Philosophical Tuning Thought
27 November 2001, 05:49 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two cars recently produced similar power on a rolling road.
One is an STi, benefitting from the usual refinements of Link, Turbo, water spray, water injection, big exhuast, gas flowed headers etc.
One is a UK car benefitting from very big turbo, FMIC, Link and a few other bits and pieces.
The UK car produced around 350bhp, STI 345bhp - both cars were running 1.3bar at peak power; however the Sti was running about 10deg more ignition advance.
What I find interesting, and this may be purely philosophical - to get more out of the Sti the obvious routes would be FMIC and bigger turbo, with a sacrifice in driveability. This with a little fine tuning would produce maybe another 10-15bhp, more if the turbo was really big.
However, theoretically the UK car could benefit from STi cams and heads - alone typically worth 30-40bhp, plus gasflowed heads and some other stuff.
So, how can an Sti with more advance, struggle to get more power than a UK would SEEM capable of, maybe 380bhp based on these suppositions?
Just a thought, query, debate...
Trout
PS I know exactly what R19KETs response would have been if I hadn't written this PS
One is an STi, benefitting from the usual refinements of Link, Turbo, water spray, water injection, big exhuast, gas flowed headers etc.
One is a UK car benefitting from very big turbo, FMIC, Link and a few other bits and pieces.
The UK car produced around 350bhp, STI 345bhp - both cars were running 1.3bar at peak power; however the Sti was running about 10deg more ignition advance.
What I find interesting, and this may be purely philosophical - to get more out of the Sti the obvious routes would be FMIC and bigger turbo, with a sacrifice in driveability. This with a little fine tuning would produce maybe another 10-15bhp, more if the turbo was really big.
However, theoretically the UK car could benefit from STi cams and heads - alone typically worth 30-40bhp, plus gasflowed heads and some other stuff.
So, how can an Sti with more advance, struggle to get more power than a UK would SEEM capable of, maybe 380bhp based on these suppositions?
Just a thought, query, debate...
Trout
PS I know exactly what R19KETs response would have been if I hadn't written this PS
27 November 2001, 06:32 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi David
i have noticed that ages ago with my car, as it seem to response more to mods than an sti ? which is strange. but think of it this way 350bhp for a uk car is around 60% increase in power!!! if you apply the same rules to an sti starting with 270bhp you will end up with 430bhp !!!!!!! so obviously that is not the case.
a MY99 and an sti 5 are very similar apart from, pistons, cams and turbo, and the pink inlet manifold
. the pistons are not going to gain you power, the turbos is usually replaced when modding. that leaves the cams. to me that sounds like the UK cams are better than sti ones for extracting power. again the sti cams will be more optimised for more power at higher revs which is not a good idea for the subaru engine, so i have been told.
the other thing is which car is faster on the road ? maybe the rolling road will give different figures due to the different gearing. does anyone have a uk car with sti gearing on the rollers? so maybe instead we should compare uk cars to uk cars and stis to stis kind of thing and this may explain few things.
a different example but may moving away from the topic silghtly, is the rolling road that we use up here in scotland, gives very consistant and accurate figures for uk cars on the low side all the time apart from my car of course. but when a type R or a EVO goes on it starts to over read a little. for exapmle a type R with full exhaust getting 320bhp, and EVO VI with full exhaust giving 340bhp !!EVO V with full exhaust giving 333bhp. on the same day all the UK cars were producing 220bhp standard and 240bhp with exhuast all day long!!!!!
rampling mode off.
i have noticed that ages ago with my car, as it seem to response more to mods than an sti ? which is strange. but think of it this way 350bhp for a uk car is around 60% increase in power!!! if you apply the same rules to an sti starting with 270bhp you will end up with 430bhp !!!!!!! so obviously that is not the case.
