Starting again.... with a Hawkeye
04 September 2010, 01:08 PM
#151
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Tim,
The turbo makes what it makes. My remit is driveability not power... Been there and done that. Lol
If my acceleration timed decrease and my spool and response stay within the remit, I will be more than happy. For that reason all the mapping will be completed on the road, so I have no real great interest in what bhp any given dyno states. As you say they are only estimates.
However, when the car is re-run on a dyno for comparison purposes it will be completed again on a dyno that is best suited for tmic's.
The turbo makes what it makes. My remit is driveability not power... Been there and done that. Lol
If my acceleration timed decrease and my spool and response stay within the remit, I will be more than happy. For that reason all the mapping will be completed on the road, so I have no real great interest in what bhp any given dyno states. As you say they are only estimates.
However, when the car is re-run on a dyno for comparison purposes it will be completed again on a dyno that is best suited for tmic's.
04 September 2010, 09:00 PM
#152
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
Just to clarify...... I am running an 06 Hawkeye Spec C with the LM420 & induction kit, it was mapped by Richard Bulmer and after he finished I asked the question do I need to be running a FMIC > the answer was no. My car is a daily driver.
When I purchased my kit (same as Shaun accept 420 and no Race Rom) from Ian Litchfield he stated to get the best out of the LM420 I would also need an induction kit, he reckoned from 400bhp onwards the OE intake became restrictive.
Lee.
Ps. Interesting stuff about the Racerom Shaun, following with interest
08 September 2010, 08:36 AM
#154
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Will do. Just arrived at Tracktive.
Won't be going on their hub dyno today, as I want any dyno results to be totally independent for transparency.
Won't be going on their hub dyno today, as I want any dyno results to be totally independent for transparency.
08 September 2010, 05:36 PM
#155
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: newark, near newark
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaunee,,
So when does it hit full boost in say 4th gear,,
What does your results come up with for bhp and torque mate,,
Must of made the 400bhp mark
So when does it hit full boost in say 4th gear,,
What does your results come up with for bhp and torque mate,,
Must of made the 400bhp mark
08 September 2010, 08:42 PM
#156
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Paul,
Spool of the LM400 was reported on the previous page from a few days ago:
Just about to go out and do some more logging now, since the new MegaROM map by Tracktive today.
Will put a load of data up once I get back and compare against data logged this afternoon.
Spool of the LM400 was reported on the previous page from a few days ago:
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)
.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)
Will put a load of data up once I get back and compare against data logged this afternoon.
08 September 2010, 11:27 PM
#159
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I would do a write-up now.... but since I reversed the Scoob in to the side of my Mondeo as I was taking the Scoob out to log... I don't think I will bother just yet! 
Will try and do an update tomorrow.
Tony,
It is not all about boost! I am now running less boost than I had on the base map at 7k (running 1.3bar now), yet the power has gone up as I am running a load more ignition on the Tracktive map. It's picked up 15bhp peak and over 20bhp in parts of the mid-range.... which is more important. Torque has also been increased (+14lbft peak) over 30LbFt in parts of the mid range over the previous LM400 base map.
The car has picked up .4 seconds 40mph-100mph over the base map.
Will try and do an update tomorrow.
Tony,
It is not all about boost! I am now running less boost than I had on the base map at 7k (running 1.3bar now), yet the power has gone up as I am running a load more ignition on the Tracktive map.
It's picked up 15bhp peak and over 20bhp in parts of the mid-range.... which is more important. Torque has also been increased (+14lbft peak) over 30LbFt in parts of the mid range over the previous LM400 base map. The car has picked up .4 seconds 40mph-100mph over the base map.
Last edited by Shaun; 08 September 2010 at 11:30 PM.
09 September 2010, 09:20 AM
#161
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I would do a write-up now.... but since I reversed the Scoob in to the side of my Mondeo as I was taking the Scoob out to log... I don't think I will bother just yet!
Will try and do an update tomorrow.
