Starting again.... with a Hawkeye
09 December 2011, 07:28 PM
#721
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Quick update before dyno time and mapping takes place in T- 6 days! 
The picture above was utilising my existing SFS elbow..... the keen eyed amongst you may see that perhaps it isn't the best fit, with regards to pipe diameter.
The blue SFS pipe above was 76mm at the filter end and about 70mm at the turbo inlet pipe end. Not the best fit since the filter end now needs to be 80mm and the turbo inlet pipe end should be 76mm.
Now I know it will go on as I managed to get the filter end on (see above), but the inlet turbo pipe end is proper difficult (it's giving away 6mm!). It goes on but it's flaming tight.
It's not best to bring back another form of restriction, so I decided to get a much better fitting "reducer" pipe from RCM.
This new pipe goes from 80mm to 73mm, so will be a much better and easier fit. It's not perfect at the turbo inlet pipe end, but much easier to get on!!
*All measurements are internal pipe diameters.
The picture above was utilising my existing SFS elbow..... the keen eyed amongst you may see that perhaps it isn't the best fit, with regards to pipe diameter.
The blue SFS pipe above was 76mm at the filter end and about 70mm at the turbo inlet pipe end. Not the best fit since the filter end now needs to be 80mm and the turbo inlet pipe end should be 76mm.
Now I know it will go on as I managed to get the filter end on (see above), but the inlet turbo pipe end is proper difficult (it's giving away 6mm!). It goes on but it's flaming tight.
It's not best to bring back another form of restriction, so I decided to get a much better fitting "reducer" pipe from RCM.
This new pipe goes from 80mm to 73mm, so will be a much better and easier fit. It's not perfect at the turbo inlet pipe end, but much easier to get on!!
*All measurements are internal pipe diameters.
15 December 2011, 11:21 PM
#723
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
It went well thanks. 
Fitment of BRD Big MAF kit, MAF rescale and dyno time
Just to recap why were here and doing this now.....
As stated previously due to me running the standard size MAF pipe and running a certain amount of boost on the LM450 Billet, I was getting really close to the edge of the MAF limit. Not really prudent to do this as falling off the edge of max MAF voltage can cause "bang bang" time.
The reason for this next level of modification was to provide more headroom for the MAF on the OEM ECU (don't forget.... no aftermarket ECU yet running speed density), ultimately making it all well within spec and safe.
Since the replacement of the MAF pipe required a new air filter element, it was going to be interesting to see if a change in filter made any difference to the airflow (and ultimately power).
The third part of the equation was to see if using the dyno could eek out anymore power by virtue of being able to try different maps, with the ease of comparing the outputs on the dyno.
Tracktive Solutions (Richard Bulmer) were taking charge of the mapping again and I would be using their Rototest HUB Dyno.
I have used their dyno extensively before with my previous Spec C.
Since this is another different type of dyno (this measures power at the wheel HUB's) I won't be using straight output's from this dyno for a true comparison.... but more on that further on.
As suggested previously we wanted to get a "as is" figure, make all the changes and then get another figure to see any differences.
Prior to any changes
The car was put on the dyno and the car achieved 364.76bhp @ the HUBS (two runs were done with virtually the same figures).
Richard uses a 18% transmission loss calculation to revert his HUB figures back to an estimated flywheel figure. This would equate to 444bhp at the flywheel. Extremely close to that of the flywheel figure measured on Surrey Rolling Road Dyno Dynamics RR. This is just for information and is irrelevant really. Lets just stick with what was measured at the HUBS.
Richard then set about removing the current filter and fitting the new set-up.
I had alluded to previously that I wanted to refit the OEM snorkel to aid directed airflow to the filter.
This is how that was achieved, which simply required part of the snorkel to be removed.
Unfortunately because of the size of the airfilter element and the Hybrid Intercooler pipework, Richard needed to reduce the length of the silicon elbow (between the filter and turbo inlet pipe). This enabled the filter to sit lower so the bonnet could be closed.
So with the filter in place Richard set about rescaling the current MAF voltage curve, to take account of the new MAF pipe.
You really can't run these cars on larger MAF pipes without having them remapped. As soon as the car was fired up on idle it was running lean!! Basically with a larger pipe diameter the ECU thinks it has less air than it actually has. If the ECU thinks it has less air, it will add less fuel.... hence why it can run lean if there is actually more air.
After the initial rescale Richard ran the car and power was immediately up from the initial runs!
After a few more tweaks we had hit 394.42bhp @ the HUBS, but this was running a tad too much ignition and running a tad too lean. It was doing well, but not something Richard was happy to leave. In another comparison (and it is only that - a comparison) my old Spec C made 395bhp @ the HUBS in low boost mode and at that level of tune it made 480bhp @ the flywheel on Zen's dyno. Again using Richard's estimate calculation, that hub figure would equate to 481bhp at the fly. Richard did say that if I wanted a bragging figure... that was surely going to be it!!