a MY99 and an sti 5 are very similar apart from, pistons, cams and turbo, and the pink inlet manifold
. the pistons are not going to gain you power, the turbos is usually replaced when modding. that leaves the cams. to me that sounds like the UK cams are better than sti ones for extracting power. again the sti cams will be more optimised for more power at higher revs which is not a good idea for the subaru engine, so i have been told. the other thing is which car is faster on the road ? maybe the rolling road will give different figures due to the different gearing. does anyone have a uk car with sti gearing on the rollers? so maybe instead we should compare uk cars to uk cars and stis to stis kind of thing and this may explain few things.
a different example but may moving away from the topic silghtly, is the rolling road that we use up here in scotland, gives very consistant and accurate figures for uk cars on the low side all the time apart from my car of course
. but when a type R or a EVO goes on it starts to over read a little. for exapmle a type R with full exhaust getting 320bhp, and EVO VI with full exhaust giving 340bhp !!EVO V with full exhaust giving 333bhp. on the same day all the UK cars were producing 220bhp standard and 240bhp with exhuast all day long!!!!!rampling mode off.
27 November 2001, 06:54 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
why, why, oh why. This thread was set up for animated debate - let's hear it
Sam,
the cars in question produced identical PAW figures of 241bhp - the STi feels faster on the road - but need to go to the Pod to check acceleration - although that is still not definitive. You do underline my point - UK cars that are being pushed are producing much better results than Stis.
Maybe I should buy a UK car
Trout
why, why, oh why. This thread was set up for animated debate - let's hear it
Sam,
the cars in question produced identical PAW figures of 241bhp - the STi feels faster on the road - but need to go to the Pod to check acceleration - although that is still not definitive. You do underline my point - UK cars that are being pushed are producing much better results than Stis.
Maybe I should buy a UK car
Trout
27 November 2001, 07:13 PM
#5
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buy a uk engine for your STI if you believe this argument... then you get the engine that responds to tuning "best" and the chassis that works best... and you get to see behind you on rainy days. 
27 November 2001, 07:16 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moray,
I fulfilled my expectations with 346bhp, it was Andy Tang with a BRD map that got 354bhp.
Danny's car should be getting these numbers, but not yet over 300bhp
I fulfilled my expectations with 346bhp, it was Andy Tang with a BRD map that got 354bhp.
Danny's car should be getting these numbers, but not yet over 300bhp
Trending Topics
27 November 2001, 07:29 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic (makes a change for you Trout )
I think you'll find that the cams/heads on the '99/V5 are much closer than you'd think.
Don't under estimate a big turbo, and FMIC, WI may well allow you more advance, but has little effect on charge density. I also think that you're still adding 10deg' to the ign' zones. I believe this is a mistake to do.
Also consider the amount of NF the UK car was running (alledgedly
and I'd also compare at what rpm the cars got the peaks.
I'd be interested in the UK car owners comments, on the RPM limit he was running on that day, even though the posted run doesn't represent it very well. 7860rpm (IIRC) is great for a one off "no holds barred" RR day, but I doubt it would be run on a daily basis.
I'm not surprised that a UK, and STi, running similar boost, with roughly equivelent mod's, make similar power. Now as for how long the UK car, with cast pistons, can keep it up, time will tell.
Lastly, there is the "MAPPING"
Mark.
)I think you'll find that the cams/heads on the '99/V5 are much closer than you'd think.
Don't under estimate a big turbo, and FMIC, WI may well allow you more advance, but has little effect on charge density. I also think that you're still adding 10deg' to the ign' zones. I believe this is a mistake to do.
Also consider the amount of NF the UK car was running (alledgedly
and I'd also compare at what rpm the cars got the peaks. I'd be interested in the UK car owners comments, on the RPM limit he was running on that day, even though the posted run doesn't represent it very well. 7860rpm (IIRC) is great for a one off "no holds barred" RR day, but I doubt it would be run on a daily basis.
I'm not surprised that a UK, and STi, running similar boost, with roughly equivelent mod's, make similar power. Now as for how long the UK car, with cast pistons, can keep it up, time will tell.
