iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
As you guys know the first rolling road session at mech repairs had its ups and down, so i thought with the power figure they quoted i would get a 2nd opinion.
So this morning i booked the motor in at power engineering at Uxbridge. Results are mildly better 
191bhp 6900 rpm
151lb/ft
Next up cam change i think the kent 264's need changing any suggestions i dont wanna really change pistons so i have to be careful what duration cams i get but dont really have a clue
Essay Over
|
bradfincham
Member
Registered: 20th Sep 02
Location: East Of England Drives: Clio 172
User status: Offline
|
thats better, i thought maximum power would have been higher up that that!
Torque is starting to get there!!
270+ maybe, unsure what ones you need for pocketed pistons?
ask j1400, ak, dave b on migweb
still seems slightly low but if it feels fast and pulls well i wouldnt worry too much about it!
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
i thought it seemed a little lower so ill get the cams done 1st the get it remapped AGAIN lol
|
bradfincham
Member
Registered: 20th Sep 02
Location: East Of England Drives: Clio 172
User status: Offline
|
see my power is 23 bhp less that yours and my torque is 14 lb/ft higher,
but i can guarantee that you will leave my car for dead, so i say as long as it feels fast and drives well i wouldnt worry about power runs!
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
brad what cams u running?
|
bradfincham
Member
Registered: 20th Sep 02
Location: East Of England Drives: Clio 172
User status: Offline
|
standard
|
Ally
Member
Registered: 2nd Jul 03
Location: Pontypool Drives: a Skoda
User status: Offline
|
J1400 is god of engines, he was at our house last night 
U2U him, he has alot of knowledge about that kinda stuff
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
cheers ally..
Oh the system is still for sale 
|
Ally
Member
Registered: 2nd Jul 03
Location: Pontypool Drives: a Skoda
User status: Offline
|
pics pics pics
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
give me 30 mins ill get the digi cam out and take a pic of the boot
you want a headunit pic to ?
|
TNM
Member
Registered: 5th Apr 04
Location: Nottingham Drives: VW Tiguan
User status: Offline
|
what sort of power is matt h running on his? Hes got the same sort of set up hasnt he?
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
180bhp
|
Ally
Member
Registered: 2nd Jul 03
Location: Pontypool Drives: a Skoda
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by iceman
give me 30 mins ill get the digi cam out and take a pic of the boot
you want a headunit pic to ?
yesh 
|
Fad
Member
Registered: 1st Feb 01
Location: Dartford Kent Drives: 330cd
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by bradfincham
see my power is 23 bhp less that yours and my torque is 14 lb/ft higher,
Gurantee if you went to a different rolling road to the one you used it'll show a different torque reading. On a rolling road tourque is not recorded accurately. I even read on that Dave B's thread you could more or less pluck that out of the air.
Also thats your peak torque where as i am guessing the spread of torque is far flatter and progressive on Icemans car
Well done mate pleased you got the results you more or less wanted they are top boys at power engineering
As for the cams i think 264's are prolly the most agressive you can go on standard pistons although i may be wrong on this.
[Edited on 26-05-2005 by Fad]
|
bradfincham
Member
Registered: 20th Sep 02
Location: East Of England Drives: Clio 172
User status: Offline
|
yeh im not saying it should be that high, but im still very surprised as on the day everyone said the figures they had were lower than those that had tested at power engineering before!
My torque curve is flat right the way across, and with dave b i was also surprised that after all his work he had 150 lb.ft torque, yes i understand torque cant be measured correctly on a rr, but its pretty much the only way we can measure it on a decent budget.
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
mmm looks like to get wilder cams im gonna need to change the pistons  damn lots of money now lol..
Unless some sell me a bottom end already done
|
AK
Member
Registered: 5th Jul 00
Location: Aberdeen City
User status: Offline
|
yup... 264 is about the max on your setup.....
i think your initial RR run was just optimistic at 200+ 
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Kindness
yup... 264 is about the max on your setup.....
i think your initial RR run was just optimistic at 200+
me to but im happyish with 190 just need to possible look into cams and piston change but need to find some1 to do it
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Kindness
yup... 264 is about the max on your setup.....
i think your initial RR run was just optimistic at 200+
althought i do have the graph of the 204bhp rr session
|
vibrio
Banned
Registered: 28th Feb 01
Location: POAH
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fad
quote:
Originally posted by bradfincham
see my power is 23 bhp less that yours and my torque is 14 lb/ft higher,
Gurantee if you went to a different rolling road to the one you used it'll show a different torque reading. On a rolling road tourque is not recorded accurately. I even read on that Dave B's thread you could more or less pluck that out of the air.
Also thats your peak torque where as i am guessing the spread of torque is far flatter and progressive on Icemans car
Well done mate pleased you got the results you more or less wanted they are top boys at power engineering
As for the cams i think 264's are prolly the most agressive you can go on standard pistons although i may be wrong on this.
[Edited on 26-05-2005 by Fad]
a rolling road measures torque and converts to bhp. if it does not measure torque accurately then it's not measurein bhp accurately either
|
AK
Member
Registered: 5th Jul 00
Location: Aberdeen City
User status: Offline
|
Brad:
my xe had 130lb/ft......
i bet it would have walked away from your too 
|
vibrio
Banned
Registered: 28th Feb 01
Location: POAH
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by bradfincham
yeh im not saying it should be that high, but im still very surprised as on the day everyone said the figures they had were lower than those that had tested at power engineering before!
My torque curve is flat right the way across, and with dave b i was also surprised that after all his work he had 150 lb.ft torque, yes i understand torque cant be measured correctly on a rr, but its pretty much the only way we can measure it on a decent budget.
changeing cams can lose low down torque but gain it higher up. but give a better spread. so while your torque is 14lb more (on a different RR) his will last for longer and be higher up the rev range no making more power
|
bradfincham
Member
Registered: 20th Sep 02
Location: East Of England Drives: Clio 172
User status: Offline
|
i didnt say mine is more powerful im just stating the fact of figures, i know that stu's car will be much much faster then mine,
dave from v-tunings corsa has a huge bottom end spec, and mine made 2 lb/ft less than his on the rollers!
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
mmmm
|
iceman
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 00
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
i guess different rolling roads give different figures
|