Anyway.... with some more map alterations (for Richard to be happy) the end result on the dyno was 384.87bhp @ the HUBS.
The main objective had been reached..... the MAF voltage was well in check now and gave me a fair bit of headroom. Richard did say "you should be OK to go for a LM600 now!".
Let's look at the "before" figure and what we ended up with "after":
364.76bhp @ HUBS before
384.87bhp @ HUBS after
That is an increase of 5.5% in power.
I would estimate a flywheel figure of around 464bhp on a Dyno Dynamics RR, taking the % increase and applying that to my previous SRR DD figures (440bhp + 5.5% = 464bhp). Richard's own calculations estimate it to be 469bhp @ the flywheel based on his HUB figures.
The car was then taken out on the road. Fueling was checked with slightly more added in part of the map and a touch of ignition was taken out around 6k rpm. So the final figures may of reduced slightly.
I would of thought it was now well over 450bhp in any case (or should that be any dyno)!
There has been a measurable increase and I asked Richard what it would of been to allow that..... without hesitation he said it was the changes to the inlet, as in bigger and better filter. He said he didn't really make a massive change to the mapping side, but he has seen time and time again, how much difference a bigger filter can make to airflow and ultimate power (to be fair we saw this on my previous Spec C as well).
So... job done and another Litchfield / Turbo Dynamics turbo that has done what I was told it would do. It was certainly interesting to see what changes the inlet made to the power as well..... which has been very positive.
Many thanks to Richard at Tracktive Solutions for another day spent at the "office"!
Fitment of BRD Big MAF kit, MAF rescale and dyno time
Just to recap why were here and doing this now.....
As stated previously due to me running the standard size MAF pipe and running a certain amount of boost on the LM450 Billet, I was getting really close to the edge of the MAF limit. Not really prudent to do this as falling off the edge of max MAF voltage can cause "bang bang" time.
The reason for this next level of modification was to provide more headroom for the MAF on the OEM ECU (don't forget.... no aftermarket ECU yet running speed density), ultimately making it all well within spec and safe.
Since the replacement of the MAF pipe required a new air filter element, it was going to be interesting to see if a change in filter made any difference to the airflow (and ultimately power).
The third part of the equation was to see if using the dyno could eek out anymore power by virtue of being able to try different maps, with the ease of comparing the outputs on the dyno.
Tracktive Solutions (Richard Bulmer) were taking charge of the mapping again and I would be using their Rototest HUB Dyno.
I have used their dyno extensively before with my previous Spec C.
Since this is another different type of dyno (this measures power at the wheel HUB's) I won't be using straight output's from this dyno for a true comparison.... but more on that further on.
As suggested previously we wanted to get a "as is" figure, make all the changes and then get another figure to see any differences.
Prior to any changes
The car was put on the dyno and the car achieved 364.76bhp @ the HUBS (two runs were done with virtually the same figures).
Richard uses a 18% transmission loss calculation to revert his HUB figures back to an estimated flywheel figure. This would equate to 444bhp at the flywheel. Extremely close to that of the flywheel figure measured on Surrey Rolling Road Dyno Dynamics RR. This is just for information and is irrelevant really. Lets just stick with what was measured at the HUBS.
Richard then set about removing the current filter and fitting the new set-up.
I had alluded to previously that I wanted to refit the OEM snorkel to aid directed airflow to the filter.
This is how that was achieved, which simply required part of the snorkel to be removed.
Unfortunately because of the size of the airfilter element and the Hybrid Intercooler pipework, Richard needed to reduce the length of the silicon elbow (between the filter and turbo inlet pipe). This enabled the filter to sit lower so the bonnet could be closed.
So with the filter in place Richard set about rescaling the current MAF voltage curve, to take account of the new MAF pipe.
You really can't run these cars on larger MAF pipes without having them remapped. As soon as the car was fired up on idle it was running lean!! Basically with a larger pipe diameter the ECU thinks it has less air than it actually has. If the ECU thinks it has less air, it will add less fuel.... hence why it can run lean if there is actually more air.
After the initial rescale Richard ran the car and power was immediately up from the initial runs!
After a few more tweaks we had hit 394.42bhp @ the HUBS, but this was running a tad too much ignition and running a tad too lean. It was doing well, but not something Richard was happy to leave. In another comparison (and it is only that - a comparison) my old Spec C made 395bhp @ the HUBS in low boost mode and at that level of tune it made 480bhp @ the flywheel on Zen's dyno. Again using Richard's estimate calculation, that hub figure would equate to 481bhp at the fly. Richard did say that if I wanted a bragging figure... that was surely going to be it!!
Anyway.... with some more map alterations (for Richard to be happy) the end result on the dyno was 384.87bhp @ the HUBS.
The main objective had been reached..... the MAF voltage was well in check now and gave me a fair bit of headroom. Richard did say "you should be OK to go for a LM600 now!".
