Starting again.... with a Hawkeye
24 January 2011, 05:53 PM
#271
Cannot believe I have not seen this thread.
Similar ideas to me
. My car is hopefully getting finished off in the next few weeks. Main inspiration is the track focused porsche GT3 RS. All the creature comforts with the ability to go a little mental on the track 
Aim is around the 400 mark, standard ecu, fair amount of suspension and brake work and a stripped out rear half. It will be caged, but will be carpeted and firewalled to keep the noise right down.
Look forward to seein yours done
Similar ideas to me
. My car is hopefully getting finished off in the next few weeks. Main inspiration is the track focused porsche GT3 RS. All the creature comforts with the ability to go a little mental on the track Aim is around the 400 mark, standard ecu, fair amount of suspension and brake work and a stripped out rear half. It will be caged, but will be carpeted and firewalled to keep the noise right down.
Look forward to seein yours done
24 January 2011, 07:36 PM
#272
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Glenn,
"Better" is quite subjective in reality. They are certainly all different and each very good in their own way.
The MY03 Spec C was very edgy.
The Hawkeye (current level of mods) is very stable and predictive.
The Hatch Spec C has got awesome grip.
Arnie,
Thanks for your comments.
You have hit the nail on the head!
Way too many people just go for what they have read about, or been advised, without actually appreciating what changes the mods will make. Ignorance is bliss and you can't blame customers for that, or infact the trader. A lot of people don't know what they want and know even less why they really want it, if they do.
The aim of this project is to hopefully provide people with more information, even about the basics (nothing new so far has been discovered and I doubt it will), so they can be better informed about what specifc mods do what. That way you may have a sort of menu of items to pick from, depending on what you may think you want to address.
Items like suspension upgrades can be knee jerk purchases, as most people seem to purchase this item. If this is the case then the standard suspension must be crap. That is obviously not the case, but do they really need it and could funds be spent elsewhere (and possibly less funds required), in area's that they really can benefit from.
I am no chassis dynamics egg head (I am continuously learning), but I know a lot more now than I did a couple of years back. Being able to better understand and "feel" the difference that each modification makes is quite exciting in some way. Sounds sad don't it!
As you suggest, it was imperative to leave the camber settings as previous. This provides a better comparison with changes kept to a minimum. I will certainly be increasing camber, but that will come at a later date. Plenty more to do before I look at that.
Graham,
Good luck with your "project"!
Once I get a few more things sorted I will be out on track in mine. Will be interesting to see how the car "feels" in that environment and it will be even more interesting if that actually requires me to do any other mods because of that. I have my own suspicions on that one!
"Better" is quite subjective in reality. They are certainly all different and each very good in their own way.
The MY03 Spec C was very edgy.
The Hawkeye (current level of mods) is very stable and predictive.
The Hatch Spec C has got awesome grip.
Arnie,
Thanks for your comments.
You have hit the nail on the head!
Way too many people just go for what they have read about, or been advised, without actually appreciating what changes the mods will make. Ignorance is bliss and you can't blame customers for that, or infact the trader. A lot of people don't know what they want and know even less why they really want it, if they do.
The aim of this project is to hopefully provide people with more information, even about the basics (nothing new so far has been discovered and I doubt it will), so they can be better informed about what specifc mods do what. That way you may have a sort of menu of items to pick from, depending on what you may think you want to address.
Items like suspension upgrades can be knee jerk purchases, as most people seem to purchase this item. If this is the case then the standard suspension must be crap. That is obviously not the case, but do they really need it and could funds be spent elsewhere (and possibly less funds required), in area's that they really can benefit from.
I am no chassis dynamics egg head (I am continuously learning), but I know a lot more now than I did a couple of years back. Being able to better understand and "feel" the difference that each modification makes is quite exciting in some way. Sounds sad don't it!
As you suggest, it was imperative to leave the camber settings as previous. This provides a better comparison with changes kept to a minimum. I will certainly be increasing camber, but that will come at a later date. Plenty more to do before I look at that.
Graham,
Good luck with your "project"!
Once I get a few more things sorted I will be out on track in mine. Will be interesting to see how the car "feels" in that environment and it will be even more interesting if that actually requires me to do any other mods because of that. I have my own suspicions on that one!
24 January 2011, 09:19 PM
#273
......Graham,
Good luck with your "project"!
Once I get a few more things sorted I will be out on track in mine. Will be interesting to see how the car "feels" in that environment and it will be even more interesting if that actually requires me to do any other mods because of that. I have my own suspicions on that one!
Good luck with your "project"!
Once I get a few more things sorted I will be out on track in mine. Will be interesting to see how the car "feels" in that environment and it will be even more interesting if that actually requires me to do any other mods because of that. I have my own suspicions on that one!
so its all coming together I would really like to hear your opinion of the car on track, especially considering your previous car.
20 February 2011, 11:07 PM
#275
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Thanks Ricky.
I am back up to Litchfield's this Friday having some more Whiteline goodies fitted. I then intend in going back to Litchfield's in March to get the latest Billet LM fitted, followed by a visit back to Tracktive to have the map adjusted to suit.
I am back up to Litchfield's this Friday having some more Whiteline goodies fitted.
I then intend in going back to Litchfield's in March to get the latest Billet LM fitted, followed by a visit back to Tracktive to have the map adjusted to suit.
26 February 2011, 09:42 AM
#277
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
February 2011 - More Chassis Modifications
Right.....
As previously mentioned I was back at Litchfield Imports today for some more chassis work, but this time to look at upgraded Whiteline Anti-Roll Bars (ARB).
Now this is one area that is quite a common "mod" and most people have either had this mod done or are thinking about it, but what do ARB's do!?
As indicated by it's name, an ARB tries to reduce the "roll" effect of the vehicle, effectively across it's front and/or rear axis. This can also be achieved by using increased spring stiffness on your suspension. One of the main downsides of increasing spring stiffness is the compromise on ride compliance, which an uprated ARB will not effect as much. Since we are not looking at suspension modifications, ARB's are the way to go in this instance (but of course you can use a combination of suspension mods and uprated ARB's).
Not only can ARB's effect the "roll" but they can also effect the balance of the car, by inducing or reducing understeer or oversteer.
