What chip... if any?

[Anonymous]

Correction: Motec DBW4 PID controller can only be added on to M800. But you can run 4 seperate electronic motors with it. eg, twin throttle bodies, electronic waste gate, brake cooling system.

Oh well, back to the polishing er I'm mean pigs. XOX

 

[Anonymous]

I can't really comment on my superchip as it was installed before I got the car. I only managed 225 on the rollers though but that's what it says on the superchip website so I'm guessing its doing what it says on the tin. The dastek guy said it was fuelling fine though, so maybe mk1's only produce 215bhp. :lol:

I think the Unichip is probably better, or a remap. If you take your car to dastek they can do a before and after on the rolling road so you can see how much bhp you have gained. I think they map the unichip when your car is there so it might be better than installing a pre-mapped chip (i.e superchip).

 

[Tim]

230BHP at the flywheel mate, just as the Mk2 will be 255 at the flywheel.

215 at the wheels which is how the rollers measure sounds right and 225 with the chip seems spot on...

 

[TRW1]

230BHP at the flywheel mate, just as the Mk2 will be 255 at the flywheel.

215 at the wheels which is how the rollers measure sounds right and 225 with the chip seems spot on...

These were flywheel figures. They all seem to make below quoted figures

215 atw would equate to 255 atf. unlikely for a standard Mk1!!

 

[Tim]

So does a RR measure at the fly then?

I stand corrected then....is it normal for them to make below quoted figures? Why then are they called the 230 and 255 respectively....did Renault manage this pre production then compromise there outputs for production? Manufacturers claims should be corrected to what they actually are...

 

[® Andy]

Only way to measure true fly wheel figure is to take the engine out of the car. RR measures at the wheel figure and then fly wheel is an estimate based off of typical transmission losses.

On the 255 the pre-production figure was nearer 280 IIRC, but then it was detuned to ensure that the warranty costs weren't too bad for Renault.

 

[Tim]

Thats what I thought....therefore my reading of 215BHP at the WHEELS is correct with the appollo kit fitted. Without the kit fitted the standard car was 200.8 BHP which sounds about right if Renault quote 230BHP at the FLY which is where I thought the figures come from.

TRW1 is suggesting the RR measures the FLY which I don't believe is correct.

 

[TRW1]

RR measures wheels.
I'm saying Renaults make less in reality than is quoted in the brochure. I've seen many RR sheets for Mk1 and Mk2 and they are all down. My Mk1 made 222 with filter and backbox (long time ago). Scott's Mk2 made 250 with TWR backbox. Look at Superchips website. The Mk1 before chipping made 215. All estimated flywheel figs derived from RR.

Tim, If you have a Mk2, 215 atw would be right, giving 255 atf and a very healthy one you have too.

If it's a Mk1 it will be a flywheel fig. Do you have your print out? it should say.

 

[Tim]

Yes I do have my printouts and as I've said all along, and was told (East Coast Customs online....the only 4 wheel drive rolling road in Northern ireland!) the printout shows the measurement of power and torque at the wheels....213BHP with the filter fitted and 200.8BHP without as standard. Quite possibly the car has been remapped by a previous Japanese owner- who knows but thats what the RR says.....saying that I had it on again on Friday....the weather was alot warmer than before and the figure was 207.8BHP at the wheels and 195 Ib ft torque.....230 at the fly and 200 at the wheels sounds correct anyhow? And likewise 255 and 215 for a Mk2....

By your calculations a 255 makes 215 approx therefore a 230 should only make approx 195 BHP so either way my MK1 is farely healthy!

What I want to know is why is the MK2 labelled 255 and the MK1 230 when they are nowhere near that. In fact I'm pretty sure they are and the renault figures are flywheel figures which would make sense......a drop of about 30-40 BHP to the wheels as measured by any RR. The 255 and 230 figures must be Flywheel ie actual engine power before power loss between the engine and wheels.

 

[JJ]

Sounds like a V6 RR day might be in order...

 

[Tim]

I'm confused now....

 

[TRW1]

Tim, If you have a Mk1 making 200 atw in standard form that's staggering, that would equate to 239 atf. Adding an IK and getting an additional 15atw is also staggering from an IK alone.
RR can give varying results depending on how they are setup and operated. If you did back to back runs and got an additional 15 atw from an IK then I want one. Most IKs will make a only a couple of bhp at best.

 

[steveukv6]

My mk1 made 209bhp at the wheels - only mod was the viper induction kit.

 

[TRW1]

209atw = 248 atf personally I'd get it tested somewhere else for comparison as that sounds suspiciously high.

 

[Tim]

Thats what mine is giving out as well.....I had 4 back to back runs over two days - first day was cold and gave 213 and second day was 16 degrees outside and gave 207.8 at the wheels both times....I don't see how 200BHP at the wheels is that amazing. Surely renaults 230 figure is the FLY figure which would give approx 200bhpat the wheels? Thats my point here.....Renault surely do not name the two cars after the wheels measurement because every car will vary. Therefore 230 and 255 must be the engine/fly figure. It makes perfect sense and thats what I thought every car manufacturer does.....

 

[TRW1]

200 at the wheels for a standard Mk1 seems surprising to me only because I have seen several RR results on standard Mk1s and Mk2s all have shown figs slightly down on what Renault quote. Figs for other models from Renault have suggested this too. Some manufacturers are spot on with their quoted figs, some are not. It's partly marketing.

200 atw would equate to about 239 at the flywheel. Thats why it seems high to me for a standard Mk1. I'm not trying to start a Cliosport type argument, don't misunderstand me, just commenting from my experience of talking to and using highly experienced race mechanics/tuners/RR operaters.

Could be that the figs do vary greatly for both models now that more cars are being tested. Would be interesting to see more cars run 1/4 miles for some more figs to analyse and cross-reference. If some cars are making 215 standard and others 240, that would show.

There's some good reading on this site about all this stuff.
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm

 

[steveukv6]

Manufacturers get there figures from the flywheel as the engines nowadays are run on a testbed to run in and get figures from. This to me seems about right -200 atw would equate to about 239 at the flywheel. With a viper filter making around 10hp.
Piperx claim 16hp on a saxo vts, (smaller engine) So If anything the mk 1 v6 is slightly down. As for the rollers where i took my car the guy says he keeps on top of the maintance on the rollers religiously.

 

[TRW1]

I agree Steve, manufacturers' figures are always Flywheel, but 200 atw was the standard figure not with the Viper. My point from the start has been 239 at the fly sounds high for a standard car. PX claim 16bhp but speak to serious mechanics not trying to sell that product and 2-5bhp would be your best hope.
Tim's figs with the Piper show 213 atw = 253 at the fly. This for a Mk1 with filter seems optimistic.

Engine size is no indication as to what gains a particular addition will make.

 

[steveukv6]

Once iv had mine re-mapped goin to take it back on the rollers cus iv got the exhaust done now too. Shud be intresting to see wot she puts out.

 

[philthy]

when you getting that done steve? You did the manifolds too didnt you?