Starting again.... with a Hawkeye
02 September 2010, 01:50 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Everything is now fitted and I am currently running a LM400 base map from Litchfields. I am with Tracktive for the full MegaROM remap this Wednesday.
Loads of logs and loads of data (from DeltaDash), but until it has been fully mapped on MegaROM by Tracktive I am loathed to give any great detail yet.
Edited to add that I am unable to verify spool after looking further at the DeltaDash logs, since the temperatures are not the same (between the samples of before and after) and it is not correct to compare apples and oranges at this stage.
Oh and RoadDyno shows an extra wedge of power.
So far so good.
Full breakdown of the past two days later on.
Last edited by Shaun; 02 September 2010 at 06:06 PM. Reason: Putting something in to context
03 September 2010, 07:01 PM
#127
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
OK... so the time had come to get the car down to Litchfield’s for the fitment of their LM400 turbo!
Based on what I wanted, the agreement of what to be fitted was as follows:
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo
Litchfield Turbo Heat Shield
3" Miltek DECAT exhaust system
Walbro upgraded fuel pump
Litchfield 800cc Injector Kit
3 Port Boost Solenoid
Let's go in to a bit more detail about each part in the order they were fitted:
Litchfield 800cc Injector Kit - Why, What and How
The standard STI "Pinks" are the largest injectors fitted OE to the Hawkeye (and previous STI's). There seems to be some debate on how much these injectors can optimally flow (BHP wise), but I hear figures banded around of 380-390bhp. I had already discussed this with Tracktive Solutions and whilst they had mapped a LM400 on "Pinks" they had to hold it back at the top end since maximum injector duty cycle was reached (the injectors would of been flat out). Because I wanted to extract as much out of the LM400 as possible and I knew this would not be the last turbo, it made perfect sense to buy some new injectors with greater flow rate potential and ultimately allow me more BHP headroom in the future.
Something that is quite critical come injector purchase is not only the flow rate (how much fuel they will flow), but also the quality of the spray patterns of the injector. The larger the injector and the chance you have of spray pattern becoming less controllable. This can effect part throttle and lowdown driveability, so it is important that an injector is chosen that has a good spray pattern to aid atomisation. A nice fine mist of fuel is going to burn more efficiently than a virtual hose pipe spray! Very simplistic but I suspect you get the idea.
Up until recently the choice of injectors had become rather limited, especially for those that wanted HUGE injectors at 1000cc +. Fortunately for the likes of us that has been rectified with the availability of a new Bosch range of injectors, that are supplied with a specific fitting kit to be compatible with the Newage Subaru. These have a good choice of flow rates and a great spray pattern.... just the ticket then!
Litchfield 800cc Injectors with spacers (required for fuel rail spacing)
Litchfield 800cc Injector Wiring Loom Adapters (required to replace existing injector loom plugs)
Comparison of OE "Pink" vs Litchfield 800cc Injector (notice the height difference)
New Injector Plug Soldered to OE Loom
Litchfield Injector / Adaptor Kit Fitted
Walbro Upgraded Fuel Pump - Why, What and How
The OE fuel pump has a specific flow rate, regarding the amount of fuel it will flow normally measured in litres per hour. I have to be honest and say I am not sure what the flow rate is of a standard UK (2ltr) STI pump, but even going over the 300bhp mark warrants a change (UK car) and actually comes as part of the Prodrive kits.
So.... the more power you want to produce the more fuelling required. The more fuelling required the better the flow (and possibly pressure) / reliability of the fuel pump required.
This all gets slightly confusing when you look at the JDM 2ltr STI fuel pumps. Apparently they have the same part number as the UK STI fuel pumps, yet I know from personal experience the JDM provides enough for circa 460+bhp (the Spec C was running the standard pump on it's own for some time) and also had this confirmed by another respected tuner in their own experiences. It would suggest that the OE JDM fuel pump is not the same and is in fact better. Who knows!
To be quite honest this is one of those areas for the sake of a few quid, it is not worth taking the risk in my opinion.
As an example......
My first Escort Cosworth I bought was upgraded to 330bhp when I first bought it. The tuner at the time did not believe in changing the fuel pump at that level..... many others did (perhaps I should of done more research!). Anyway the car was fine for a couple of months until I decided to give it "straight line" death against a M3 (closed venue). Full throttle top speed run and it decided to melt a couple of pistons!! It was discovered that the fuel pump was not flowing anywhere near what was needed and the car was dangerously lean. Once bitten, twice shy!!
If you’re not sure what pump you have..... get it changed (or at least checked!), if your looking at modding.
Walbro Fuel Pump Kit
Removal of Back Seats to Replace OE Pump
Fuel Pump Inspection Plate
Disconnecting Electric Supply and Fuel Pump Work to Carrier (OE Pump)
Pulling Fuel Pump Carrier Out
OE Fuel Pump & Carrier
Fuel Pump Removed
New Walbro Fitted to Carrier
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo - Why, What and How
Perhaps the party piece of this round of mods.... the Litchfield range of new Twin Entry turbo chargers have been a long time coming but are now finally available!