Tony,
It is not all about boost! I am now running less boost than I had on the base map at 7k (running 1.3bar now), yet the power has gone up as I am running a load more ignition on the Tracktive map. It's picked up 15bhp peak and over 20bhp in parts of the mid-range.... which is more important. Torque has also been increased (+14lbft peak) over 30LbFt in parts of the mid range over the previous LM400 base map.
The car has picked up .4 seconds 40mph-100mph over the base map.
Will try and do an update tomorrow.
Tony,
It is not all about boost! I am now running less boost than I had on the base map at 7k (running 1.3bar now), yet the power has gone up as I am running a load more ignition on the Tracktive map.
It's picked up 15bhp peak and over 20bhp in parts of the mid-range.... which is more important. Torque has also been increased (+14lbft peak) over 30LbFt in parts of the mid range over the previous LM400 base map. The car has picked up .4 seconds 40mph-100mph over the base map.
info@catdrivertraining.co.uk
Last edited by APIDavid; 09 September 2010 at 09:22 AM.
09 September 2010, 12:48 PM
#164
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You pee taking gits!!
Believe it or not the Mondeo will need a new front wing, but all impreza suffered was a slight cracking of the lacquer on the bumper paint!!
To be honest I was more bothered about the scoob than the Mondeo.... Even though it is only two years old.
Believe it or not the Mondeo will need a new front wing, but all impreza suffered was a slight cracking of the lacquer on the bumper paint!!
To be honest I was more bothered about the scoob than the Mondeo.... Even though it is only two years old.
09 September 2010, 09:41 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
What a day it was yesterday..... in more ways than one. lol
Anyway "bump" aside I managed to get the STI back up to Tracktive for the 1st round of mapping for MegaROM with the LM400.
A fair bit of time was spent getting the fuel map right. Once that was sorted Richard moved on to the ignition / boost maps. Finally it was time to fine-tune the boost and work on the per gear boost control, which is part of the MegaROM facility.
Some three hours later it was finished.
It was clear during the mapping sesssion that throughout the morning the car was getting stronger. Richard did ask whether or not I wanted to do some RoadDyno runs, but since using the same piece of road is fairly important for consistancy I decided to wait until I got back home.
As I have said before don't underestimate the benefit of in-gear boost control, as it makes the car more responsive/stronger in each gear than a map without it. Third gear for instance is great now and it can catch you out if you keep your foot in, especially coming out of a corner.
So lets look at the RoadDyno data....
Something that is worth explaining about these figures is the lack of correction factors for atmospheric conditions using DeltaDash. Air temps, pressure, humidity and above sea level height can affect BHP / TORQUE figures. This may explain why, for instance, my cooler run (and different atmospheric conditions) on the VF37 made more power and torque. Now unless you correct for these atmospheric conditions, you are not comparing like for like. This is what most rolling roads will do and will correct to an agreed standard of DIN or SAE. In theory it does not matter which day you run the car (various atmospheric conditions), the results given should be corrected (down or up) to normalise them. This is why it is really important for atmospheric conditions to be as close as possible when comparing RoadDyno runs.
If you wish, you can work out the correction factors and apply the percentage increase / decrease against the recorded weight of the car (for simplicity). To keep all this simple I will ensure that I compare similar atmospheric conditions of runs and not bother with correction factors. These will all be taken care of when I get back on a rolling road for comparison.
With all of this in mind I decided to log the car yesterday afternoon, which had virtually the same atmospheric conditions as a previous run on the VF37 (which conicidentally works out with 20% transmission loss, very close to the PowerStation Rolling Road run previously, which is what I have experienced before).
Something else that is paramount in my view, is to only compare my runs with my runs. Not to compare with runs that others have made. I ensure that the same piece of road is used with the same weight specification (but adjust this if required). Different bits of road (incline, decent, smooth, bumpy etc) will give varying results. With this in mind I will no longer compare my results with other cars at other venues. It is pointless to a degree.