First off I personally think the Hawkeye chassis does not exhibit much roll at the front, certainly not to any extent that I feel I need to do anything about it for road use. I also don't won't to induce any more or further understeer at the front, which by altering the front ARB for a stiffer one, may do. With these thoughts I am not looking to alter the standard front ARB at this stage. Many people do both ARB's together, but I personally don't see why that is needed for road use with a Hawkeye.
What I would like to change is the rear balance, by inducing a bit of oversteer at the rear when needed. This will hopefully be achieved by increasing the thickness and setting of the OE rear ARB with a Whiteline uprated item.
I don't want something that is too aggressive at the rear, so decided to go for a 22mm rear Whiteline ARB.
Since these Whiteline ARB's are adjustable for torsion (how hard they are to twist across the bar - so in essence to adjust the stiffness or resistance to twist), I decided to go for the middle setting. By using the adjustment holes for mounting the ARB's to the droplinks, you can effectively shorten the ARB length. The shorter the ARB, the more resistant it will become to twist. The Whiteline ARB's have three length adjustments.
Here we have the OE Rear ARB connected to the droplink (or not connected in this case).
The uprated 22mm Rear Adjustable Whiteline ARB vs the OE (20mm?) non-adjustable ARB.
The new Whiteline ARB bushes.
The uprated 22mm Rear Adjustable Whiteline ARB in place, set to the middle adjuster.
Road Test
Let's get the compliance feedback out of the way first......
Since the rear ARB has now been uprated, I do feel a very slight decrease in rear compliance. This is certainly not detrimental to overall ride quality, but you do feel a slight difference over "rough" ground. The thicker the ARB the more this feeling would be pronounced..... hence one of the reasons for only moving up to a 22mm bar at the rear.
This might sound obvious, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you spend most of your time on motorways etc, I would suggest that uprating your ARB's will make little to no difference to you whatsoever. Uprating the ARB's will only come in to play (ride compliance aside) when you subject the car to "lean" (i.e. going around a corner). In my opinion the OE set-up is absolutely fine for road use and does not require altering, unless you want to tune the set-up for your specific requirements.
From what I pick-up on the forums and talking to people, some owners seem to complete this knee-jerk purchase without actually appreciating what it does for them over and above their existing set-up and where this modification will come in to play.
Driving normally I felt no difference whatsoever... are you surprised by that?! You shouldn't be!
The idea behind the 22mm bar for road use, was not to make a massive impact.... but a gradual impact when I wanted it. I don't want to make the rear end unstable or over "excited" on the road... some people may want this though.
Ramp up the aggression, attack and turn-in on the road (a nice twisty back lane will show this) and you notice a difference to the way the back-end reacts. The same situation can be induced by "attacking" an island.
The 22mm ARB does not make the back-end step out so much, but certainly lets it slip out a tad more. This in-turn helps to keep the front tucked in and makes the rear end quite progressive in my opinion. Using the throttle to adjust this dynamic feels good.
This was the effect I was looking for.
Had this car the remit of track orientation the set-up would of been different I suspect, but since it is road use primary and track "fun" secondary, it makes sense to set the car up for what it will predominantley be used for and more importantly for the set-up that I want.
Like I have already said, because I don't think the front roll on the Hawkeye is particulary an issue (utilising the OE suspension) I doubt I will be changing the front ARB. I do have one to put on, so I may just try it and feedback on what it has done and most importantly whether or not it has increased understeer at the front. I can always put the OE ARB back on if need be.
There is no one answer to all of this, as the set-up may change depending on the model version and whether or not you have OE or AN OTHER suspension installed. Of course YOUR requirements are also important.
I still maintain that on this car, the biggest and most positive change has been that of increasing the caster. Since those modifications provided so much "extra" in all manner of driving scenario's.
Saying all of this, of course changing the rear ARB has made a positive impact for what I want, but I see this positive more as a specific "tweak" rather than a overall major improvement.
Moving on, the car will be venturing on track soon.... so it will be very interesting to see how the car performs and reacts. I don't expect agility or dynamic of my previous highly modified Spec C, but it will be interesting to see the comparison. Saying that though, the Spec C felt no where near as good as this Hawkeye does on the road. It's horses for courses and compromises have to take place.
I have some further "items on the shelf" from Whiteline to try, so I will certainly be back soon with more feedback on other modifications.
Unfortunately Iain was not around (he had a meeting with someone from F1
), so I am not sure the new LM's Billet are on-site yet. However, I still plan to get this side sorted during March.
More news on this as soon as I know!
Cliff,
You must be getting too old for that kind of thing by now!
Right.....
As previously mentioned I was back at Litchfield Imports today for some more chassis work, but this time to look at upgraded Whiteline Anti-Roll Bars (ARB).
Now this is one area that is quite a common "mod" and most people have either had this mod done or are thinking about it, but what do ARB's do!?
As indicated by it's name, an ARB tries to reduce the "roll" effect of the vehicle, effectively across it's front and/or rear axis. This can also be achieved by using increased spring stiffness on your suspension. One of the main downsides of increasing spring stiffness is the compromise on ride compliance, which an uprated ARB will not effect as much. Since we are not looking at suspension modifications, ARB's are the way to go in this instance (but of course you can use a combination of suspension mods and uprated ARB's).
Not only can ARB's effect the "roll" but they can also effect the balance of the car, by inducing or reducing understeer or oversteer.
First off I personally think the Hawkeye chassis does not exhibit much roll at the front, certainly not to any extent that I feel I need to do anything about it for road use. I also don't won't to induce any more or further understeer at the front, which by altering the front ARB for a stiffer one, may do. With these thoughts I am not looking to alter the standard front ARB at this stage. Many people do both ARB's together, but I personally don't see why that is needed for road use with a Hawkeye.
What I would like to change is the rear balance, by inducing a bit of oversteer at the rear when needed. This will hopefully be achieved by increasing the thickness and setting of the OE rear ARB with a Whiteline uprated item.
I don't want something that is too aggressive at the rear, so decided to go for a 22mm rear Whiteline ARB.
Since these Whiteline ARB's are adjustable for torsion (how hard they are to twist across the bar - so in essence to adjust the stiffness or resistance to twist), I decided to go for the middle setting. By using the adjustment holes for mounting the ARB's to the droplinks, you can effectively shorten the ARB length. The shorter the ARB, the more resistant it will become to twist. The Whiteline ARB's have three length adjustments.
