hawkeye

Brian if you ever want to compare cars give me a shout,

to be honest your Wr1 should get going quicker than 4000 rpm this was one of the things ironed out by Prodrive iirc.

My MY02sti certainly gets going around 3000 not 4000


Paul

Brian the Sn@il

ive compared a few WR1s including Pro Drives, took it for a drive and its the same as mine

Just get told - Thats How they are..

sparkywrx94

Just had my rebuild on my 94 wrx, running 9:1 compression which makes a masive differance, goes like a rocket with std td05 @ 1.5 bar max, dont notice hardly any lag even with the fmic. Pulls off from junctions with lots of torque without needind to rev the ***** off it.

high CR was the best decision I made, Iv not had it rolling roaded yet but I am expecting good results

hawkeye

brian if it's going to be difficult to get better low down torque figures how about getting a lightened flywheel and pulleys to help with throttle response.

I may be taling sh]te but it was just a thought.

Have you got the Sti filter in it rather than the one that comes as standard?

Hawk


ps the back to back test was to show you how my MY02Sti goes better low down rather than comparing Wr1's to Wr1's just a thought

john banks

All the suggestions are good, but they are just trimmings IMHO, although they can add up. The two things that will really make a dramatic difference are the twin scroll and/or the 2.5.

Brian the Sn@il

looks like i had better try a 05 Sti Uk as i think they have a twin Scroll fitted ?

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

No, I don't think they do. They have a lot of the improvements from the JDM car and are much more similar than in previous years, but the JDM car is still unique in having the twin scroll turbo and an engine that has undergone considerable development.

AFAIK the '05 UK car has exactly the same engine as has been fitted to all European-spec STIs, including the WR1.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Yup, no changes to the engine on the MY05 UK/Euro cars, though the JDM cars now breath more easily after some more developement

Tony

Brian the Sn@il

The UK really does get the Official Outcasts dosent it

After owning two imports i thought id go for a official UK model...........

Back to Thread Topic

p1doc

i would try a remap and decat as this improved my low down jutteriness dramatically and the turbo spools up sooner 03 sti ex ppp.
if you put a 2.5l engine etc in a wr1 it would be hard to sell on i imagine as the warranty would not be there and that is the main reason to buy it over a litchfield car?
martin

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Any modified car is going to be harder to sell, no doubt about it. However, if you're wanting to keep the car for a while and aren't completely happy with it unless it is modified, I say go for it! Putting a 2.5 into a WR1 certainly won't be any more expensive than selling the WR1 to buy, say, a Type 25.

BTW I finally got my STI yesterday Iain said his car made 289bhp on Powerstation's rollers with the same map - which I figured wasn't bad given that they're known for being a bit pessimistic, and also that the engine was some way from being fully loosened up. There's still some learning to do with the MY05 engine too - it's one of the first in the country, after all.

FWIW, keeping below 4k revs during the running-in period is hard; it's so smooth and the turbo feels like it wants to come out and play all the time Roll on that 1000 mile oil change...

Brian the Sn@il

Right, had the Remap.. details are here...
http://www.scoobycity.co.uk/wr1/phpB...484&highlight=

Great info there Andy mate.

My next step would be a 2.5 bottom end.

At the end of the day its a WR1

Making a special safe power from a WR1 is very important for me as i do many miles on event trips.

Brian the Sn@il

LOL in my mind the Type 25 looks like a Silver WRX

john banks

Interesting results Brian.

There is approx a 3% difference in gearing between the two rolling road runs? - ie in one run you're doing more revs to make less speed...

Are the rollers temperature compensated given the two month difference?

The graphs would suggest you've got up to 20lbft less torque up to 2800 RPM, then up to 10 lbft more up to 4300, the you've lost a chunk of midrange (which will smoothen off delivery), and then you gain at the top by running lower boost than standard, which is nice to see. Some of this may be explained by the way the load is turned on on the rollers between the runs, but differences this small look too close to call when run on different days.

The gains I saw at 3000 RPM from switching to the 2.5 was 110 lbft on basically the same spec otherwise.

Do you now have enough low down torque then or do you still want more?

Brian the Sn@il

Cheers Jonhn.. i still need more, next mod is a 2.5 Bottom end and i hope this will put it to sleep for once and for all,
Richard Bulmer has made it pull more from 3000 RpM i have asked for a 1200 RPM tick over - which i now have.

To make the WR1 more potent from pull away it requires a 2.5 , it as easy as that, this 2.0 what every you do to it is way underpowered for the gearing and weight.

Massive Design Fault !!!!

the Saga Continues..................

ex-webby

Interesting thread.