Litchfield started a long relationship with Turbo Dynamics (one of the largest turbo companies in the UK) starting with the development of the turbos used on the Litchfield Type25. I myself also worked (through Litchfield’s) with Turbo Dynamics back in 2006, when we completed some testing on their early Hybrid Twinscroll turbos for the 2ltr Spec C.
The biggest problem with extracting more power out of the early twinscrolls was always regarding the exhaust housings. 99% of hybrid housings were based on the original IHI housing of the OE VF36 / 37 and in most cases the housing was machined out to enable a bigger core to be used. The biggest problem with this, is that the process itself can obtain varying results and also by machining mass out of the housing can make it prone to decreased reliability over time. Also using the original exhaust housing as a base, means you have to live with certain constraints.
Litchfield’s had already spent a lot of time developing their Type25 turbos, but the intention was always to look at producing a turbo specification that delivered exactly what they wanted, without the compromises of OE exhaust castings. Unfortunately this would take a lot of time and cost an extensive amount of cash to produce. Luckily for the likes of us Litchfield’s made the decision to invest in the development of this turbo with Turbo Dynamics.
Whilst it is not for me to state how much the development has cost of these new turbos, the amount invested by Litchfield’s made my eyes water! It certainly makes you realise why this had not really been done before.
Whilst the whole turbo specification was looked at, the main focus was perhaps on the exhaust side of the turbo.
I won't belittle how much most parts on the turbo can effect it's performance, but ultimately the exhaust housing will limit air flow and power (everything else assumed correct).
Exhaust gas from the engine is fed through the headers, up-pipe and in to the exhaust housing, which then drives the exhaust wheel and finally exiting in to the exhaust. As the exhaust wheel is driven, this drives the compressor wheel (inlet side of the turbo from the air filter etc) which sucks the air in and the whole process goes round and round.
Basically the bigger the exhaust wheel, the more outright power. The bigger the exhaust wheel, the bigger the internal capacity required within the exhaust housing to house the bigger exhaust wheel. To top it all off the bigger the exhaust wheel/housing is normally associated with less response and more lag. It's a nightmare just thinking about it! This is even before you look at the compressor (inlet) side of the turbo!
This is being VERY simplistic in approach, but should give you some idea of the scope of what needs to be looked at when specifying a turbo for any given application.
The new range of Litchfield turbos needed to have the ability of providing a varied range of solutions from 400bhp to over 500bhp, whilst maximising response and spool. With all the previous development / testing that Litchfield’s had completed, they had a lot of data to work with.
Turbo Dynamics set about the design work for the exhaust housing, since this element of the new turbo was to be designed (using 3D modelling design software) and cast specifically for this new range within the UK. This is where the costs and time start escalating!
Something else (that I never thought of) is to do with the "type" of iron used for the exhaust housing. As you may appreciate this area has to deal with a lot of heat and whilst this can be fine, over longer (not so long with some of the cheaper turbos available) periods of time and heat build up, exhaust housings are known to crack. This is certainly not uncommon. One of the solutions to combat this is to use better iron for casting, but unfortunately this costs more money and something that most turbo's will not include. To ensure that reliability would remain optimum, Litchfield made the decision to ensure that the iron used was of the highest quality..... this was something that only the UK foundry could provide, as the far eastern manufacturers used lower grade iron for their castings. Whilst I appreciate there are a small number of exceptions, the theory of "Cheap is dear and dear is cheap" is quite often true when it comes down to quality parts.
Some key points about the Litchfield range of turbos:
Since I am more concerned about keeping OE type response and spool I plumbed for the LM400-S60, which relates to 400bhp exhaust wheel / exhaust housing combination with the small .60 AR compressor cover using a standard 58mm inlet. So from everything on the Spec C going big, big, big, this is small, small, small!
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Compressor Cover / Wheel and Actuator
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Twin Entry
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Exhaust Turbine and Wastegate
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Zircotec Coating on Exhaust Housing
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo and Litchfield Turbo Heat Shield Fitted
3" Miltek Decat Exhaust System - Why, What and How
The car already had a 3" decat system on it but it was of an unknown quantity. I was not happy with the centre section that was on it and wanted to replace it with something of known quality and performance. With is in mind I went for a full Miltek system, after experience of these systems before on the Spec C.
I original alluded to putting a 100 cell sports cat on this system, but in the end I bottled it and went for a full decat system with two resonators (one in the downpipe and one in the centre section), to ensure I would attain the best performance and flow. Most people will already have a decat / sports cat system on their cars, so this bit would be irrelevant for most.
Taking the old system off the car it was evident that it was probably not the best. A couple of potential areas of issue were the centre section and it's design and also the turbo flange on the up-pipe.
Previous Installed Centre Pipe
Previous Installed Downpipe (notice the neck was not to the size of the gasket, which could cause a problem with wastegate effectiveness)
New 3" Miltek Turbo Back Decat System
3 Port Boost Solenoid - Why, What and How
The boost solenoid (boost controller) controls the flow of pressure to the actuator, which in turn controls the opening and closing of the wastegate (to a degree) to ultimately control what boost the turbo will produce.
Since (in this case) the standard ECU via ECUTEK actually has the parameters for what boost should be achieved at what rpm etc, this ultimately controls the hardware (in this case the boost solenoid) by supplying an electrical current from the ECU which opens and closes the solenoid to allow the low pressure from the turbo to feed the actuator.