Here we have the OE Rear ARB connected to the droplink (or not connected in this case).
The uprated 22mm Rear Adjustable Whiteline ARB vs the OE (20mm?) non-adjustable ARB.
The new Whiteline ARB bushes.
The uprated 22mm Rear Adjustable Whiteline ARB in place, set to the middle adjuster.
Road Test
Let's get the compliance feedback out of the way first......
Since the rear ARB has now been uprated, I do feel a very slight decrease in rear compliance. This is certainly not detrimental to overall ride quality, but you do feel a slight difference over "rough" ground. The thicker the ARB the more this feeling would be pronounced..... hence one of the reasons for only moving up to a 22mm bar at the rear.
This might sound obvious, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you spend most of your time on motorways etc, I would suggest that uprating your ARB's will make little to no difference to you whatsoever. Uprating the ARB's will only come in to play (ride compliance aside) when you subject the car to "lean" (i.e. going around a corner). In my opinion the OE set-up is absolutely fine for road use and does not require altering, unless you want to tune the set-up for your specific requirements.
From what I pick-up on the forums and talking to people, some owners seem to complete this knee-jerk purchase without actually appreciating what it does for them over and above their existing set-up and where this modification will come in to play.
Driving normally I felt no difference whatsoever... are you surprised by that?! You shouldn't be!
The idea behind the 22mm bar for road use, was not to make a massive impact.... but a gradual impact when I wanted it. I don't want to make the rear end unstable or over "excited" on the road... some people may want this though.
Ramp up the aggression, attack and turn-in on the road (a nice twisty back lane will show this) and you notice a difference to the way the back-end reacts. The same situation can be induced by "attacking" an island.
The 22mm ARB does not make the back-end step out so much, but certainly lets it slip out a tad more. This in-turn helps to keep the front tucked in and makes the rear end quite progressive in my opinion. Using the throttle to adjust this dynamic feels good.
This was the effect I was looking for.
Had this car the remit of track orientation the set-up would of been different I suspect, but since it is road use primary and track "fun" secondary, it makes sense to set the car up for what it will predominantley be used for and more importantly for the set-up that I want.
Like I have already said, because I don't think the front roll on the Hawkeye is particulary an issue (utilising the OE suspension) I doubt I will be changing the front ARB. I do have one to put on, so I may just try it and feedback on what it has done and most importantly whether or not it has increased understeer at the front. I can always put the OE ARB back on if need be.
There is no one answer to all of this, as the set-up may change depending on the model version and whether or not you have OE or AN OTHER suspension installed. Of course YOUR requirements are also important.
I still maintain that on this car, the biggest and most positive change has been that of increasing the caster. Since those modifications provided so much "extra" in all manner of driving scenario's.
Saying all of this, of course changing the rear ARB has made a positive impact for what I want, but I see this positive more as a specific "tweak" rather than a overall major improvement.
Moving on, the car will be venturing on track soon.... so it will be very interesting to see how the car performs and reacts. I don't expect agility or dynamic of my previous highly modified Spec C, but it will be interesting to see the comparison. Saying that though, the Spec C felt no where near as good as this Hawkeye does on the road. It's horses for courses and compromises have to take place.
I have some further "items on the shelf" from Whiteline to try, so I will certainly be back soon with more feedback on other modifications.
Unfortunately Iain was not around (he had a meeting with someone from F1
), so I am not sure the new LM's Billet are on-site yet. However, I still plan to get this side sorted during March.More news on this as soon as I know!
Cliff,
You must be getting too old for that kind of thing by now!
Your as old as you feel matey,,,,trouble was I didnt get much of a feel that night.
26 February 2011, 12:56 PM
#279
February 2011 - More Chassis Modifications
First off I personally think the Hawkeye chassis does not exhibit much roll at the front, certainly not to any extent that I feel I need to do anything about it for road use. I also don't won't to induce any more or further understeer at the front, which by altering the front ARB for a stiffer one, may do. With these thoughts I am not looking to alter the standard front ARB at this stage. Many people do both ARB's together, but I personally don't see why that is needed for road use with a Hawkeye.
What I would like to change is the rear balance, by inducing a bit of oversteer at the rear when needed. This will hopefully be achieved by increasing the thickness and setting of the OE rear ARB with a Whiteline uprated item.
I don't want something that is too aggressive at the rear, so decided to go for a 22mm rear Whiteline ARB.
Ramp up the aggression, attack and turn-in on the road (a nice twisty back lane will show this) and you notice a difference to the way the back-end reacts. The same situation can be induced by "attacking" an island.
The 22mm ARB does not make the back-end step out so much, but certainly lets it slip out a tad more. This in-turn helps to keep the front tucked in and makes the rear end quite progressive in my opinion. Using the throttle to adjust this dynamic feels good.
First off I personally think the Hawkeye chassis does not exhibit much roll at the front, certainly not to any extent that I feel I need to do anything about it for road use. I also don't won't to induce any more or further understeer at the front, which by altering the front ARB for a stiffer one, may do. With these thoughts I am not looking to alter the standard front ARB at this stage. Many people do both ARB's together, but I personally don't see why that is needed for road use with a Hawkeye.
What I would like to change is the rear balance, by inducing a bit of oversteer at the rear when needed. This will hopefully be achieved by increasing the thickness and setting of the OE rear ARB with a Whiteline uprated item.
I don't want something that is too aggressive at the rear, so decided to go for a 22mm rear Whiteline ARB.
Ramp up the aggression, attack and turn-in on the road (a nice twisty back lane will show this) and you notice a difference to the way the back-end reacts. The same situation can be induced by "attacking" an island.
The 22mm ARB does not make the back-end step out so much, but certainly lets it slip out a tad more. This in-turn helps to keep the front tucked in and makes the rear end quite progressive in my opinion. Using the throttle to adjust this dynamic feels good.
I did exactly the same thing with my Hawkeye Spec C & found that changing just the rear ARB to the Whiteline 22mm adjustable one & keeping the front std 20.5mm one was ideal for the car's setup & my requirements.