Here is the Road Dyno run of the LM400 with a Tracktive MegaROM map (23degs Ambient Temps):
335bhp @ 6457rpm 333LbFt @ 4435rpm
This equates to a Flywheel estimated calculation of:
418bhp / 416LbFt
Here is a comparison of my previous VF37 vs the current LM400 (inc. other mods mentioned):
It is clear from the figures that peak values have increased by some amount over the VF37, but that was only to be expected. As I have said before peak figures only tell half the tale (+58bhp/+42LbFt) and in this respect I was more interested in the lowdown feel against the original VF37 and the mid-range.
It would appear from the graphs above the LM400 is losing out a tad up to about 3300rpm. The acceleration times show something different:
LM400
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.2 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.2 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.4 seconds
80 -100mph = 2.8 seconds
VF37
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.5 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.6 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.9 seconds
80 -100mph = 3.6 seconds
As you can see the decrease in acceleration times is positive and whilst the 40-60mph has not decreased it certainly has not increased either! This would indicate that the initial lowdown torque has been unaffected.... which was exactly what I was looking for.
With the original remit of increasing power but retaining OE driveability and response I think the LM400 ticks that box perfectly. I am certainly more than happy that the LM400 is the right turbo for me against one of the bigger LM's, that whilst presumably providing more power, would sacrifice low down response and torque.
I am not going to bull**** anything up (as seen by the graphs). You really do feel a big surge from 3500rpm onwards. The top end grunt also leaves the VF37 for dust.
Current air flow on the LM400 is hitting just over 330g/s (grames per second taken from DeltaDash), which is some 70g/s more than the VF37 was producing. As a rough guide (assuming ignition is optimised) this g/s figure can relate to Wheel Horse Power. Tallying this with the RoadDyno WHP figures this would seem fairly accurate. All this would certainly indicate 400+bhp at the flywheel.
This turbo was designed to produce 400bhp in a way that would still maximise OE response and lowdown torque. I am happy that this turbo delivers just that!
ALSO don't forget this is still on the OE TMIC and OE Airbox!!!!!
EasyECU
Apart from having the mishap last night I did get out and complete some data logs. The air temp last night was some 10degs less than what it was during the mapping session. Unfortunately this meant I hit the boost cut which is there within the map to save your engine from over boosting (I hit 1.74bar peak lol).
This now needs to be rectified and will be an area that will utilise EasyECU.
Instead of me going back to Tracktive I will email the data logs from last night to Richard. He will amend the map and then send it back to me, for me to program the ECU again with the corrected map. Saves a fair amount of effort from both parties in some way shape or form.
Luckily MegaROM has temperature compensation, so you can make adjustments to the boost profile depending on the inlet temps. This is great as it means the ECU will adjust boost dependant on temps. If time is put in to this it means that the boost will be profiled dynamically dependant on temps! Much better than having a catch all scenario as you may erradicate overboost, but other temperature scenarios may suffer for this catch all.
More on this as soon as I receive the latest revision map from Tracktive!
What next?
I won't even bother looking at inlet mods at the moment as I simply do not need to. Another turbo will be put on in due course from Litchfields, but it will have to go some to better the LM400 for the remit I have. I have also decided to hold off on the dual fuel maps until the decision has been made about the next turbo, but it will be interesting to see how we get on with VPower and a 95octane map!
As always thanks to Tracktive Solutions for their top notch mapping expertise!
I am up at API next week having a set of DEFI's fitted, so I will give the lowdown on that as well.
Anyway "bump" aside I managed to get the STI back up to Tracktive for the 1st round of mapping for MegaROM with the LM400.
A fair bit of time was spent getting the fuel map right. Once that was sorted Richard moved on to the ignition / boost maps. Finally it was time to fine-tune the boost and work on the per gear boost control, which is part of the MegaROM facility.
Some three hours later it was finished.
It was clear during the mapping sesssion that throughout the morning the car was getting stronger. Richard did ask whether or not I wanted to do some RoadDyno runs, but since using the same piece of road is fairly important for consistancy I decided to wait until I got back home.
As I have said before don't underestimate the benefit of in-gear boost control, as it makes the car more responsive/stronger in each gear than a map without it. Third gear for instance is great now and it can catch you out if you keep your foot in, especially coming out of a corner.