The standard 2 port boost solenoid can be quite slow reacting, which can be fine in certain circumstances, but when you wish to achieve finer and more accurate control of boost (say for instance in an overboost scenario) you may need a faster reacting boost solenoid. The standard 2 port boost solenoid was fine with the OE VF37, but since a bigger turbo that would ultimately run more boost was fitted, it made sense to uprate the boost solenoid to ensure boost ramp was the fastest and control was maintained.
OE 2 Port Boost Solenoid
3 Port Boost Solenoid
FMIC and Inlet malarkey!!!
You maybe wondered what I have decided to do about the intercooler and air inlet side of things. Well.... pretty much nothing! I know the advantages that can be gained by upgrading to a FMIC (especially for track related work) and a new inlet kit (when increased inlet airflow is required), but for this level of tune I do not believe they are required for road use just yet. All this costs money and unless the testing requires investigation in these areas I will not be blowing cash just for the sake of it.
So just to underline all of this..... I am still using the standard airbox (but with uprated panel filter), standard inlet pipework (from airbox to turbo), standard snorkel for airbox and standard TMIC for now.
Mapping
Due to the fact that Tracktive Solutions (Richard Bulmer) is taking care of my mapping needs, Litchfield Imports installed a base map so I could safely use the car until the main mapping event happened. The base map is just that... very safe and not pushing anything. Compared to my previous map completed by Tracktive, the base map for this set-up has up to 9degs LESS timing in it, so it would be totally pointless in discussing any logs and data (and I already have loads lol) until the setup has been mapped with MegaROM by Richard. Richard also does some "funky stuff" with the VVT timing, which is not done on the base map I have. Boost is also currently not at the level that I will be aiming for either.
Whilst I appreciate people are "gagging" for information, it would not be justifiable to explain the data I have until I know I have everything mapped to it's true potential. Believe me, this is just as annoying for me as I am gagging to get the car set-up to it's optimum performance. Luckily I am with Richard this Wednesday, so the wait will not be too long!
It is also worth pointing out that these turbos do need "freeing up" as well. Being totally honest I thought this was all sales blurb (sorry Iain lol), but there were already differences between the spool of the turbo from initial runs testing the base map and when I did some further logging later on that evening. Apparently the turbo needs to go through a few heat up and cool down processes to bed in.
On my previous post I had made a statement about the spool characteristics, but decided to remove the statement (I had said the spool was the same between the OE VF37 and the LM400). I should of left it in as it was still relevant, but perhaps should of mentioned something about the context. I need to ensure it is apples with apples comparison as much as feasibly possible, so with this in mind......
The difference of spool between the VF37 MegaROM mapped by Tracktive and the LM400 with a base map is virtually ZERO. This is based on a VF37 log which had inlet temps 7degs higher than the LM400 base map log. There is a chance that the VF37 log of spool would be slightly reduced if it had been 7degs cooler (but it would be negligible based on other comparison logs I have).
I have picked the closest recorded values from each log to get a "feel" for the current spool rates of the LM400 on the base map.
VF37 (4th Gear Log)
.92bar @ 3018
1.19bar @ 3236
1.44bar @ 3498
LM400 (4th Gear Log with base map)
.95bar @ 3051
1.19bar @ 3220
1.53bar @ 3386 (more boost than VF37 above and faster to get there)
Early days yet but I think you will agree that it looks promising.
As soon as it has been remapped to it's potential I will obviously divulge the data logs in greater detail, but just thought I would give you an insight to the spool side of things, as I know this area specifically is of great interest to many.
Please remember I am not doing any "bum dyno" comparisons here, everything is being logged through DeltaDash and then being reported. I hear too many times of "yeah the spool of turbo x is the same as the OE turbo", when it simply cannot be true in some cases. I am not interested in looking at a boost gauge and rev counter as that can be inaccurate at the best of times. It is more accurate to use specialist logging facilities to provide a picture, i.e. EcuTEK's DeltaDash.
Other
One final item I had done at Litchfield’s was an alignment check. I had already had a tracking adjustment made, but the car really needed a four wheel alignment done as it felt quite nervous on the road when giving it some.
Using Litchfield’s 4wd alignment rig it immediately showed up a major "malfunction" at the rear and virtually no negative camber at the front.
It was all adjusted to Litchfield’s Fast Road Geometry settings and I have got to say the car felt so much different it was untrue.
This will certainly not be the last visit to Litchfield’s (we have some other things up our sleeve for the near future!) and I would like to say a big thanks to Iain and his team for the effort put in over the past few days.
I certainly look forward to Richard Bulmer at Tracktive getting to work on the map and you can be rest assured I will follow that up with all the detail on how this set-up performs in glorious "****" detail next week!