On a side note: My current car is a Widetrack JDM MY05 STI, running on std suspension & alignment. Recently been trying to find out the car's handling characteristics & trying to gauge / foresee its limits. In std form its reminding me of how the Hawkeye felt after the Whiteline rear ARB mod. The rear end feels almost exactly the same as on the Hawkeye, and the turn in also very sharp. IMO the more rear biased torque split on the JDM MY05 Sti acts almost like having a stiffer rear ARB on a MY06 Sti. (The only difference I felt was the front end of my MY05 being a little more "loose / aloof", lacking very slightly in "feel / connectedness" up front, as compared to my Hawkeye Spec C. In reality Im sure its probably not lacking much grip up front but there is a decrease in feel for me. This I am hoping will be much improved with an Anti lift kit).
Last edited by rickya; 26 February 2011 at 01:00 PM.
26 February 2011, 01:14 PM
#280
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Cliff,
ROFLOL
Rickya,
Didn't realise you had actually bought one.... nice one mate!
You are lucky that you have the MY05 Spec C diff set-up in your widetrack JDM Blobeye STI. It is certainly the diff that I would of preferred, if I had the choice.
I'm not sure why the front end feel should be any different to my Hawkeye or your previous Spec C Hawkeye. It is essentially the same set-up afaik (i'm not sure if the suspension set-up is slightly stiffer on the Spec C or how much the "weight" difference plays a part)..... however I stand-by the modification of increasing caster though. I would certainly recommend that you don't just do the ALK, but also install the adjustable top mounts as well (in maximum caster position).
I would be interested to hear how you get on mate!
ROFLOL
Rickya,
Didn't realise you had actually bought one.... nice one mate!
You are lucky that you have the MY05 Spec C diff set-up in your widetrack JDM Blobeye STI. It is certainly the diff that I would of preferred, if I had the choice.
I'm not sure why the front end feel should be any different to my Hawkeye or your previous Spec C Hawkeye. It is essentially the same set-up afaik (i'm not sure if the suspension set-up is slightly stiffer on the Spec C or how much the "weight" difference plays a part)..... however I stand-by the modification of increasing caster though. I would certainly recommend that you don't just do the ALK, but also install the adjustable top mounts as well (in maximum caster position).
I would be interested to hear how you get on mate!
Last edited by Shaun; 26 February 2011 at 01:22 PM.
26 February 2011, 01:40 PM
#281
Here it is, Crystal Grey
https://www.scoobynet.com/middlesex-...widetrack.html
Im not sure why only the thing that feels different is the front end feeling of lightness, especially during hard acceleration & some what in fast sweeping bends.
It could be that:
-I last drove my Spec C approx a year ago & have been driving a Classic Type R since so its hard to be 100% specific
-The Spec C's stiffer suspension turrets played a part
-The Spec C's 70kg weight reduction & the fact that, it had done 21k miles & this has done 37k miles
-Not sure how accurate the last alignment was by previous owner, done approx a year ago
For the moment I'm going with CDF ALK; Eibach rear camber bolts & full custom alignment & then see how it feels. Not sure if I will go for the adjustable top mounts for std suspension as knowing my luck they will soon start knocking! At which point I may do away with them altogether & go with a soft spring rated, rubber top mounted, Coilover.
https://www.scoobynet.com/middlesex-...widetrack.html
Im not sure why only the thing that feels different is the front end feeling of lightness, especially during hard acceleration & some what in fast sweeping bends.
It could be that:
-I last drove my Spec C approx a year ago & have been driving a Classic Type R since so its hard to be 100% specific
-The Spec C's stiffer suspension turrets played a part
-The Spec C's 70kg weight reduction & the fact that, it had done 21k miles & this has done 37k miles
-Not sure how accurate the last alignment was by previous owner, done approx a year ago
For the moment I'm going with CDF ALK; Eibach rear camber bolts & full custom alignment & then see how it feels. Not sure if I will go for the adjustable top mounts for std suspension as knowing my luck they will soon start knocking! At which point I may do away with them altogether & go with a soft spring rated, rubber top mounted, Coilover.
Last edited by rickya; 26 February 2011 at 01:42 PM.
26 February 2011, 01:55 PM
#282
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Cracking car mate.... in now what I deem as the "best" colour!
Ahhh... OK I understand now.
Yes, increasing caster will dramatically increase stability, both in a straight line and mid-corner.
What are you looking to increase camber to at the rear?
I understand what you are saying about the suspension knock, but I would take the additional caster now for the price they are. If you had to change suspension (yours could last you for ages yet) you could always sell them on if needed.
Ahhh... OK I understand now.
Yes, increasing caster will dramatically increase stability, both in a straight line and mid-corner.
What are you looking to increase camber to at the rear?
I understand what you are saying about the suspension knock, but I would take the additional caster now for the price they are. If you had to change suspension (yours could last you for ages yet) you could always sell them on if needed.
26 February 2011, 02:13 PM
#283
How old are your tyres rickya? They play a big part in the cars handling.
Rear ARB is 19mm on the MY05 JDM.
My suspension on my MY05 JDM is pretty tired now, it's done 50K miles, been knocking on the rear since 28K miles, fronts have started ratling in the last 5K miles.
Rear camber is good on the MY05 JDM at 1.6 degrees neg, you want to fit some extra camber bolts to the front and jack in around 1.8 degrees of negative to make the front end bite properly, in stock camber trim it's designed to make the rear more dominant on balance, so you will feel the front being less responsive. I dont believe on RE070's you need to fit ALK or change castor.
Rear ARB is 19mm on the MY05 JDM.
My suspension on my MY05 JDM is pretty tired now, it's done 50K miles, been knocking on the rear since 28K miles, fronts have started ratling in the last 5K miles.
Rear camber is good on the MY05 JDM at 1.6 degrees neg, you want to fit some extra camber bolts to the front and jack in around 1.8 degrees of negative to make the front end bite properly, in stock camber trim it's designed to make the rear more dominant on balance, so you will feel the front being less responsive. I dont believe on RE070's you need to fit ALK or change castor.
26 February 2011, 02:23 PM
#284
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
John,
Whilst I am not suggesting you "need" to change (you don't "need" to do any of these mods) caster, it does make a huge postive impact to me, that it is almost a no brainer.
I have the RE070's on and the difference between standard caster and the way the car feels now with circa 6degs of caster, is night and day. I felt a progressive increase in stability each time the caster was increased. Since the dynamic camber is increased, exactly when you need it, it's a winning mod in my eyes.