Let's look at the "before" figure and what we ended up with "after":
364.76bhp @ HUBS before
384.87bhp @ HUBS after
That is an increase of 5.5% in power.
I would estimate a flywheel figure of around 464bhp on a Dyno Dynamics RR, taking the % increase and applying that to my previous SRR DD figures (440bhp + 5.5% = 464bhp). Richard's own calculations estimate it to be 469bhp @ the flywheel based on his HUB figures.
The car was then taken out on the road. Fueling was checked with slightly more added in part of the map and a touch of ignition was taken out around 6k rpm. So the final figures may of reduced slightly.
I would of thought it was now well over 450bhp in any case (or should that be any dyno)!
There has been a measurable increase and I asked Richard what it would of been to allow that..... without hesitation he said it was the changes to the inlet, as in bigger and better filter. He said he didn't really make a massive change to the mapping side, but he has seen time and time again, how much difference a bigger filter can make to airflow and ultimate power (to be fair we saw this on my previous Spec C as well).
So... job done and another Litchfield / Turbo Dynamics turbo that has done what I was told it would do. It was certainly interesting to see what changes the inlet made to the power as well..... which has been very positive.
Many thanks to Richard at Tracktive Solutions for another day spent at the "office"!
Last edited by Shaun; 15 December 2011 at 11:32 PM.
16 December 2011, 08:49 AM
#725
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: kempston bedford
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good result Shaun 20 bhp gain from a bigger filter and maf tube . Would you have gained any bhp if air filter would have been shielded /boxed of from the engine heat ?
Andy
Andy
16 December 2011, 10:41 AM
#726
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
AbbasSTI,
I can't see it making anymore power (safely) on VPower mate, regardless of any further increases in filetr.... the turbo is only rated at 450bhp and we are past that already!
Andy,
I wouldn't expect any increases with the bonnet open on the dyno, with regard to shielding. It's on the road that you will see heat build-up (unless you're running the car on the dyno with the bonnet closed and not great airflow), but as I have said before, the under bonnet engine temps (relating to inlet air temps) on the road appear to be under control when on the move.
Without smashing the **** out of the turbo running anymore boost (the boost profile is still the same as before), I think this is about it for a LM450 Billet. Any further gains are going to miniscule I would of thought..... unless I used other fuels.
Purely estimating on the fuel front, with an appropriate METH mix I would suspect that 10% increase in power wouldn't be too unreasonable. Let's assume realistic current peak figure of 460bhp. That would steer you to think that 500bhp would be possible with a METH mix. Not bad for a 2ltr with the response / spool this turbo achieves. Alas I'm not interested in fuel mixes, so someone else will have to try that one!
I can't see it making anymore power (safely) on VPower mate, regardless of any further increases in filetr.... the turbo is only rated at 450bhp and we are past that already!
Andy,
I wouldn't expect any increases with the bonnet open on the dyno, with regard to shielding. It's on the road that you will see heat build-up (unless you're running the car on the dyno with the bonnet closed and not great airflow), but as I have said before, the under bonnet engine temps (relating to inlet air temps) on the road appear to be under control when on the move.
Without smashing the **** out of the turbo running anymore boost (the boost profile is still the same as before), I think this is about it for a LM450 Billet. Any further gains are going to miniscule I would of thought..... unless I used other fuels.
Purely estimating on the fuel front, with an appropriate METH mix I would suspect that 10% increase in power wouldn't be too unreasonable. Let's assume realistic current peak figure of 460bhp. That would steer you to think that 500bhp would be possible with a METH mix. Not bad for a 2ltr with the response / spool this turbo achieves. Alas I'm not interested in fuel mixes, so someone else will have to try that one!
17 December 2011, 02:58 PM
#729
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Right.... been out today to do some logging and Road Dyno runs.
The results are interesting to say the least.
Whilst I appreciate that it's now December, for some reason it's virtually tropical temps today. Inlet temps today were logged as 10degs, these are very close to the comparison runs that I will be using below. This should mean that the temperature of today's runs shouldn't have any major bearing on the figures attained (I will give the logged inlet temps of the comparison runs for completeness).
So let's see how the current state of tune compares to the previous state of tune.
LM450 Billet Red Line (FMIC, Big MAF & Large Filter) vs LM450 Billet Blue Line (FMIC, OEM size MAF & Small Filter)
389bhp / 383lbft for the LM450 Billet with FMIC, Big MAF and Large Filter
Red Line 10degs Inlet Temp
Blue Line 14degs Inlet Temp
I must admit I was thinking that Road Dyno was going to show more of an increase in peak BHP than it has, but it's done what it's done (I'm not here to hide anything about the results I achieve).... and an increase is an increase over the previous state of tune regardless. Of course peak increases on their own don't always tell the whole story... look across the whole rev range and you'll see parts in the mid-range appear to be gaining in the region of 25bhp.