Based on what I wanted, the agreement of what to be fitted was as follows:
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo
Litchfield Turbo Heat Shield
3" Miltek DECAT exhaust system
Walbro upgraded fuel pump
Litchfield 800cc Injector Kit
3 Port Boost Solenoid
Let's go in to a bit more detail about each part in the order they were fitted:
Litchfield 800cc Injector Kit - Why, What and How
The standard STI "Pinks" are the largest injectors fitted OE to the Hawkeye (and previous STI's). There seems to be some debate on how much these injectors can optimally flow (BHP wise), but I hear figures banded around of 380-390bhp. I had already discussed this with Tracktive Solutions and whilst they had mapped a LM400 on "Pinks" they had to hold it back at the top end since maximum injector duty cycle was reached (the injectors would of been flat out). Because I wanted to extract as much out of the LM400 as possible and I knew this would not be the last turbo
, it made perfect sense to buy some new injectors with greater flow rate potential and ultimately allow me more BHP headroom in the future.Something that is quite critical come injector purchase is not only the flow rate (how much fuel they will flow), but also the quality of the spray patterns of the injector. The larger the injector and the chance you have of spray pattern becoming less controllable. This can effect part throttle and lowdown driveability, so it is important that an injector is chosen that has a good spray pattern to aid atomisation. A nice fine mist of fuel is going to burn more efficiently than a virtual hose pipe spray! Very simplistic but I suspect you get the idea.
Up until recently the choice of injectors had become rather limited, especially for those that wanted HUGE injectors at 1000cc +. Fortunately for the likes of us that has been rectified with the availability of a new Bosch range of injectors, that are supplied with a specific fitting kit to be compatible with the Newage Subaru.
These have a good choice of flow rates and a great spray pattern.... just the ticket then!Litchfield 800cc Injectors with spacers (required for fuel rail spacing)
Litchfield 800cc Injector Wiring Loom Adapters (required to replace existing injector loom plugs)
Comparison of OE "Pink" vs Litchfield 800cc Injector (notice the height difference)
New Injector Plug Soldered to OE Loom
Litchfield Injector / Adaptor Kit Fitted
Walbro Upgraded Fuel Pump - Why, What and How
The OE fuel pump has a specific flow rate, regarding the amount of fuel it will flow normally measured in litres per hour. I have to be honest and say I am not sure what the flow rate is of a standard UK (2ltr) STI pump, but even going over the 300bhp mark warrants a change (UK car) and actually comes as part of the Prodrive kits.
So.... the more power you want to produce the more fuelling required. The more fuelling required the better the flow (and possibly pressure) / reliability of the fuel pump required.
This all gets slightly confusing when you look at the JDM 2ltr STI fuel pumps. Apparently they have the same part number as the UK STI fuel pumps, yet I know from personal experience the JDM provides enough for circa 460+bhp (the Spec C was running the standard pump on it's own for some time) and also had this confirmed by another respected tuner in their own experiences. It would suggest that the OE JDM fuel pump is not the same and is in fact better. Who knows!
To be quite honest this is one of those areas for the sake of a few quid, it is not worth taking the risk in my opinion.
As an example......
My first Escort Cosworth I bought was upgraded to 330bhp when I first bought it. The tuner at the time did not believe in changing the fuel pump at that level..... many others did (perhaps I should of done more research!). Anyway the car was fine for a couple of months until I decided to give it "straight line" death against a M3 (closed venue). Full throttle top speed run and it decided to melt a couple of pistons!! It was discovered that the fuel pump was not flowing anywhere near what was needed and the car was dangerously lean. Once bitten, twice shy!!
If you’re not sure what pump you have..... get it changed (or at least checked!), if your looking at modding.
Walbro Fuel Pump Kit
Removal of Back Seats to Replace OE Pump
Fuel Pump Inspection Plate
Disconnecting Electric Supply and Fuel Pump Work to Carrier (OE Pump)
Pulling Fuel Pump Carrier Out
OE Fuel Pump & Carrier
Fuel Pump Removed
New Walbro Fitted to Carrier
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo - Why, What and How
Perhaps the party piece of this round of mods.... the Litchfield range of new Twin Entry turbo chargers have been a long time coming but are now finally available!
Litchfield started a long relationship with Turbo Dynamics (one of the largest turbo companies in the UK) starting with the development of the turbos used on the Litchfield Type25. I myself also worked (through Litchfield’s) with Turbo Dynamics back in 2006, when we completed some testing on their early Hybrid Twinscroll turbos for the 2ltr Spec C.
The biggest problem with extracting more power out of the early twinscrolls was always regarding the exhaust housings. 99% of hybrid housings were based on the original IHI housing of the OE VF36 / 37 and in most cases the housing was machined out to enable a bigger core to be used. The biggest problem with this, is that the process itself can obtain varying results and also by machining mass out of the housing can make it prone to decreased reliability over time. Also using the original exhaust housing as a base, means you have to live with certain constraints.
Litchfield’s had already spent a lot of time developing their Type25 turbos, but the intention was always to look at producing a turbo specification that delivered exactly what they wanted, without the compromises of OE exhaust castings. Unfortunately this would take a lot of time and cost an extensive amount of cash to produce. Luckily for the likes of us Litchfield’s made the decision to invest in the development of this turbo with Turbo Dynamics.
Whilst it is not for me to state how much the development has cost of these new turbos, the amount invested by Litchfield’s made my eyes water! It certainly makes you realise why this had not really been done before.
Whilst the whole turbo specification was looked at, the main focus was perhaps on the exhaust side of the turbo.
I won't belittle how much most parts on the turbo can effect it's performance, but ultimately the exhaust housing will limit air flow and power (everything else assumed correct).
