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!
The next step. More power!
- Thread starter Peter255
- Start date
You will need to have it remapped for not just fuel adjustments, but ignition changes play a large role in how things turn out. The flow capacity of the inlets is increased dramatically as the choke point of the manifold is moved farther down. Where it used to be at the bell mouth (now 3mm larger at the critical dimention) and the bell mouth shape has been drastically altered from a more 'full radius' to an eliptical lead in to the runners, it will not only affect the flow characteristics but also the signal strength of the pulse wave. The VE curve will be very different and the igniton timing will need to be adjusted to suit, possibly to some very non typical values.
The main problem on the v6 inlet is the plenum volume headroom height above the trumpets, which affects distribution and total bulk flow capabilities. Same as on the nissan 350z where raising the plenum a mere 6mm can gain 10bhp.
I wouldnt be too worried right now as you have a lot of adjustments that need to be made and potential to make decent gains, you've just moved the restriction point to another point in the inlet. You have flow potential, just like a garden hose, but sticking your thumb over the end isnt going to help. Your main points now will be the plenum itself and the cylinder head, or more specifically the short side which has a horrible machining operation from the factory giving a very very nasty turn back and sharp edge right at the most important part of the port.
For an idea on how much material is removed, the ally grindings weighed in at around a third of a kilo. The bell mouth ID at the edge is over 10mm larger and the throat 3mm larger, the cylinder head/inlet manifold match has increased from 26mm to 32mm (which you can see quite well in the pictures), which is the same size as the rest of the port throat and closer a better ratio between throat/valve size. You will probably loose a small amount of torque at low rpm due to the increase in runner volume and the associated drop in velocity, but peak numbers should bump up a fair amount. But like I said, you still only have 30mm of headroom height above the trumpets, which sucks.
The runners now, without the plenum top to disrupt flow and bounce back pressure waves, flow very very close to a set of open ITB's.
The main problem on the v6 inlet is the plenum volume headroom height above the trumpets, which affects distribution and total bulk flow capabilities. Same as on the nissan 350z where raising the plenum a mere 6mm can gain 10bhp.
I wouldnt be too worried right now as you have a lot of adjustments that need to be made and potential to make decent gains, you've just moved the restriction point to another point in the inlet. You have flow potential, just like a garden hose, but sticking your thumb over the end isnt going to help. Your main points now will be the plenum itself and the cylinder head, or more specifically the short side which has a horrible machining operation from the factory giving a very very nasty turn back and sharp edge right at the most important part of the port.
For an idea on how much material is removed, the ally grindings weighed in at around a third of a kilo. The bell mouth ID at the edge is over 10mm larger and the throat 3mm larger, the cylinder head/inlet manifold match has increased from 26mm to 32mm (which you can see quite well in the pictures), which is the same size as the rest of the port throat and closer a better ratio between throat/valve size. You will probably loose a small amount of torque at low rpm due to the increase in runner volume and the associated drop in velocity, but peak numbers should bump up a fair amount. But like I said, you still only have 30mm of headroom height above the trumpets, which sucks.
The runners now, without the plenum top to disrupt flow and bounce back pressure waves, flow very very close to a set of open ITB's.
IMO the lesson for today is plenum work alone does little without specifc remapping. Its IS obvious with more air you need more fuel, but i wasn't sure what the ECU would do to address that issue as one of its built in functions.
Ben has achieved better flow, shown by the change in the AFR (as the car is now running leaner due to the increas in air its getting). So i guess at least its made a difference.
The acid test will be what Owen D can get from it after another mapping session.
I'm not holding my breath for more than a few BHP. Although overfuelling previously appeared to knock a measured 20BHP off. But that was with a much bigger AFR irregularity of 2! Running too lean will obviously hit power. But with the AFR only around 0.5 too high logically losses would be less this time. Its all complex stuff so i guess its another wait and see. [smilie=doubt.gif]
Err and what Ben said! LOL :badgrin:
Peter
Ben has achieved better flow, shown by the change in the AFR (as the car is now running leaner due to the increas in air its getting). So i guess at least its made a difference.