Whilst I am not suggesting you "need" to change (you don't "need" to do any of these mods) caster, it does make a huge postive impact to me, that it is almost a no brainer.
I have the RE070's on and the difference between standard caster and the way the car feels now with circa 6degs of caster, is night and day. I felt a progressive increase in stability each time the caster was increased. Since the dynamic camber is increased, exactly when you need it, it's a winning mod in my eyes.
Last edited by Shaun; 26 February 2011 at 02:24 PM.
26 February 2011, 02:31 PM
#285
You have a car that is fundementaly an understeer biased setup though Shaun, the MY05 isnt.
Also, the stiffer you make the roll resistance, the less castor and camber you need to run to achieve the same tyre performance.
Also, the stiffer you make the roll resistance, the less castor and camber you need to run to achieve the same tyre performance.
Last edited by johnfelstead; 26 February 2011 at 02:33 PM.
26 February 2011, 02:39 PM
#286
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You git.... Do you have to keep banging on about the fact you have a better diff!!
But for clarification of the info I am giving on this thread, you certainly highlight a key difference between your car and my Hawkeye. THE DIFF. Hence why my mods have made the difference they have on mine and some would not be as relevant on your model.
Good stuff and thanks for highlighting that.
But for clarification of the info I am giving on this thread, you certainly highlight a key difference between your car and my Hawkeye. THE DIFF. Hence why my mods have made the difference they have on mine and some would not be as relevant on your model.
Good stuff and thanks for highlighting that.
26 February 2011, 02:44 PM
#287
It's got to be done Shaun.
And yeh, sorry if it was confusing, i was refering to rickya's new purchase, you will find there are always going to be differences in how the various models respond to changes as the transmition specs and basic geometries are different.
All very useful info to help build peoples knowledge on what is a very unrepresented area of road car tuning.
And yeh, sorry if it was confusing, i was refering to rickya's new purchase, you will find there are always going to be differences in how the various models respond to changes as the transmition specs and basic geometries are different.
All very useful info to help build peoples knowledge on what is a very unrepresented area of road car tuning.
05 March 2011, 10:55 AM
#289
Shaun I know you'v done some testing with Powerstation in your original Spec C thread regarding different air filters. IIRC the JDM twin scrolls didn't like the bolt on type cone type air intakes that sit in the engine bay. They seem to work better with a replacement (K&N/Cosworth) panel filter in the std air box. But what about the intakes that sit in the front bumper/wing (so no heat soak issues) & get a direct cold air feed from a fog light intake? The reason I ask is I see that Litchfields (& other tuners) are using this kind of setup on their new twin scroll turbo setups I believe.
What are your thoughts as I am considering this before a full remap? (My car has a VTA, Oil catch breather system/ Walbro 255 fuel pump/ Sard FPR / 3 port / 3" decat system).
What are your thoughts as I am considering this before a full remap? (My car has a VTA, Oil catch breather system/ Walbro 255 fuel pump/ Sard FPR / 3 port / 3" decat system).
Last edited by rickya; 05 March 2011 at 11:21 AM.
05 March 2011, 01:10 PM
#290
If I may opine? All IMHO of course
The newage airbox is known to be good for 400bhp, as is the TMIC. So if your power target is 400-ish (or lower) then there really is no point moving away from the standard induction system, although, as you say, a decent panel filter does no harm. But, having said that, I beleive tests have been done to show the stock panel filter is actually pretty good.
Once you go start going above 400 then replacing the stock induction becomes increasingly necessary.
I've seen two main ways of doing this - mounted in the engine bay; or mounted in the wing.
Mounting in the engine bay is easier but of course it is then sucking in hot air - hence the need to duct cold air from somewhere: often, as you've said, from the fog light cowl.
That's what I did - but it came at a price. I ran on the stock ECU at 480bhp for 6 months but it suffered a continual problem of stalling when the car came to a halt. This was eventually tracked down to the cold air feed - the MAF was getting confused as the flow of air from the intake ceased when stopping.
Also bear in mind that the stock MAF has to be rescaled with the larger housings that you would typically need for high-400bhp builds, so it is also being stretched outside of its design parameters.
So, in the end, I went Syvecs (hence MAF-less) and the problem went away.
I think the same problem might occur with a wing-mounted intake (assuming a cold air feed to it) but I have no experience of that so won't comment.
So, in my experience: avoid cold air ducting to a high power build unless you also go MAF-less. ANd it's not necessary anyway up to 400bhp (ish).
The newage airbox is known to be good for 400bhp, as is the TMIC. So if your power target is 400-ish (or lower) then there really is no point moving away from the standard induction system, although, as you say, a decent panel filter does no harm. But, having said that, I beleive tests have been done to show the stock panel filter is actually pretty good.
Once you go start going above 400 then replacing the stock induction becomes increasingly necessary.
I've seen two main ways of doing this - mounted in the engine bay; or mounted in the wing.
Mounting in the engine bay is easier but of course it is then sucking in hot air - hence the need to duct cold air from somewhere: often, as you've said, from the fog light cowl.
That's what I did - but it came at a price. I ran on the stock ECU at 480bhp for 6 months but it suffered a continual problem of stalling when the car came to a halt. This was eventually tracked down to the cold air feed - the MAF was getting confused as the flow of air from the intake ceased when stopping.
Also bear in mind that the stock MAF has to be rescaled with the larger housings that you would typically need for high-400bhp builds, so it is also being stretched outside of its design parameters.
So, in the end, I went Syvecs (hence MAF-less) and the problem went away.
I think the same problem might occur with a wing-mounted intake (assuming a cold air feed to it) but I have no experience of that so won't comment.
So, in my experience: avoid cold air ducting to a high power build unless you also go MAF-less. ANd it's not necessary anyway up to 400bhp (ish).
06 March 2011, 08:16 PM
#292
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Shaun I know you'v done some testing with Powerstation in your original Spec C thread regarding different air filters. IIRC the JDM twin scrolls didn't like the bolt on type cone type air intakes that sit in the engine bay. They seem to work better with a replacement (K&N/Cosworth) panel filter in the std air box. But what about the intakes that sit in the front bumper/wing (so no heat soak issues) & get a direct cold air feed from a fog light intake? The reason I ask is I see that Litchfields (& other tuners) are using this kind of setup on their new twin scroll turbo setups I believe.