Exhaust gas from the engine is fed through the headers, up-pipe and in to the exhaust housing, which then drives the exhaust wheel and finally exiting in to the exhaust. As the exhaust wheel is driven, this drives the compressor wheel (inlet side of the turbo from the air filter etc) which sucks the air in and the whole process goes round and round.
Basically the bigger the exhaust wheel, the more outright power. The bigger the exhaust wheel, the bigger the internal capacity required within the exhaust housing to house the bigger exhaust wheel. To top it all off the bigger the exhaust wheel/housing is normally associated with less response and more lag. It's a nightmare just thinking about it! This is even before you look at the compressor (inlet) side of the turbo!
This is being VERY simplistic in approach, but should give you some idea of the scope of what needs to be looked at when specifying a turbo for any given application.
The new range of Litchfield turbos needed to have the ability of providing a varied range of solutions from 400bhp to over 500bhp, whilst maximising response and spool. With all the previous development / testing that Litchfield’s had completed, they had a lot of data to work with.
Turbo Dynamics set about the design work for the exhaust housing, since this element of the new turbo was to be designed (using 3D modelling design software) and cast specifically for this new range within the UK. This is where the costs and time start escalating!
Something else (that I never thought of) is to do with the "type" of iron used for the exhaust housing. As you may appreciate this area has to deal with a lot of heat and whilst this can be fine, over longer (not so long with some of the cheaper turbos available) periods of time and heat build up, exhaust housings are known to crack. This is certainly not uncommon. One of the solutions to combat this is to use better iron for casting, but unfortunately this costs more money and something that most turbo's will not include. To ensure that reliability would remain optimum, Litchfield made the decision to ensure that the iron used was of the highest quality..... this was something that only the UK foundry could provide, as the far eastern manufacturers used lower grade iron for their castings. Whilst I appreciate there are a small number of exceptions, the theory of "Cheap is dear and dear is cheap" is quite often true when it comes down to quality parts.
Some key points about the Litchfield range of turbos:
- Bolt on twin entry design to work with existing twinscroll setup
- Designed in the UK using the latest CAD and CFD techniques
- Exhaust housing made from the highest quality Ni-Resist iron (unlike most brands)
- Two internal volume sizes allowing for various customer requirements
- Zircotec ceramic coated exhaust housings to manage temps. and maintain spool
- All turbos use Garrett Ballistic Ball Bearing cores for reliability and performance
- Custom cast compressor housings for both standard cable and Drive-By-Wire throttles
Since I am more concerned about keeping OE type response and spool I plumbed for the LM400-S60, which relates to 400bhp exhaust wheel / exhaust housing combination with the small .60 AR compressor cover using a standard 58mm inlet. So from everything on the Spec C going big, big, big, this is small, small, small!
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Compressor Cover / Wheel and Actuator
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Twin Entry
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Exhaust Turbine and Wastegate
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo Zircotec Coating on Exhaust Housing
Litchfield LM400-S60 Turbo and Litchfield Turbo Heat Shield Fitted
3" Miltek Decat Exhaust System - Why, What and How
The car already had a 3" decat system on it but it was of an unknown quantity. I was not happy with the centre section that was on it and wanted to replace it with something of known quality and performance. With is in mind I went for a full Miltek system, after experience of these systems before on the Spec C.
I original alluded to putting a 100 cell sports cat on this system, but in the end I bottled it and went for a full decat system with two resonators (one in the downpipe and one in the centre section), to ensure I would attain the best performance and flow. Most people will already have a decat / sports cat system on their cars, so this bit would be irrelevant for most.
Taking the old system off the car it was evident that it was probably not the best. A couple of potential areas of issue were the centre section and it's design and also the turbo flange on the up-pipe.
Previous Installed Centre Pipe
Previous Installed Downpipe (notice the neck was not to the size of the gasket, which could cause a problem with wastegate effectiveness)
New 3" Miltek Turbo Back Decat System
3 Port Boost Solenoid - Why, What and How
The boost solenoid (boost controller) controls the flow of pressure to the actuator, which in turn controls the opening and closing of the wastegate (to a degree) to ultimately control what boost the turbo will produce.
Since (in this case) the standard ECU via ECUTEK actually has the parameters for what boost should be achieved at what rpm etc, this ultimately controls the hardware (in this case the boost solenoid) by supplying an electrical current from the ECU which opens and closes the solenoid to allow the low pressure from the turbo to feed the actuator.
The standard 2 port boost solenoid can be quite slow reacting, which can be fine in certain circumstances, but when you wish to achieve finer and more accurate control of boost (say for instance in an overboost scenario) you may need a faster reacting boost solenoid. The standard 2 port boost solenoid was fine with the OE VF37, but since a bigger turbo that would ultimately run more boost was fitted, it made sense to uprate the boost solenoid to ensure boost ramp was the fastest and control was maintained.
OE 2 Port Boost Solenoid
3 Port Boost Solenoid
FMIC and Inlet malarkey!!!
You maybe wondered what I have decided to do about the intercooler and air inlet side of things. Well.... pretty much nothing! I know the advantages that can be gained by upgrading to a FMIC (especially for track related work) and a new inlet kit (when increased inlet airflow is required), but for this level of tune I do not believe they are required for road use just yet. All this costs money and unless the testing requires investigation in these areas I will not be blowing cash just for the sake of it.