So peak power has increased by circa 3% but look at the torque.... that has shot up by over 25lbft.
Richard did say to me yesterday that it was the mid-range that looked great on the HUB dyno graph and you can certainly see above, where it has picked up a fair bit in this area.
So with that increase in torque you would expect the acceleration times to be better wouldn't you. Guess what... they were!
Acceleration times:
LM450 Billet (before Big MAF, Large Airfilter & remap)
40 - 60mph = 2.5s
50 - 70mph = 2.0s
60 - 80mph = 1.9s
70 - 90mph = 2.1s
80 -100mph = 2.4s
LM450 Billet (after Big MAF, Large Airfilter & remap)
40 - 60mph = 2.3s
50 - 70mph = 1.9s
60 - 80mph = 1.8s
70 - 90mph = 2.0s
80 -100mph = 2.3s
LM400 Billet
40 - 60mph = 2.3s
50 - 70mph = 2.0s
60 - 80mph = 2.1s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s
80 -100mph = 2.8s
LM400
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.2s
60 - 80mph = 2.2s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s
80 -100mph = 2.8s
VF
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.5s
60 - 80mph = 2.6s
70 - 90mph = 2.9s
80 -100mph = 3.6s
I'm past really caring for dyno graphs (everything that has been done on dynos for this project are purely to help the reader have as much information as possible), as different dynos give different figures and even then which is right and which is wrong. I place more reliance on acceleration figures, especially when I use the same road, similar conditions and weight.
As you can see the above data from the current state of tune just "monsters" the previous set-up and that is what I'm happy with!
I don't know why but the car just feels a lot smoother now as well...... it's weird.
The final comparison is against the previous LM400 Billet, which proved to be an absolute awesome road turbo in my opinion. The comparison of acceleration figures above may have already given you an indication on how this comparison will turn out!?
LM450 Billet Red Line (FMIC, Big MAF & Large Filter) vs LM400 Billet Yellow Line
Red Line 10degs Inlet Temp
Yellow Line 11degs Inlet Temp
I'm not sure I need to say much about the graph above..... I think it's plain for anyone to see how - with the right supporting mods - awesome the LM450 Billet is low down.
Put simply.... I can't for the life of me recommend a Billet LM400 over a Billet LM450 (assuming you have the supporting mods to make the best of the LM450 Billet).
The results are interesting to say the least.
Whilst I appreciate that it's now December, for some reason it's virtually tropical temps today. Inlet temps today were logged as 10degs, these are very close to the comparison runs that I will be using below. This should mean that the temperature of today's runs shouldn't have any major bearing on the figures attained (I will give the logged inlet temps of the comparison runs for completeness).
So let's see how the current state of tune compares to the previous state of tune.
LM450 Billet Red Line (FMIC, Big MAF & Large Filter) vs LM450 Billet Blue Line (FMIC, OEM size MAF & Small Filter)
389bhp / 383lbft for the LM450 Billet with FMIC, Big MAF and Large Filter
Red Line 10degs Inlet Temp
Blue Line 14degs Inlet Temp
I must admit I was thinking that Road Dyno was going to show more of an increase in peak BHP than it has, but it's done what it's done (I'm not here to hide anything about the results I achieve).... and an increase is an increase over the previous state of tune regardless. Of course peak increases on their own don't always tell the whole story... look across the whole rev range and you'll see parts in the mid-range appear to be gaining in the region of 25bhp.
So peak power has increased by circa 3% but look at the torque.... that has shot up by over 25lbft.
Richard did say to me yesterday that it was the mid-range that looked great on the HUB dyno graph and you can certainly see above, where it has picked up a fair bit in this area.
So with that increase in torque you would expect the acceleration times to be better wouldn't you. Guess what... they were!
Acceleration times:
LM450 Billet (before Big MAF, Large Airfilter & remap)
40 - 60mph = 2.5s
50 - 70mph = 2.0s
60 - 80mph = 1.9s
70 - 90mph = 2.1s
80 -100mph = 2.4s
LM450 Billet (after Big MAF, Large Airfilter & remap)
40 - 60mph = 2.3s
50 - 70mph = 1.9s
60 - 80mph = 1.8s
70 - 90mph = 2.0s
80 -100mph = 2.3s
LM400 Billet
40 - 60mph = 2.3s
50 - 70mph = 2.0s
60 - 80mph = 2.1s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s
80 -100mph = 2.8s
LM400
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.2s
60 - 80mph = 2.2s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s
80 -100mph = 2.8s
VF
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.5s
60 - 80mph = 2.6s
70 - 90mph = 2.9s
80 -100mph = 3.6s
I'm past really caring for dyno graphs (everything that has been done on dynos for this project are purely to help the reader have as much information as possible), as different dynos give different figures and even then which is right and which is wrong. I place more reliance on acceleration figures, especially when I use the same road, similar conditions and weight.