What are your thoughts as I am considering this before a full remap? (My car has a VTA, Oil catch breather system/ Walbro 255 fuel pump/ Sard FPR / 3 port / 3" decat system).
What are your thoughts as I am considering this before a full remap? (My car has a VTA, Oil catch breather system/ Walbro 255 fuel pump/ Sard FPR / 3 port / 3" decat system).
Just stick with the OE airbox.... it's simply not worth changing at your level of tune. You can spend your money on more worth while things.
06 March 2011, 08:21 PM
#293
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
If I may opine? All IMHO of course
The newage airbox is known to be good for 400bhp, as is the TMIC. So if your power target is 400-ish (or lower) then there really is no point moving away from the standard induction system, although, as you say, a decent panel filter does no harm. But, having said that, I beleive tests have been done to show the stock panel filter is actually pretty good.
Once you go start going above 400 then replacing the stock induction becomes increasingly necessary.
I've seen two main ways of doing this - mounted in the engine bay; or mounted in the wing.
Mounting in the engine bay is easier but of course it is then sucking in hot air - hence the need to duct cold air from somewhere: often, as you've said, from the fog light cowl.
That's what I did - but it came at a price. I ran on the stock ECU at 480bhp for 6 months but it suffered a continual problem of stalling when the car came to a halt. This was eventually tracked down to the cold air feed - the MAF was getting confused as the flow of air from the intake ceased when stopping.
Also bear in mind that the stock MAF has to be rescaled with the larger housings that you would typically need for high-400bhp builds, so it is also being stretched outside of its design parameters.
So, in the end, I went Syvecs (hence MAF-less) and the problem went away.
I think the same problem might occur with a wing-mounted intake (assuming a cold air feed to it) but I have no experience of that so won't comment.
So, in my experience: avoid cold air ducting to a high power build unless you also go MAF-less. ANd it's not necessary anyway up to 400bhp (ish).
The newage airbox is known to be good for 400bhp, as is the TMIC. So if your power target is 400-ish (or lower) then there really is no point moving away from the standard induction system, although, as you say, a decent panel filter does no harm. But, having said that, I beleive tests have been done to show the stock panel filter is actually pretty good.
Once you go start going above 400 then replacing the stock induction becomes increasingly necessary.
I've seen two main ways of doing this - mounted in the engine bay; or mounted in the wing.
Mounting in the engine bay is easier but of course it is then sucking in hot air - hence the need to duct cold air from somewhere: often, as you've said, from the fog light cowl.
That's what I did - but it came at a price. I ran on the stock ECU at 480bhp for 6 months but it suffered a continual problem of stalling when the car came to a halt. This was eventually tracked down to the cold air feed - the MAF was getting confused as the flow of air from the intake ceased when stopping.
Also bear in mind that the stock MAF has to be rescaled with the larger housings that you would typically need for high-400bhp builds, so it is also being stretched outside of its design parameters.
So, in the end, I went Syvecs (hence MAF-less) and the problem went away.
I think the same problem might occur with a wing-mounted intake (assuming a cold air feed to it) but I have no experience of that so won't comment.
So, in my experience: avoid cold air ducting to a high power build unless you also go MAF-less. ANd it's not necessary anyway up to 400bhp (ish).
Stalling on the OE ECU with an inner wing kit can be rectified.... with careful mapping. I was running the OE ECU at around 500bhp and whilst I did initially have a problem with stalling, it was rectified with some careful map changes.
14 March 2011, 03:15 PM
#294
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
March 2011
Chassis Feedback
No further work done but still worthy of an update post.
I haven't spent that much time in the car since the last lot of upgrades, but I did give it a bit of a pasting over the weekend (is Spring finally here!). I've gotta say I am really pleased with the way the car handles now, as it certainly feels more agile with all the current chassis mods. It is certainly a lot more stable and makes the car fun to drive with all the characteristics it now has. I was throwing it around so much the sub shot from one end of the boot to the other, as the bass suddenly dissappeared. The earth cable had been pulled out and the sub was stuck against the other side of the boot!
I will have to sort that out with some proper fixing in place.
Billet Turbo
I have had a few conversations with Richard Bulmer and Iain Litchfield about what we are going to do next. You may think this was pre-defined as this phase of the project was all about a "road car"..... I have thought about something slightly different recently (oh no!!).
I have said from the beginning that 400bhp is ample for a road car, that is appropriately set-up and backs that up with nice spool and response. However, coming out of a previous car that had well over 500bhp.... you do think "what if...".
I obviously needed my brain re-focusing and that was something that Mr. Bulmer did in the first instance, backed up by Mr Litchfield!
I was tending to think that a "little" bit more BHP would be nice with the next turbo change. The question then was, would you be happy with slower spool.... the immediate answer was / is NO!
Spool and response are paramount to me at the moment and I am not willing to sacrifice this for the sake of a couple of extra BHP. It takes some restraint to accept this, but as Delboy says "You know it makes sense!".
The current LM420 is circa 300rpm slower spooling than the LM400. I am not prepared to loose that spool for the sake of 20bhp. Nor am I willing to start changing inlet items (inlet pipe and/or airbox) and possibly requiring a FMIC either. I am not suggesting I will need these items, but it may prove a performance advantage to get the most out of the turbo swap. You are now starting to look at deminishing returns.... that's not what this phase is all about.
In some respects if you make this kind of decision (I was thinking about the LM450), because of the spool issue and extra mods that maybe required, why stop there? You may as well go straight to a LM500 and be done with it. I then find myself back in a similar position I was in before and this is not what I want.
I discussed this with Iain Litchfield and he agreed with my conclusions, although he was more than happy to provide whatever I wanted, the upside (or downside) was fairly obvious. However, Iain is looking to create a Billet of the current LM420 (in essence this is an 'in between' turbo spec), which he would hope, has the same spool as the current (non Billet) LM400 and with the same power output of the current (non Billet) LM420. This does require testing though and I need to get something on my car sooner rather than later.... so this maybe something we could try in the future (as this would be the best of both worlds in this instance).
So... now we are back to "earth" what's going to happen?!
The new Billet LM400's are scheduled to be ready to ship, the end of this week / start of next.