So just to underline all of this..... I am still using the standard airbox (but with uprated panel filter), standard inlet pipework (from airbox to turbo), standard snorkel for airbox and standard TMIC for now.
Mapping
Due to the fact that Tracktive Solutions (Richard Bulmer) is taking care of my mapping needs, Litchfield Imports installed a base map so I could safely use the car until the main mapping event happened. The base map is just that... very safe and not pushing anything. Compared to my previous map completed by Tracktive, the base map for this set-up has up to 9degs LESS timing in it, so it would be totally pointless in discussing any logs and data (and I already have loads lol) until the setup has been mapped with MegaROM by Richard. Richard also does some "funky stuff" with the VVT timing, which is not done on the base map I have. Boost is also currently not at the level that I will be aiming for either.
Whilst I appreciate people are "gagging" for information, it would not be justifiable to explain the data I have until I know I have everything mapped to it's true potential. Believe me, this is just as annoying for me as I am gagging to get the car set-up to it's optimum performance. Luckily I am with Richard this Wednesday, so the wait will not be too long!
It is also worth pointing out that these turbos do need "freeing up" as well. Being totally honest I thought this was all sales blurb (sorry Iain lol), but there were already differences between the spool of the turbo from initial runs testing the base map and when I did some further logging later on that evening. Apparently the turbo needs to go through a few heat up and cool down processes to bed in.
On my previous post I had made a statement about the spool characteristics, but decided to remove the statement (I had said the spool was the same between the OE VF37 and the LM400). I should of left it in as it was still relevant, but perhaps should of mentioned something about the context. I need to ensure it is apples with apples comparison as much as feasibly possible, so with this in mind......
The difference of spool between the VF37 MegaROM mapped by Tracktive and the LM400 with a base map is virtually ZERO. This is based on a VF37 log which had inlet temps 7degs higher than the LM400 base map log. There is a chance that the VF37 log of spool would be slightly reduced if it had been 7degs cooler (but it would be negligible based on other comparison logs I have).
I have picked the closest recorded values from each log to get a "feel" for the current spool rates of the LM400 on the base map.
VF37 (4th Gear Log)
.92bar @ 3018
1.19bar @ 3236
1.44bar @ 3498
LM400 (4th Gear Log with base map)
.95bar @ 3051
1.19bar @ 3220
1.53bar @ 3386 (more boost than VF37 above and faster to get there)
Early days yet but I think you will agree that it looks promising.
As soon as it has been remapped to it's potential I will obviously divulge the data logs in greater detail, but just thought I would give you an insight to the spool side of things, as I know this area specifically is of great interest to many.
Please remember I am not doing any "bum dyno" comparisons here, everything is being logged through DeltaDash and then being reported. I hear too many times of "yeah the spool of turbo x is the same as the OE turbo", when it simply cannot be true in some cases. I am not interested in looking at a boost gauge and rev counter as that can be inaccurate at the best of times. It is more accurate to use specialist logging facilities to provide a picture, i.e. EcuTEK's DeltaDash.
Other
One final item I had done at Litchfield’s was an alignment check. I had already had a tracking adjustment made, but the car really needed a four wheel alignment done as it felt quite nervous on the road when giving it some.
Using Litchfield’s 4wd alignment rig it immediately showed up a major "malfunction" at the rear and virtually no negative camber at the front.
It was all adjusted to Litchfield’s Fast Road Geometry settings and I have got to say the car felt so much different it was untrue.
This will certainly not be the last visit to Litchfield’s (we have some other things up our sleeve for the near future!) and I would like to say a big thanks to Iain and his team for the effort put in over the past few days.
I certainly look forward to Richard Bulmer at Tracktive getting to work on the map and you can be rest assured I will follow that up with all the detail on how this set-up performs in glorious "****" detail next week!
03 September 2010, 07:52 PM
#129
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MY99UK-MY02STi-MY99Type R-MY06 T20-MY11 340R-MY05 TYPE25
Posts: 11,468
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
I think you might find induction kit Top end gains maybe out-weighed by higher induction Temps and noise. but I would be interested to know and not assume
Tony
03 September 2010, 08:01 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Adam,
Tony,
I'm only a nats **** off your airflow of grams per second, according to your logs that Iain has and at slightly less boost than your logs. I doubt a change of induction kit will make any difference at this stage. I will probably test though in the future, but current airflow would suggest there is no problem with the oe inlet.
Tony,
I'm only a nats **** off your airflow of grams per second, according to your logs that Iain has and at slightly less boost than your logs. I doubt a change of induction kit will make any difference at this stage. I will probably test though in the future, but current airflow would suggest there is no problem with the oe inlet.
03 September 2010, 08:12 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"On my previous post I had made a statement about the spool characteristics, but decided to remove the statement (I had said the spool was the same between the OE VF37 and the LM400). I should of left it in as it was still relevant, but perhaps should of mentioned something about the context. I need to ensure it is apples with apples comparison as much as feasibly possible, so with this in mind......