So lets look at the RoadDyno data....
Something that is worth explaining about these figures is the lack of correction factors for atmospheric conditions using DeltaDash. Air temps, pressure, humidity and above sea level height can affect BHP / TORQUE figures. This may explain why, for instance, my cooler run (and different atmospheric conditions) on the VF37 made more power and torque. Now unless you correct for these atmospheric conditions, you are not comparing like for like. This is what most rolling roads will do and will correct to an agreed standard of DIN or SAE. In theory it does not matter which day you run the car (various atmospheric conditions), the results given should be corrected (down or up) to normalise them. This is why it is really important for atmospheric conditions to be as close as possible when comparing RoadDyno runs.
If you wish, you can work out the correction factors and apply the percentage increase / decrease against the recorded weight of the car (for simplicity). To keep all this simple I will ensure that I compare similar atmospheric conditions of runs and not bother with correction factors. These will all be taken care of when I get back on a rolling road for comparison.
With all of this in mind I decided to log the car yesterday afternoon, which had virtually the same atmospheric conditions as a previous run on the VF37 (which conicidentally works out with 20% transmission loss, very close to the PowerStation Rolling Road run previously, which is what I have experienced before).
Something else that is paramount in my view, is to only compare my runs with my runs. Not to compare with runs that others have made. I ensure that the same piece of road is used with the same weight specification (but adjust this if required). Different bits of road (incline, decent, smooth, bumpy etc) will give varying results. With this in mind I will no longer compare my results with other cars at other venues. It is pointless to a degree.
Here is the Road Dyno run of the LM400 with a Tracktive MegaROM map (23degs Ambient Temps):
335bhp @ 6457rpm 333LbFt @ 4435rpm
This equates to a Flywheel estimated calculation of:
418bhp / 416LbFt
Here is a comparison of my previous VF37 vs the current LM400 (inc. other mods mentioned):
It is clear from the figures that peak values have increased by some amount over the VF37, but that was only to be expected. As I have said before peak figures only tell half the tale (+58bhp/+42LbFt) and in this respect I was more interested in the lowdown feel against the original VF37 and the mid-range.
It would appear from the graphs above the LM400 is losing out a tad up to about 3300rpm. The acceleration times show something different:
LM400
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.2 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.2 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.4 seconds
80 -100mph = 2.8 seconds
VF37
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.5 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.6 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.9 seconds
80 -100mph = 3.6 seconds
As you can see the decrease in acceleration times is positive and whilst the 40-60mph has not decreased it certainly has not increased either! This would indicate that the initial lowdown torque has been unaffected.... which was exactly what I was looking for.
With the original remit of increasing power but retaining OE driveability and response I think the LM400 ticks that box perfectly. I am certainly more than happy that the LM400 is the right turbo for me against one of the bigger LM's, that whilst presumably providing more power, would sacrifice low down response and torque.
I am not going to bull**** anything up (as seen by the graphs). You really do feel a big surge from 3500rpm onwards. The top end grunt also leaves the VF37 for dust.
Current air flow on the LM400 is hitting just over 330g/s (grames per second taken from DeltaDash), which is some 70g/s more than the VF37 was producing. As a rough guide (assuming ignition is optimised) this g/s figure can relate to Wheel Horse Power. Tallying this with the RoadDyno WHP figures this would seem fairly accurate. All this would certainly indicate 400+bhp at the flywheel.
This turbo was designed to produce 400bhp in a way that would still maximise OE response and lowdown torque. I am happy that this turbo delivers just that!
ALSO don't forget this is still on the OE TMIC and OE Airbox!!!!!
EasyECU
Apart from having the mishap last night I did get out and complete some data logs. The air temp last night was some 10degs less than what it was during the mapping session. Unfortunately this meant I hit the boost cut which is there within the map to save your engine from over boosting (I hit 1.74bar peak lol).
This now needs to be rectified and will be an area that will utilise EasyECU.
