, for longer blah blah.

True enough! The thing is will i gain enough mapping on a bench dyno over mapping on rollers to justify the significant extra cost? I'm doubting that. [smilie=doubt.gif]

However if i go for cams / headwork etc (which is already engine out) then that does sound like the way to go.

Peter

True - it's only "worth" it if you've got the engine out - but I thought that was the situation you'd be in with Ben doing work on the induction.

 

[Peter255]

I think the other way to look at this is that getting accurate power figures is only a "value add" from having the engine on a proper dyno - the real benefit comes from the ability that it presents to the people doing the mapping to hold the engine at specific load sites, more accurately, for longer blah blah.

True enough! The thing is will i gain enough mapping on a bench dyno over mapping on rollers to justify the significant extra cost? I'm doubting that. [smilie=doubt.gif]

However if i go for cams / headwork etc (which is already engine out) then that does sound like the way to go.

Peter

True - it's only "worth" it if you've got the engine out - but I thought that was the situation you'd be in with Ben doing work on the induction.

Nope! The plenum can be removed by just removing the covers. Hence the decision. :wink:

I'm avoiding the engine out labour cost. Thats the whole idea. Engine out is the BIG next step.

Cheers
Peter