The difference of spool between the VF37 MegaROM mapped by Tracktive and the LM400 with a base map is virtually ZERO. "
Its not really an apples vs apples test tho. You have installed a better boost control solenoid and a bigger / better exhaust.
Its quite likely that the vf37 would have spooled up even quicker with these mods.
More accurately the difference in spool between the vf37 vs lm400 + exhaust + new bcs is zero.
The difference of spool between the VF37 MegaROM mapped by Tracktive and the LM400 with a base map is virtually ZERO. "
Its not really an apples vs apples test tho. You have installed a better boost control solenoid and a bigger / better exhaust.
Its quite likely that the vf37 would have spooled up even quicker with these mods.
More accurately the difference in spool between the vf37 vs lm400 + exhaust + new bcs is zero.
03 September 2010, 08:39 PM
#132
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Hi typeRv4,
I have logs from another VF37 MegaROM Tracktive mapped JDM STI (MY05 widetrack), which already had the same exhaust system as I have NOW (Miltek 3" decat) and the OE 2 port solenoid. Spool figures are virtually the same. A 2 port on a normal VF37 remap, 3" decat and panel filter conversion makes virtually no difference on the MY05> JDM's initial spool from information I have.
Once the remap has taken place I will publish further data, but I did say that I would complete apples and apples testing as much as feasibly possible... which I will. The last thing I want to do is mislead anyone.
I have logs from another VF37 MegaROM Tracktive mapped JDM STI (MY05 widetrack), which already had the same exhaust system as I have NOW (Miltek 3" decat) and the OE 2 port solenoid. Spool figures are virtually the same. A 2 port on a normal VF37 remap, 3" decat and panel filter conversion makes virtually no difference on the MY05> JDM's initial spool from information I have.
Once the remap has taken place I will publish further data, but I did say that I would complete apples and apples testing as much as feasibly possible... which I will.
The last thing I want to do is mislead anyone.
03 September 2010, 09:21 PM
#133
Shaun, I find your posts very interesting and educational.
I spoke to Richard on the phone today who told me Ecutek will not release Racerom until late September/the begining of October now
.
Looking forward to hearing how the car performs after the mapping.
I thought you didn't have plans for a bigger turbo but it seems you have already planned something after the LM400!
I spoke to Richard on the phone today who told me Ecutek will not release Racerom until late September/the begining of October now
. Looking forward to hearing how the car performs after the mapping.
I thought you didn't have plans for a bigger turbo but it seems you have already planned something after the LM400!
03 September 2010, 09:21 PM
#134
Shaun, I find your posts very interesting and educational.
I spoke to Richard on the phone today who told me Ecutek will not release Racerom until late September/the begining of October now.
Looking forward to hearing how the car performs after the mapping, it will be a beast!
I thought you didn't have plans for a bigger turbo but it seems you have already planned something after the LM400!
I spoke to Richard on the phone today who told me Ecutek will not release Racerom until late September/the begining of October now
. Looking forward to hearing how the car performs after the mapping, it will be a beast!
I thought you didn't have plans for a bigger turbo but it seems you have already planned something after the LM400!
Last edited by fpan; 03 September 2010 at 09:33 PM.
03 September 2010, 09:27 PM
#135
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
RaceROM is only a few weeks away then... It will be worth the wait mate!
I need to how certain development goes on the turbo front. The current LM400 was meant as an immediate way to start the project, with the hope that I will be moving to something else from litchfields in the near future. Will have to wait and see what transpires.... I need to get this current setup optimised first!
I need to how certain development goes on the turbo front. The current LM400 was meant as an immediate way to start the project, with the hope that I will be moving to something else from litchfields in the near future. Will have to wait and see what transpires.... I need to get this current setup optimised first!
03 September 2010, 09:27 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
RaceROM is only a few weeks away then... It will be worth the wait mate!
I need to how certain development goes on the turbo front. The current LM400 was meant as an immediate way to start the project, with the hope that I will be moving to something else from litchfields in the near future. Will have to wait and see what transpires.... I need to get this current setup optimised first!
I need to how certain development goes on the turbo front. The current LM400 was meant as an immediate way to start the project, with the hope that I will be moving to something else from litchfields in the near future. Will have to wait and see what transpires.... I need to get this current setup optimised first!
03 September 2010, 10:17 PM
#138
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MY99UK-MY02STi-MY99Type R-MY06 T20-MY11 340R-MY05 TYPE25
Posts: 11,468
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
I alos did some runs with John F and I belioeve my inlet air Temps were 2 degrees higher than Johns on OE airbox
Also the Pshhht is doing my head in
How much is it to be mapped with RaceROM??
Tony
03 September 2010, 10:24 PM
#139
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Tony,
If you have proper ducting to your inner wing induction kit, if anything it should be cooler inlet temps.
Regarding RaceROM your and my car will not work with it.
If you have proper ducting to your inner wing induction kit, if anything it should be cooler inlet temps.
Regarding RaceROM your and my car will not work with it.
04 September 2010, 12:00 AM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecutek told my mapper that Racerom was 3 to 4 weeks away at the end of January.
Loving the project write ups Shaun. I currently own a UK Hawkeye running high 400's and feel that all the compromises involved in reaching relatively high horsepower such as a big turbo, front mount intercooler, twin plate clutch, big injectors etc.etc. have really spoilt the driveability of the car as a daily driver. I really think that you are going the right way to build the ultimate USEABLE daily driver.