As you can see the above data from the current state of tune just "monsters" the previous set-up and that is what I'm happy with!
I don't know why but the car just feels a lot smoother now as well...... it's weird.
The final comparison is against the previous LM400 Billet, which proved to be an absolute awesome road turbo in my opinion. The comparison of acceleration figures above may have already given you an indication on how this comparison will turn out!?
LM450 Billet Red Line (FMIC, Big MAF & Large Filter) vs LM400 Billet Yellow Line
Red Line 10degs Inlet Temp
Yellow Line 11degs Inlet Temp
I'm not sure I need to say much about the graph above..... I think it's plain for anyone to see how - with the right supporting mods - awesome the LM450 Billet is low down.
Put simply.... I can't for the life of me recommend a Billet LM400 over a Billet LM450 (assuming you have the supporting mods to make the best of the LM450 Billet).
17 December 2011, 03:24 PM
#730
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Last time I used that Q16.... it cost me over £300 in Q16 for the mapping session and a squirt up the road! Rich has a 2.1 build in his Spec C RA now....
Prior to the recent mapping session with me, he thought a LM420 was going to be turbo he would end up putting on..... he now said (after yesterday) he will be speaking to Iain about getting the LM450 Billet, he was that impressed with how mine went.
So... you know what you really need to do next!
18 December 2011, 04:21 PM
#733
I'm still not convinced spending all that money would make my car a better proposition as a road car, or even as a sprint car.
Sure, once it's wound up it should be quicker, but i'd be surprised if your spec of car could match mine on the roads where i live at the speeds that are safely and realistically atainable.
I also dont like the look of a none stock engine bay, so would be sticking to TMIC and stock airbox if i did do a turbo upgrade.
Sure, once it's wound up it should be quicker, but i'd be surprised if your spec of car could match mine on the roads where i live at the speeds that are safely and realistically atainable.
I also dont like the look of a none stock engine bay, so would be sticking to TMIC and stock airbox if i did do a turbo upgrade.
18 December 2011, 07:40 PM
#735
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
John,
Live a little!!!!
Andy,
1.78bar peak boost and 1.68bar at peak power in 4th gear (as logged).
Live a little!!!!
Andy,
1.78bar peak boost and 1.68bar at peak power in 4th gear (as logged).
Last edited by Shaun; 19 December 2011 at 07:39 PM. Reason: Edited for accuracy against logged data.
19 December 2011, 03:42 PM
#737
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Shaun,
Is it because you work with Ecutek or do you have another reason not to implement Carberry ROM, which is GroupN based (speed density control scheme) but still using the knock control strategy of the OEM ECU ?
it can be downloaded directly from RomRaider site.
Secondly, when seeing how were improved power and torque figures after diminishing pressure drop on the intake of your car, we can imagine than even better results will be obtained while using a 3 inchs turbo intake, 3 inchs intake pipe etc..
Is it because you work with Ecutek or do you have another reason not to implement Carberry ROM, which is GroupN based (speed density control scheme) but still using the knock control strategy of the OEM ECU ?
it can be downloaded directly from RomRaider site.
Secondly, when seeing how were improved power and torque figures after diminishing pressure drop on the intake of your car, we can imagine than even better results will be obtained while using a 3 inchs turbo intake, 3 inchs intake pipe etc..
Last edited by michmout; 19 December 2011 at 03:43 PM.
19 December 2011, 07:31 PM
#738
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Hi Michmout,
I have been sponsored by EcuTEK so I'm not in a position to use different methods which would of ultimately been based on their IP rights. To be honest though MAF basis is still OK for me at the moment. I don't have a problem with driveability and I have loads of headroom within the MAF scale now, should I decide to up the turbo size in the future.
You could of course be right about "opening up" the inlet pipe and turbo inlet to the full 76mm as regards to any benefits. Assuming I change from the current LM450 Billet spec to a bigger turbo (which has been discussed), I will undoubtedly look at this area again as part of that possible change.
The question at the moment is, do I really want to keep pushing the OEM engine much further.
I have been sponsored by EcuTEK so I'm not in a position to use different methods which would of ultimately been based on their IP rights. To be honest though MAF basis is still OK for me at the moment. I don't have a problem with driveability and I have loads of headroom within the MAF scale now, should I decide to up the turbo size in the future.
You could of course be right about "opening up" the inlet pipe and turbo inlet to the full 76mm as regards to any benefits. Assuming I change from the current LM450 Billet spec to a bigger turbo (which has been discussed), I will undoubtedly look at this area again as part of that possible change.
The question at the moment is, do I really want to keep pushing the OEM engine much further.
14 January 2012, 08:12 PM
#739
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
It's another day and another dyno run! 
This will be the LAST run for this current set-up. All that was wanted to be done has been done and this is the final comparison run back again at Surrey Rolling Road.
Last time I was at SRR the car made 440.1bhp and 423ftlb. Based on this and the data attained from my lastest Road Dyno runs, I had calculated a Dyno Dynamics BHP output now of circa 450bhp.