Instead of me going back to Tracktive I will email the data logs from last night to Richard. He will amend the map and then send it back to me, for me to program the ECU again with the corrected map. Saves a fair amount of effort from both parties in some way shape or form.
Luckily MegaROM has temperature compensation, so you can make adjustments to the boost profile depending on the inlet temps. This is great as it means the ECU will adjust boost dependant on temps. If time is put in to this it means that the boost will be profiled dynamically dependant on temps! Much better than having a catch all scenario as you may erradicate overboost, but other temperature scenarios may suffer for this catch all.
More on this as soon as I receive the latest revision map from Tracktive!
What next?
I won't even bother looking at inlet mods at the moment as I simply do not need to. Another turbo will be put on in due course from Litchfields, but it will have to go some to better the LM400 for the remit I have. I have also decided to hold off on the dual fuel maps until the decision has been made about the next turbo, but it will be interesting to see how we get on with VPower and a 95octane map!
As always thanks to Tracktive Solutions for their top notch mapping expertise!
I am up at API next week having a set of DEFI's fitted, so I will give the lowdown on that as well.
09 September 2010, 11:16 PM
#171
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Mass Air Flow for info:
Code:
Engine Speed (RPM) Mass Air Flow (grams/s) 1767 38.96 1858 40.89 1906 43.41 2005 46.44 2076 49.02 2159 53.09 2272 57.43 2373 62.27 2469 67.07 2581 71.94 2682 79.3 2777 86.13 2927 97.02 3056 112.1 3191 129.83 3350 158.44 3587 193.95 3737 226.78 3968 230.71 4242 232.55 4409 251.64 5223 280.9 5439 290.73 5639 295.94 5760 302.14 5943 311.08 6112 317.27 6292 320.03 6416 317.27 6596 324.84 6714 327.62 6855 326.91 6983 324.84 7122 327.6 7191 330.42
09 September 2010, 11:32 PM
#172
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Just to add some clarity to this bit:
I thought it would be good to show the actual speed rev ranges of the given acceleration times so you can see the areas of the graph that relate to the speeds (all this data is provided by DeltaDash):
40-60 = 2800 to 4200rpm
50-70 = 3500 to 4800rpm
60-80 = 4200 to 5600rpm
70-90 = 4800 to 6300rpm
80-100 =5600 to 6900rpm
All in four gear on a 6sp box.
It would appear from the graphs above the LM400 is losing out a tad up to about 3300rpm. The acceleration times show something different:
LM400
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.2 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.2 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.4 seconds
80 -100mph = 2.8 seconds
VF37
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.5 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.6 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.9 seconds
80 -100mph = 3.6 seconds
LM400
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.2 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.2 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.4 seconds
80 -100mph = 2.8 seconds
VF37
In Gear Acceleration:
40 - 60mph = 2.6 seconds
50 - 70mph = 2.5 seconds
60 - 80mph = 2.6 seconds
70 - 90mph = 2.9 seconds
80 -100mph = 3.6 seconds
40-60 = 2800 to 4200rpm
50-70 = 3500 to 4800rpm
60-80 = 4200 to 5600rpm
70-90 = 4800 to 6300rpm
80-100 =5600 to 6900rpm
All in four gear on a 6sp box.
10 September 2010, 08:23 AM
#174
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Not as much as you may think it is running.
Peak Boost is circa 1.62bar
Peak Power is at 1.35bar
People seem to get fixated on Boost and Spool.... me included. It's a good job that Tracktive is doing the mapping then!! Let me put that into context....
I said to Richard how much boost is he going to wind in to this turbo (let's be honest I normally push stuff as much as I can lol). He said that based on others that he has done this specific turbo will not flow much more than 1.4bar at the top end. I later spoke to Iain about this and he said that was what they had found, which was exactly what was expected as the exhaust side is all matched for the 400bhp goal. Anyway, Richard said it was not worth strangling the turbo at the top end so he was going to look at dropping boost but crank up the ignition (assuming the engine will take it). Increasing ignition can reduce engine / exhaust side temps, which is especially good for a turbo car and most certainly one with a TMIC.