04 September 2010, 09:34 AM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: kempston bedford
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really good and comprehensive write up Shaun been following it from the beginning .It will be intresting to see how far your STD tmic on v power goes ?
as sc 46 billet on a v8 when to 384 bhp
mine a md 321h on a v7jdm went to 380 bhp because of the STD tmic
Andy
as sc 46 billet on a v8 when to 384 bhp
mine a md 321h on a v7jdm went to 380 bhp because of the STD tmic
Andy
04 September 2010, 11:52 AM
#146
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the comments.... still plenty of stuff to do yet, so there will be a fair bit of documentation still yet to do.
As regards to the standard TMIC. V8 were supposed to be better than V7 and widetrack onwards are supposed to be slightly more effecient than V8. The OE TMIC on mine will reportedly be OK for fair beyond what this current turbo requires for road use. We will find out, but I don't have any concerns at present. IIRC Andy Forrest was achieving circa 480+bhp on his v8 TMIC on his Spec C and Richard Bulmer told me he was getting 450+bhp out of his a few years back.
I am open minded about the whole thing though and will see what happens. I will only make changes to the inlet and intercooler if I REALLY have no other choice. OE is king for me!
Thanks for the comments.... still plenty of stuff to do yet, so there will be a fair bit of documentation still yet to do.
As regards to the standard TMIC. V8 were supposed to be better than V7 and widetrack onwards are supposed to be slightly more effecient than V8. The OE TMIC on mine will reportedly be OK for fair beyond what this current turbo requires for road use.
We will find out, but I don't have any concerns at present. IIRC Andy Forrest was achieving circa 480+bhp on his v8 TMIC on his Spec C and Richard Bulmer told me he was getting 450+bhp out of his a few years back.I am open minded about the whole thing though and will see what happens. I will only make changes to the inlet and intercooler if I REALLY have no other choice. OE is king for me!
04 September 2010, 11:56 AM
#147
From what I've gathered, 400+ on a TMIC cannot usually be achieved reliably - fine on a sprint or drag car, but not on a daily driver or track machine.
I know someone with an LM420 on his '05 JDM STi, and his doesn't quite make 400, as the intake is beginning to struggle as is the TMIC.
YMMV
I know someone with an LM420 on his '05 JDM STi, and his doesn't quite make 400, as the intake is beginning to struggle as is the TMIC.
YMMV
04 September 2010, 12:20 PM
#148
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Tim,
I'm not saying I don't believe you.... but I don't believe you! Track yes.... daily driver I would totally disagree with imo.
Also depends on how this is being measured... is it a dyno (as this can cause major issues with TMIC unless there is adequate airflow and IMO there are more that don't have proper cell/TMIC airflow, then there is that do in the UK) or on the road.
Road dyno would already suggest I am around 400bhp on the current base map with 330 g/s airflow recorded at fairly conservative boost.
Let's see what next weeks mapping brings.
I'm not saying I don't believe you.... but I don't believe you!
Track yes.... daily driver I would totally disagree with imo.Also depends on how this is being measured... is it a dyno (as this can cause major issues with TMIC unless there is adequate airflow and IMO there are more that don't have proper cell/TMIC airflow, then there is that do in the UK) or on the road.
Road dyno would already suggest I am around 400bhp on the current base map with 330 g/s airflow recorded at fairly conservative boost.
Let's see what next weeks mapping brings.
Last edited by Shaun; 04 September 2010 at 12:23 PM.
04 September 2010, 12:30 PM
#149
Shaun - hear what you're saying about dyno cells and there's probably a difference between the real on-the-road power (which is only an estimate even using DeltaDash, and dyno measured power (which is only an estimate due to losses lol).
The car in questions was dyno'd at Surrey Rolling Road which I've found to be consistent, and reads about 20bhp lower than PowerStation.
My 2.0l JDM made 360bhp at PowerStation and "only" 340 at Surrey - which is right? You decide
In any event, I imagine your LM400 will make, um, about 400bhp
The car in questions was dyno'd at Surrey Rolling Road which I've found to be consistent, and reads about 20bhp lower than PowerStation.
My 2.0l JDM made 360bhp at PowerStation and "only" 340 at Surrey - which is right? You decide
In any event, I imagine your LM400 will make, um, about 400bhp
04 September 2010, 12:30 PM
#150
Shaun - hear what you're saying about dyno cells and there's probably a difference between the real on-the-road power (which is only an estimate even using DeltaDash), and dyno measured power (which is only an estimate due to losses lol).
The car in questions was dyno'd at Surrey Rolling Road which I've found to be consistent, and reads about 20bhp lower than PowerStation.
My 2.0l JDM made 360bhp at PowerStation and "only" 340 at Surrey - which is right? You decide
In any event, I imagine your LM400 will make, um, about 400bhp
The car in questions was dyno'd at Surrey Rolling Road which I've found to be consistent, and reads about 20bhp lower than PowerStation.
My 2.0l JDM made 360bhp at PowerStation and "only" 340 at Surrey - which is right? You decide
In any event, I imagine your LM400 will make, um, about 400bhp