442.1bhp / 440ftlb
Mmmm.... perhaps not then with regard to the BHP, but look at that torque now! However I have previously and will continue to state, one should never just look at peak values, as they don't tell the whole story.
Let's compare now with before (the last run at SRR which did not have the larger MAF pipe & different induction kit and previous map).
Guess what?!
From the start of the run all the way to 5800rpm, there is an increase in power and torque. In parts of the rev range that amounts to +56bhp & +70ftlb. This certainly ties up with the much better in-gear acceleration times documented last month.
Now... I am running more boost now then before, but not a massive amount more. Before the car was running 1.74 peak boost / 1.6 peak power and now it's running 1.79 peak boost / 1.7 peak power (represented on the dyno runs).
The extra .1bar seen from 5800-7500rpm interestingly see's no extra power. Is it possible there's still a restriction (turbo inlet is still 56mm and inlet pipe is not 3"), or have we reached the realistic limit of this set-up? It's difficult to tell without further testing.
It's running fairly rich, however this is how Richard has mapped it and whom am I to argue with his fueling strategies. Leaning the fuel mix out could net more BHP.
The end result is very good with regards to what this turbo (with the right supporting) mods is achieving. When you consider this is still on the standard engine and the standard clutch!
A rock solid 440/440 from a 2ltr is nothing to be sniffed at and is so driveable, more than I ever thought possible from a 2ltr at this level.
I really hope the information up to now has provided some interesting reading and given some, key information on what type of set-up they may go for, using these new turbos from Litchfield and Turbo Dynamics.
If I'm being totally honest I'm starting to get a bit hesitant about pushing this standard engine (and clutch!) further, but I will be carrying on discussion again soon with Turbo Dynamics / Litchfields about another turbo specification.
I'll sleep on it and undoubtedly be back with another project update about a different turbo and yet again more power!!
This will be the LAST run for this current set-up. All that was wanted to be done has been done and this is the final comparison run back again at Surrey Rolling Road.
Last time I was at SRR the car made 440.1bhp and 423ftlb. Based on this and the data attained from my lastest Road Dyno runs, I had calculated a Dyno Dynamics BHP output now of circa 450bhp.
442.1bhp / 440ftlb
Mmmm.... perhaps not then with regard to the BHP, but look at that torque now! However I have previously and will continue to state, one should never just look at peak values, as they don't tell the whole story.
Let's compare now with before (the last run at SRR which did not have the larger MAF pipe & different induction kit and previous map).
Guess what?!
From the start of the run all the way to 5800rpm, there is an increase in power and torque. In parts of the rev range that amounts to +56bhp & +70ftlb. This certainly ties up with the much better in-gear acceleration times documented last month.
Now... I am running more boost now then before, but not a massive amount more. Before the car was running 1.74 peak boost / 1.6 peak power and now it's running 1.79 peak boost / 1.7 peak power (represented on the dyno runs).
The extra .1bar seen from 5800-7500rpm interestingly see's no extra power. Is it possible there's still a restriction (turbo inlet is still 56mm and inlet pipe is not 3"), or have we reached the realistic limit of this set-up? It's difficult to tell without further testing.
It's running fairly rich, however this is how Richard has mapped it and whom am I to argue with his fueling strategies. Leaning the fuel mix out could net more BHP.
The end result is very good with regards to what this turbo (with the right supporting) mods is achieving. When you consider this is still on the standard engine and the standard clutch!
A rock solid 440/440 from a 2ltr is nothing to be sniffed at and is so driveable, more than I ever thought possible from a 2ltr at this level.
I really hope the information up to now has provided some interesting reading and given some, key information on what type of set-up they may go for, using these new turbos from Litchfield and Turbo Dynamics.
If I'm being totally honest I'm starting to get a bit hesitant about pushing this standard engine (and clutch!) further, but I will be carrying on discussion again soon with Turbo Dynamics / Litchfields about another turbo specification.
I'll sleep on it and undoubtedly be back with another project update about a different turbo and yet again more power!!
Last edited by Shaun; 14 January 2012 at 08:20 PM.
14 January 2012, 10:20 PM
#740
I really hope the information up to now has provided some interesting reading and given some, key information on what type of set-up they may go for,
If I'm being totally honest I'm starting to get a bit hesitant about pushing this standard engine (and clutch!) further, !!
If I'm being totally honest I'm starting to get a bit hesitant about pushing this standard engine (and clutch!) further, !!
"Pushing" I guess, would be dependant upon your pocket Shaun.
If you do proceed, I hope it all goes well for you..... (might try the MLR weekend at Silverstone myself
)
15 January 2012, 09:42 AM
#741
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Cliff,
If life was only that straight forward!
Funding a new engine build is not a problem..... the potential and inevitable stress that goes with that is! Let's be honest - I suspect I'll be going way past 500bhp if that happens.