As soon as these are ready to rock I will drop my car off to Litchfield's (next week all being well). The turbo will be taken straight off and sent to Turbo Dynamics for the new Billet core to be fitted. 48hrs later the car will be back with me. Richard will (in the meantime) send me a "safe" map that I can program the ECU with (using ECUTEK's Easy ECU) and then it will be straight up to Richard for the car to be remapped properly.
With the Lord Almighty on my side this may all be done next week.
Iain has divulged to me the testing that he has done on the production spec Billet LM400. His results are very "pleasing", but it needs to be fitted on my car before I feel comfortable shouting about any performance stats.
Fingers crossed I will have a chunk of updates next week.
Chassis Feedback
No further work done but still worthy of an update post.
I haven't spent that much time in the car since the last lot of upgrades, but I did give it a bit of a pasting over the weekend (is Spring finally here!). I've gotta say I am really pleased with the way the car handles now, as it certainly feels more agile with all the current chassis mods. It is certainly a lot more stable and makes the car fun to drive with all the characteristics it now has. I was throwing it around so much the sub shot from one end of the boot to the other, as the bass suddenly dissappeared. The earth cable had been pulled out and the sub was stuck against the other side of the boot!
I will have to sort that out with some proper fixing in place.
Billet Turbo
I have had a few conversations with Richard Bulmer and Iain Litchfield about what we are going to do next. You may think this was pre-defined as this phase of the project was all about a "road car"..... I have thought about something slightly different recently (oh no!!).
I have said from the beginning that 400bhp is ample for a road car, that is appropriately set-up and backs that up with nice spool and response. However, coming out of a previous car that had well over 500bhp.... you do think "what if...".
I obviously needed my brain re-focusing and that was something that Mr. Bulmer did in the first instance, backed up by Mr Litchfield!
I was tending to think that a "little" bit more BHP would be nice with the next turbo change. The question then was, would you be happy with slower spool.... the immediate answer was / is NO!
Spool and response are paramount to me at the moment and I am not willing to sacrifice this for the sake of a couple of extra BHP. It takes some restraint to accept this, but as Delboy says "You know it makes sense!".
The current LM420 is circa 300rpm slower spooling than the LM400. I am not prepared to loose that spool for the sake of 20bhp. Nor am I willing to start changing inlet items (inlet pipe and/or airbox) and possibly requiring a FMIC either. I am not suggesting I will need these items, but it may prove a performance advantage to get the most out of the turbo swap. You are now starting to look at deminishing returns.... that's not what this phase is all about.
In some respects if you make this kind of decision (I was thinking about the LM450), because of the spool issue and extra mods that maybe required, why stop there? You may as well go straight to a LM500 and be done with it. I then find myself back in a similar position I was in before and this is not what I want.
I discussed this with Iain Litchfield and he agreed with my conclusions, although he was more than happy to provide whatever I wanted, the upside (or downside) was fairly obvious. However, Iain is looking to create a Billet of the current LM420 (in essence this is an 'in between' turbo spec), which he would hope, has the same spool as the current (non Billet) LM400 and with the same power output of the current (non Billet) LM420. This does require testing though and I need to get something on my car sooner rather than later.... so this maybe something we could try in the future (as this would be the best of both worlds in this instance).
So... now we are back to "earth" what's going to happen?!
The new Billet LM400's are scheduled to be ready to ship, the end of this week / start of next.
As soon as these are ready to rock I will drop my car off to Litchfield's (next week all being well). The turbo will be taken straight off and sent to Turbo Dynamics for the new Billet core to be fitted. 48hrs later the car will be back with me. Richard will (in the meantime) send me a "safe" map that I can program the ECU with (using ECUTEK's Easy ECU) and then it will be straight up to Richard for the car to be remapped properly.
With the Lord Almighty on my side this may all be done next week.
Iain has divulged to me the testing that he has done on the production spec Billet LM400. His results are very "pleasing", but it needs to be fitted on my car before I feel comfortable shouting about any performance stats.
Fingers crossed I will have a chunk of updates next week.
14 March 2011, 07:28 PM
#296
March 2011
Chassis Feedback
No further work done but still worthy of an update post.
I haven't spent that much time in the car since the last lot of upgrades, but I did give it a bit of a pasting over the weekend (is Spring finally here!). I've gotta say I am really pleased with the way the car handles now, as it certainly feels more agile with all the current chassis mods. It is certainly a lot more stable and makes the car fun to drive with all the characteristics it now has. I was throwing it around so much the sub shot from one end of the boot to the other, as the bass suddenly dissappeared. The earth cable had been pulled out and the sub was stuck against the other side of the boot!
I will have to sort that out with some proper fixing in place.
Billet Turbo
I have had a few conversations with Richard Bulmer and Iain Litchfield about what we are going to do next. You may think this was pre-defined as this phase of the project was all about a "road car"..... I have thought about something slightly different recently (oh no!!).
I have said from the beginning that 400bhp is ample for a road car, that is appropriately set-up and backs that up with nice spool and response. However, coming out of a previous car that had well over 500bhp.... you do think "what if...".
I obviously needed my brain re-focusing and that was something that Mr. Bulmer did in the first instance, backed up by Mr Litchfield!
I was tending to think that a "little" bit more BHP would be nice with the next turbo change. The question then was, would you be happy with slower spool.... the immediate answer was / is NO!
Spool and response are paramount to me at the moment and I am not willing to sacrifice this for the sake of a couple of extra BHP. It takes some restraint to accept this, but as Delboy says "You know it makes sense!".
The current LM420 is circa 300rpm slower spooling than the LM400. I am not prepared to loose that spool for the sake of 20bhp. Nor am I willing to start changing inlet items (inlet pipe and/or airbox) and possibly requiring a FMIC either. I am not suggesting I will need these items, but it may prove a performance advantage to get the most out of the turbo swap. You are now starting to look at deminishing returns.... that's not what this phase is all about.
In some respects if you make this kind of decision (I was thinking about the LM450), because of the spool issue and extra mods that maybe required, why stop there? You may as well go straight to a LM500 and be done with it. I then find myself back in a similar position I was in before and this is not what I want.