The acid test will be what Owen D can get from it after another mapping session.
I'm not holding my breath for more than a few BHP. Although overfuelling previously appeared to knock a measured 20BHP off. But that was with a much bigger AFR irregularity of 2! Running too lean will obviously hit power. But with the AFR only around 0.5 too high logically losses would be less this time. Its all complex stuff so i guess its another wait and see. [smilie=doubt.gif]
Err and what Ben said! LOL :badgrin:
Peter
I thought it was getting remapped today anyway?
Where is it being run compared to before, RR wise?
You will see a difference compared to before possible as today is a disgusting, humid, hot and low pressure time.....air density has decreased and thus the amount of O2 on offer. So AFR changes from today might be offset due to ambient conditions, and the small AFR change might be a result of that since you are measuring O2 content rather than air mass consumed. And i wouldnt expect the ECU to adjust for any of the changes made as it is at full throttle where the ecu takes no regard of the lambda signals.....but I dont know this specific ecu well enough to say that for sure.
Only way you could tell the real changes is same day, back to back with OE manifold and modified.
Where is it being run compared to before, RR wise?
You will see a difference compared to before possible as today is a disgusting, humid, hot and low pressure time.....air density has decreased and thus the amount of O2 on offer. So AFR changes from today might be offset due to ambient conditions, and the small AFR change might be a result of that since you are measuring O2 content rather than air mass consumed. And i wouldnt expect the ECU to adjust for any of the changes made as it is at full throttle where the ecu takes no regard of the lambda signals.....but I dont know this specific ecu well enough to say that for sure.
Only way you could tell the real changes is same day, back to back with OE manifold and modified.
Peter255":smgurzhr said:Car is booked in on 9th October for another remap at Owens. [smilie=icon_cheers.gif]
Fingers crossed!
Cheers
Peter
Scratch that, my booking has been cancelled (not down to me i may add). AND no more bookings available until November. :evil:
Everything for these stupid cars takes 3-4 months to do a 3 hour job. Why do i bother? I'm getting bored of this frankly. I'm going to end up missing the best track day weather for another year. :evil:
Think i need to SERIOUSLY consider getting shot of the waste of time and money TBH. [smilie=icon_cry.gif]
Peter :evil:
They are busy with GT racers apparently. No idea why i've been bumped late in the day.
I'm just gettting bored with not being able to drive the bloody thing hard / track it for months on end.....
No point having it to drive to and from the shops....
Just a waste of time and money....
Peter
I'm just gettting bored with not being able to drive the bloody thing hard / track it for months on end.....
No point having it to drive to and from the shops....
Just a waste of time and money....
Peter
BenR":32hofvjp said:
That was the other option, which was seriously considered. The thing is i went with dastek partly so i could get it mapped nearby.
Infact i can't go to Paul without removing the dastek, as it overides the std ECU at high throttle positions.
Back to square one...
Peter
Sorry to hear about the cancelation fella. Poor bloody excuse and very poor customer care if you ask me. A work diary is used for a reason. I was thinking of looking at this Dastek but I think I'll give it a wide miss. Will stick to Emerald and the like I think. Never heard anyone have problems with them on other cars so can't see a reason why it would give them on a vee.
Oldskoolbaby":29ru1bpp said:
Surely they could fit in a 3hr job.. even if they are busy? Its understandable that companies want to look after big spender clients etc.. but for the sake of getting any negative reputation.. I really wouldn't want to be canceling any smaller.. new customers. They must have their reasons and I'm sure it's not a decision they took lightly.
Sorry to hear this news all the same...
Peter, going by the weather today bud.. i think we've missed all prolonged spells of good weather for 2009 now. Looks like you may just have to be patient and wait for Owen's, there work has always been done to good, professional standard iirc.. Once done tho... Spring is only around the corner again, and you'll have all of next year and after for track days!! Will be well worth the wait bud!..