The great thing about this car is that I don't need to worry about anything. Fill it up with petrol and off I go. After the 2.5ltr I kept checking the oil every time I used it... but that habit is starting to get less and less now as it obviously doesn't use oil (makes a change!). It's those little things.
Perhaps it's a sign of maturity (old age?!) but I've had my fill of car related stress.
It's not all about power either..... the bigger the turbo (assumed on this 2ltr engine) the less response and more lag it will have.
Upping the engine capacity (say to 2.1ltr) may mean going up to a 500bhp turbo, I would keep my current spool and response characteristics. However - all this extra cash for 50bhp. No thanks!
I have been known to change my mind several times in the past though.... we'll see.
Regardless of what ends up happening with the power side of things, I still have other "area's" that will be modified / developed and documented on this thread in the near future.
Give the MLR Sprint a go mate..... you can hardly do any worse than I did last year!
If life was only that straight forward!
Funding a new engine build is not a problem..... the potential and inevitable stress that goes with that is! Let's be honest - I suspect I'll be going way past 500bhp if that happens.
The great thing about this car is that I don't need to worry about anything. Fill it up with petrol and off I go. After the 2.5ltr I kept checking the oil every time I used it... but that habit is starting to get less and less now as it obviously doesn't use oil (makes a change!). It's those little things.
Perhaps it's a sign of maturity (old age?!) but I've had my fill of car related stress.
It's not all about power either..... the bigger the turbo (assumed on this 2ltr engine) the less response and more lag it will have.
Upping the engine capacity (say to 2.1ltr) may mean going up to a 500bhp turbo, I would keep my current spool and response characteristics. However - all this extra cash for 50bhp. No thanks!
I have been known to change my mind several times in the past though.... we'll see.
Regardless of what ends up happening with the power side of things, I still have other "area's" that will be modified / developed and documented on this thread in the near future.
Give the MLR Sprint a go mate..... you can hardly do any worse than I did last year!
...
28 February 2012, 07:48 AM
#743
Hello Shaun! Thank you for such a great thread posting! I'm from Russia, own a 2003 Spec C 16 inch (gravel spec). My quastion is, you say there is a difference in driving 2003 and 2007 spec c models. (your previos and today cars), 2007 handles sharper! I don't want to sell my 2003 car, due to it's low mileage and great overall condition. What I have to change to make it handle better, in meaning like MY2007?
I know there is a difference in wheel hubs (5*100 to 5*114,3), but I can change them, 5*114,3 wheel bearings are wider and stronger for hard cornering, also have to change the coilovers because of their different mounting brackets (not a problem, I am looking for some better than stock, ASTs may be or type RA 4-position adjustables "tuned by Arai" ones).
What I have to change else, to make a 2003 car handle like 2007 car?
I know there is a difference in wheel hubs (5*100 to 5*114,3), but I can change them, 5*114,3 wheel bearings are wider and stronger for hard cornering, also have to change the coilovers because of their different mounting brackets (not a problem, I am looking for some better than stock, ASTs may be or type RA 4-position adjustables "tuned by Arai" ones).
What I have to change else, to make a 2003 car handle like 2007 car?
28 February 2012, 12:48 PM
#744
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Hi Semion,
"Handling better" is quite subjective in my opinion... what aspect do you want to improve. What is the car being used for?
There are various things you can do to alter the handling but understanding your requirements is probably the first step.
Personally I would not fixate yourself with trying to get your car to handle like a widetrack STI. There are a number of differences between the two cars, which also include changes to the diff set-up, which will have an impact on the handling.
I can certainly advise you on what worked very well on my previous MY03 Spec C.
"Handling better" is quite subjective in my opinion... what aspect do you want to improve. What is the car being used for?
There are various things you can do to alter the handling but understanding your requirements is probably the first step.
Personally I would not fixate yourself with trying to get your car to handle like a widetrack STI. There are a number of differences between the two cars, which also include changes to the diff set-up, which will have an impact on the handling.
I can certainly advise you on what worked very well on my previous MY03 Spec C.
28 February 2012, 03:35 PM
#746
My car is in service now, they change the LSD unit in rear diff from clutch-type to Torsen from 2010 Sti . I started to hear much clicks and cracks from the rear diff in tight corners, my rear diff seems died very fast, caused by car jerking around 2000-2500rpm, caused by bad mapping. (It's a whole story, It's better not to tell)
Here is the opinion that torsen type (coming on 2007 and later cars) is better on summer high-grip tracks, and clutch (discplate) type is better for winter, icy, or any low-grip conditions.
Of course, I would better to get the stock LSD, but it's quite expensive, and I found a Torsen LSD from a brand new car, I'm shure it's in great condition, and for a very affordable price.
Did I make a mistake or it's a way forward, what is your opinion? Why FHI started to use Torsen type LSD on 2007 and newer STi cars?