I fail to see why a 2.5l engine is required to make the car pull away better. I am looking at getting a Subaru and test drove a UK 03 STI with PPP and UK 05 STI without. While the difference did not feel massive, the PPP was certainly faster according to the speedo and negated the lower lack of pull that the standard 05 model had.

I own a 500bhp RS500, which runs on garret T4 turbo (at 2.4 bar). These are huuuuuuge and renowned for lag etc, but driven through the gears are awesomely quick with no bog down (but I do appreciate the 4wd issue)........ and that turbo doesnt come on song until 4800rpm, but still manages 0-100mph in circa 9 secs.

Surely it's all about matching turbo, to boost to engine spec, or am I missing something here??

Regards,
Shaun.

john banks

1270 kg car running 434 BHP and 395 lbft with a 2.5 running 1.4 bar (peak) boost can do 0-100 mph in 8.7 in the wet with a passenger and reaches full boost by 3000 RPM even in intermediate gears, with 1 bar of boost at 2400 RPM in top. This isn't a mine is better than yours debate, because mine isn't better than yours, just an illustration of a way to get performance from a bigger engine (that weighs no more) running lower boost with very little lag, yes indeed it is the turbo matched to the engine, but having the cubes to start with certainly helps.

Twin scroll, 8000 RPM limit and AVCS go a long way to making a higher power 2.0 acceptable though. What can Brian do once the breathing and boost control have been sorted that will REALLY make a difference where he wants the extra power - twin scroll or more cubes IMHO.

But it is all preference, I personally hate lag, some people don't mind at all and like keeping it on the boil. I like to leave it in one torquey gear which has good response for more than half the rev range and get on with steering.

john banks

Another way of putting it, is that in this trim it had about the same power to weight ratio using 3000 RPM that a standard 02-04 STi has at its peak, and double that at 6000 RPM. I think flexibility and torque make a nice road car. I like phat torque curves. I don't really like small capacity big turbo engines that much, but they are very modifiable. It is all preference.

ex-webby

John,

I understand that going large on the cubic's can of course increase torque and power, but just thought there must be many more options that could be considered. It just seems very strange and odd to me that a new 2L production engine producing that little power (in comparison to the mod scene that I have grown up with) is boggy and gutless down low (by the accounts of this owner)..... just seems very strange.

On the subject of torque..... have you tried driving with 452lbft through your rears!! Unfortunately with that I would be lucky if I stopped spinning the wheels in the wet within 8.7 secs, let alone cracked 0-100mph in that time in the wet!

Regards,
Shaun.

john banks

Production engine is shackled with cats and emissions/noise regs, long service intervals, and is also tuned with a safety margin for low octane fuel. I don't think you could put some modded cars through hot weather testing on low octane fuel that standard cars should tolerate.

I've tried about 450 lbft through all four and that was bad enough in the wet, and also too much for a Cadbury's standard bottom end. But I would rather have a flatter, wider torque curve that peaks lower for driveability and control, but I'm not a hairy chested Cossie driver

So I think you can improve the 2.0 by decatting and mapping it, but unless it produces the torque normally aspirated low down it won't spool up a decent sized turbo low down. I'm not sure what these other options are you are thinking of, twin scroll is good, as is nitrous or cubes, other than that most things will compromise the top end power - no free lunch as they say.

ex-webby

Well.... coming from a life spent around Cossies (and you will have to excuse my ignorance on Scooby tuning as I have been without a Scoob for some time now - but about to change), if the car drives as Brain says it does (ie gutless lowdown) then I would only assume that the Turbo is a mismatched spec........ either that or he is driving like a woman!!!

People do say about todays lower octane fuel, emissions/niose regs, but to me that doesnt ring true when you can go out and buy a 500+bhp Ferrari that is road legal??

Regards,
Shaun.

Pavlo

I didn't know Ferrari did a 2.0 with 500hp...

ex-webby

Yeah didnt you know!!!

Regards,
Shaun.

hades

Shaun - do you ever go to bed? You seem to post at all hours . . .

It does seem that the choking effect of emmissions does seem to have a lot larger effect on many scoobs than numerous other cars. De-catting, getting a lower pressure drop intercooler etc does actually improve off-boost performance, so there is some truth to that. Running higher compression & lower boost would also do so, I don't doubt.

However, it is also true that the STi 7 in particular in standard trim is very flat below 4000rpm, compared to a lot of other turbo engines. Not a complaint you often here about with comparitively powered EVOs, for example (although the FQ400 does allegedly need lots of revs). Another example - the Vauxhall 2L turbo (per VX220, old astra etc) is available with 240bhp, allegedly can be tuned to 300bhp, and pulls very well at 2000rpm. Doesn't help Brian's problem, but does seem to back up where Shaun is coming from.