I discussed this with Iain Litchfield and he agreed with my conclusions, although he was more than happy to provide whatever I wanted, the upside (or downside) was fairly obvious. However, Iain is looking to create a Billet of the current LM420 (in essence this is an 'in between' turbo spec), which he would hope, has the same spool as the current (non Billet) LM400 and with the same power output of the current (non Billet) LM420. This does require testing though and I need to get something on my car sooner rather than later.... so this maybe something we could try in the future (as this would be the best of both worlds in this instance).
So... now we are back to "earth" what's going to happen?!
The new Billet LM400's are scheduled to be ready to ship, the end of this week / start of next.
As soon as these are ready to rock I will drop my car off to Litchfield's (next week all being well). The turbo will be taken straight off and sent to Turbo Dynamics for the new Billet core to be fitted. 48hrs later the car will be back with me. Richard will (in the meantime) send me a "safe" map that I can program the ECU with (using ECUTEK's Easy ECU) and then it will be straight up to Richard for the car to be remapped properly.
With the Lord Almighty on my side this may all be done next week.
Iain has divulged to me the testing that he has done on the production spec Billet LM400. His results are very "pleasing", but it needs to be fitted on my car before I feel comfortable shouting about any performance stats.
Fingers crossed I will have a chunk of updates next week.
Chassis Feedback
No further work done but still worthy of an update post.
I haven't spent that much time in the car since the last lot of upgrades, but I did give it a bit of a pasting over the weekend (is Spring finally here!). I've gotta say I am really pleased with the way the car handles now, as it certainly feels more agile with all the current chassis mods. It is certainly a lot more stable and makes the car fun to drive with all the characteristics it now has. I was throwing it around so much the sub shot from one end of the boot to the other, as the bass suddenly dissappeared. The earth cable had been pulled out and the sub was stuck against the other side of the boot!
I will have to sort that out with some proper fixing in place.
Billet Turbo
I have had a few conversations with Richard Bulmer and Iain Litchfield about what we are going to do next. You may think this was pre-defined as this phase of the project was all about a "road car"..... I have thought about something slightly different recently (oh no!!).
I have said from the beginning that 400bhp is ample for a road car, that is appropriately set-up and backs that up with nice spool and response. However, coming out of a previous car that had well over 500bhp.... you do think "what if...".
I obviously needed my brain re-focusing and that was something that Mr. Bulmer did in the first instance, backed up by Mr Litchfield!
I was tending to think that a "little" bit more BHP would be nice with the next turbo change. The question then was, would you be happy with slower spool.... the immediate answer was / is NO!
Spool and response are paramount to me at the moment and I am not willing to sacrifice this for the sake of a couple of extra BHP. It takes some restraint to accept this, but as Delboy says "You know it makes sense!".
The current LM420 is circa 300rpm slower spooling than the LM400. I am not prepared to loose that spool for the sake of 20bhp. Nor am I willing to start changing inlet items (inlet pipe and/or airbox) and possibly requiring a FMIC either. I am not suggesting I will need these items, but it may prove a performance advantage to get the most out of the turbo swap. You are now starting to look at deminishing returns.... that's not what this phase is all about.
In some respects if you make this kind of decision (I was thinking about the LM450), because of the spool issue and extra mods that maybe required, why stop there? You may as well go straight to a LM500 and be done with it. I then find myself back in a similar position I was in before and this is not what I want.
I discussed this with Iain Litchfield and he agreed with my conclusions, although he was more than happy to provide whatever I wanted, the upside (or downside) was fairly obvious. However, Iain is looking to create a Billet of the current LM420 (in essence this is an 'in between' turbo spec), which he would hope, has the same spool as the current (non Billet) LM400 and with the same power output of the current (non Billet) LM420. This does require testing though and I need to get something on my car sooner rather than later.... so this maybe something we could try in the future (as this would be the best of both worlds in this instance).
So... now we are back to "earth" what's going to happen?!
The new Billet LM400's are scheduled to be ready to ship, the end of this week / start of next.
As soon as these are ready to rock I will drop my car off to Litchfield's (next week all being well). The turbo will be taken straight off and sent to Turbo Dynamics for the new Billet core to be fitted. 48hrs later the car will be back with me. Richard will (in the meantime) send me a "safe" map that I can program the ECU with (using ECUTEK's Easy ECU) and then it will be straight up to Richard for the car to be remapped properly.
With the Lord Almighty on my side this may all be done next week.
Iain has divulged to me the testing that he has done on the production spec Billet LM400. His results are very "pleasing", but it needs to be fitted on my car before I feel comfortable shouting about any performance stats.
Fingers crossed I will have a chunk of updates next week.
From reading the above am I right in thinking that those of us with the LM series turbo's can upgrade them to "Billet"? as you know I have the LM420 which is better than the LM400 (
only joking) and I am just thinking if the billet makes them much better (depending on costs of course) I may consider the change to billet Lee.
14 March 2011, 07:59 PM
#297
I have said from the beginning that 400bhp is ample for a road car, However, coming out of a previous car that had well over 500bhp.... you do think "what if...".
In some respects if you make this kind of decision You may as well go straight to a LM500 and be done with it.
In some respects if you make this kind of decision You may as well go straight to a LM500 and be done with it.
Great read Shaun and its good to know your enjoying the handling mods...
14 March 2011, 08:01 PM
#298
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Ilya,
You will know as soon as I do.
Lee,
That is right. Litchfield's can upgrade the core on your current turbo to whatever core will fit your housing and turbine specification. Litchfield's will be able to advise on what is available.
You will know as soon as I do.
Lee,
That is right. Litchfield's can upgrade the core on your current turbo to whatever core will fit your housing and turbine specification. Litchfield's will be able to advise on what is available.
14 March 2011, 08:09 PM
#299
Thanks for that Shaun, something to consider
14 March 2011, 08:09 PM
#300
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Clive,
Maybe (I would never say never).... but that day won't be just now.
Richard Bulmer is reverting his own Newage RA back to road spec now. Road Spec is the way forward..... it beats checking under the bonnet every 10mins!
Until you have been "there" you never really appreciate what all these big BHP builds entail. It has already saved me a fortune in lack of stress alone!
Maybe (I would never say never).... but that day won't be just now.
Richard Bulmer is reverting his own Newage RA back to road spec now. Road Spec is the way forward..... it beats checking under the bonnet every 10mins!
Until you have been "there" you never really appreciate what all these big BHP builds entail. It has already saved me a fortune in lack of stress alone!