Here is the opinion that torsen type (coming on 2007 and later cars) is better on summer high-grip tracks, and clutch (discplate) type is better for winter, icy, or any low-grip conditions.
Of course, I would better to get the stock LSD, but it's quite expensive, and I found a Torsen LSD from a brand new car, I'm shure it's in great condition, and for a very affordable price.
Did I make a mistake or it's a way forward, what is your opinion? Why FHI started to use Torsen type LSD on 2007 and newer STi cars?
28 February 2012, 06:37 PM
#748
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
My car is in service now, they change the LSD unit in rear diff from clutch-type to Torsen from 2010 Sti . I started to hear much clicks and cracks from the rear diff in tight corners, my rear diff seems died very fast, caused by car jerking around 2000-2500rpm, caused by bad mapping. (It's a whole story, It's better not to tell)
Here is the opinion that torsen type (coming on 2007 and later cars) is better on summer high-grip tracks, and clutch (discplate) type is better for winter, icy, or any low-grip conditions.
Of course, I would better to get the stock LSD, but it's quite expensive, and I found a Torsen LSD from a brand new car, I'm shure it's in great condition, and for a very affordable price.
Did I make a mistake or it's a way forward, what is your opinion? Why FHI started to use Torsen type LSD on 2007 and newer STi cars?
Here is the opinion that torsen type (coming on 2007 and later cars) is better on summer high-grip tracks, and clutch (discplate) type is better for winter, icy, or any low-grip conditions.
Of course, I would better to get the stock LSD, but it's quite expensive, and I found a Torsen LSD from a brand new car, I'm shure it's in great condition, and for a very affordable price.
Did I make a mistake or it's a way forward, what is your opinion? Why FHI started to use Torsen type LSD on 2007 and newer STi cars?
Going back to your original questions... what are you going to be using the car for and what area's do you think need improving?
29 February 2012, 06:06 PM
#749
I own this car for about 4 years, and did not make any modification till last year. It's started when my VF36 started to wine at idle. I got VF53 (from spec c 2010) brand new, as a slightly bigger than stock turbo, and was dissapointed to hear that wine again. That's how I knew that all ball-bearing IHIs are whining a little at idle. Now I just got MD321T Billet from the Lateral Perfomance,(what is the difference with LM450 Billet, how can tell me ? ) and I am collecting all the support things, like bosch motorsports 1000cc injectors, blitz fmic (it was very hard to decide, fmic vs tmic was my head pain for a month), 3" fujitsubo super ti jdm titanium exhaust, custom 3" downpipe, HKS SPF air filter intake kit, aeromotive fuel pump, grimmspeed 3-port boost solenoid..
I already have changed the camshafts, when I fitted VF53, right before the mapping. I did choose the Tomei poncams type A (250/256 9.5 9.8 ).
And the main open quastion for me now is to go big MAF or to go aftermarket ECU, like Motec. If to go Motec, with the knock control module or not. (no mappers know syvecs here)
My goal is a ultimate street car, not for everyday driving, only for weekends and may be some time attacks at the track Looks clean and stock as much as possible.
Are there any issues running big MAF? Does Motec, equipped with the knock module, allows me to use a pump gas with no worry about the fuel quality and possibility of getting a detonation?
Sorry for poor english, guys. Thanks for advices!
Now I just got MD321T Billet from the Lateral Perfomance,(what is the difference with LM450 Billet, how can tell me ? ) and I am collecting all the support things, like bosch motorsports 1000cc injectors, blitz fmic (it was very hard to decide, fmic vs tmic was my head pain for a month), 3" fujitsubo super ti jdm titanium exhaust, custom 3" downpipe, HKS SPF air filter intake kit, aeromotive fuel pump, grimmspeed 3-port boost solenoid.. I already have changed the camshafts, when I fitted VF53, right before the mapping. I did choose the Tomei poncams type A (250/256 9.5 9.8 ).
And the main open quastion for me now is to go big MAF or to go aftermarket ECU, like Motec. If to go Motec, with the knock control module or not. (no mappers know syvecs here)
My goal is a ultimate street car, not for everyday driving, only for weekends and may be some time attacks at the track
Looks clean and stock as much as possible.Are there any issues running big MAF? Does Motec, equipped with the knock module, allows me to use a pump gas with no worry about the fuel quality and possibility of getting a detonation?
Sorry for poor english, guys. Thanks for advices!
Last edited by Semion; 29 February 2012 at 06:11 PM. Reason: grammatic mistakes
29 February 2012, 06:20 PM
#750
I was watching some "Best Motoring" film about the Subaru Sti Spec C, and find out that MY07 spec c got better steering and handling feel. MY03 and MY07 bodies are the same, and I a thinking why not to refresh some parts from the MY07 car. They say they changed the transmission mounting method and a wheel hubs, have widened the track. May be someone here knows all the difference in meaning of handling (the engine main difference is DBW throttle and 32bit ecu)?