Th LM400 base map was in fact running more boost than the Tracktive map, but the Tracktive map makes 15bhp more at the top end running around 4-5degs more ignition.
It was a similar case with the spool of the turbo. It is actually now spooling about 150rpm slower than what is was on the LM400 base map, yet it has not made any difference to the lowdown torque / power and has not affected the 40-60mph acceleration times.... but it is now running up to 10degs more ignition than the LM400 base map was down low.
So.... boost and spool are not the be all and end all. All cars respond in different ways... some take more ignition, some take more boost and Richard said it is a balancing act between the two. In my experience though, ignition advance makes for a nice sharp car..... which has been the approach that Richard has always taken with any mapping he has done.
Peak Boost is circa 1.62bar
Peak Power is at 1.35bar
People seem to get fixated on Boost and Spool.... me included. It's a good job that Tracktive is doing the mapping then!!
Let me put that into context....I said to Richard how much boost is he going to wind in to this turbo (let's be honest I normally push stuff as much as I can lol). He said that based on others that he has done this specific turbo will not flow much more than 1.4bar at the top end. I later spoke to Iain about this and he said that was what they had found, which was exactly what was expected as the exhaust side is all matched for the 400bhp goal. Anyway, Richard said it was not worth strangling the turbo at the top end so he was going to look at dropping boost but crank up the ignition (assuming the engine will take it). Increasing ignition can reduce engine / exhaust side temps, which is especially good for a turbo car and most certainly one with a TMIC.
Th LM400 base map was in fact running more boost than the Tracktive map, but the Tracktive map makes 15bhp more at the top end running around 4-5degs more ignition.
It was a similar case with the spool of the turbo. It is actually now spooling about 150rpm slower than what is was on the LM400 base map, yet it has not made any difference to the lowdown torque / power and has not affected the 40-60mph acceleration times.... but it is now running up to 10degs more ignition than the LM400 base map was down low.
So.... boost and spool are not the be all and end all. All cars respond in different ways... some take more ignition, some take more boost and Richard said it is a balancing act between the two. In my experience though, ignition advance makes for a nice sharp car..... which has been the approach that Richard has always taken with any mapping he has done.
10 September 2010, 12:18 PM
#175
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Just received my adjusted map file from Tracktive via email.
Will program the ECU with the new ROM file this evening using EasyECU and see what transpires!
Will program the ECU with the new ROM file this evening using EasyECU and see what transpires!
10 September 2010, 05:11 PM
#177
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: newark, near newark
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So shaunee on the same dyno you went on before it would make about the 400bhp mark like these turbo's are..
I am taking this from the info the rd dyno gave you last time as it was about 20bhp more than the rr
I am taking this from the info the rd dyno gave you last time as it was about 20bhp more than the rr
10 September 2010, 05:42 PM
#178
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Cliff,
Not tonight!!!
Paul,
I won't know till I get it back on the same rollers. I suspect it is round the 400bhp mark.
Not tonight!!!
Paul,
I won't know till I get it back on the same rollers. I suspect it is round the 400bhp mark.
10 September 2010, 05:58 PM
#179
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: newark, near newark
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaunee,,
Just try and keep it at this minamal lag etc,,
Sounds spot on mate,
Would like to see a comparision off richard against an evo 9 mapped
Must be pretty close all over the range
Just try and keep it at this minamal lag etc,,
Sounds spot on mate,
Would like to see a comparision off richard against an evo 9 mapped
Must be pretty close all over the range
10 September 2010, 08:20 PM
#180
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: kempston bedford
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Shaun;9581862]Hi Andy,
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.
Hi Shaun
your results are looking really good so far
just one thing when you say widetrack onwards cars are you meaning all sti hawkeyes ( jdm and uk tmic ) ?
Thanks Andy
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.
Hi Shaun
your results are looking really good so far
just one thing when you say widetrack onwards cars are you meaning all sti hawkeyes ( jdm and uk tmic ) ?
Thanks Andy