Lastly, there is the "MAPPING"
Mark.
27 November 2001, 08:53 PM
#9
Ecu Specialist
I have to pick up Mark on his 10 degree comment for no other reason than IT CAN'T BE IGNORED, anyone that does (do it your selfer I mean) could either be in big trouble or not get the best from the car.
Easy to check, set Link ecu advance to zero and then check the actual timing with a timing light, what you then read is the "base timing". In a Link map you add what ever that is to the map figures to get actual timing.
A Motec does not work like this, what you see is what you get, same for your Pectel I think Mark. Maybe Danny's low (relative) figs could be something to do with that? Certainly he did as well with his Link.
Andys car was not running with water and was mapped to 1.25/1.3 bar on Optimax only, no booster, adding booster would make no difference to the map as his FMIC keeps charge temp (and density) well under control. Andy's peak power at 6913 rpm was exactly where it should be.
I think the main difference is that David was running a top mount with water and could not get the same amount of fuel into his engine for those reasons. Also advancing the timing by the amount he did may have overshot the MBT. Too much water is a possibility as we know that water is not a power enhancer.
I obtained my figures in April using a Motec running a lot less advance than that. (and "only" 1.27 bar at peak power) I also had charge temps circa 75 deg C and we reckoned that was costing 20/25 bhp at the time.
Gearing is very important, different gearing will produce different bhp figs on the rollers, no doubt.
Final comment, too much booster (whatever make) will tend to make a car det as much as too low a fuel quality. (first hand experience speaking here)
Easy to check, set Link ecu advance to zero and then check the actual timing with a timing light, what you then read is the "base timing". In a Link map you add what ever that is to the map figures to get actual timing.
A Motec does not work like this, what you see is what you get, same for your Pectel I think Mark. Maybe Danny's low (relative) figs could be something to do with that? Certainly he did as well with his Link.
Andys car was not running with water and was mapped to 1.25/1.3 bar on Optimax only, no booster, adding booster would make no difference to the map as his FMIC keeps charge temp (and density) well under control. Andy's peak power at 6913 rpm was exactly where it should be.
I think the main difference is that David was running a top mount with water and could not get the same amount of fuel into his engine for those reasons. Also advancing the timing by the amount he did may have overshot the MBT. Too much water is a possibility as we know that water is not a power enhancer.
I obtained my figures in April using a Motec running a lot less advance than that. (and "only" 1.27 bar at peak power) I also had charge temps circa 75 deg C and we reckoned that was costing 20/25 bhp at the time.
Gearing is very important, different gearing will produce different bhp figs on the rollers, no doubt.
Final comment, too much booster (whatever make) will tend to make a car det as much as too low a fuel quality. (first hand experience speaking here)
27 November 2001, 09:25 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't Andy running a VERY nice turbo too? And I'm sure his FMIC etc all are very good quality
I don't care what anyone says about how efficient an STI V IC is - I'm sure it is - however after you've caned the car it's still warm to touch - hence the air will be warmer than a front mount which is always cool.
Differences between STI V and UK 99 are what exactly? That someone knows for certain? Cams, pistons etc seem the same - just the heads and a VF28? Not a massive difference.....
So Andys car has a superior turbo and intercooler to Davids, everything else is similar, and it's producing more power....
Seems obvious to me.....
etc all are very good quality I don't care what anyone says about how efficient an STI V IC is - I'm sure it is - however after you've caned the car it's still warm to touch - hence the air will be warmer than a front mount which is always cool.
Differences between STI V and UK 99 are what exactly? That someone knows for certain? Cams, pistons etc seem the same - just the heads and a VF28? Not a massive difference.....
So Andys car has a superior turbo and intercooler to Davids, everything else is similar, and it's producing more power....
Seems obvious to me.....
27 November 2001, 10:13 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know we are talking about my car, but I seem to have become a bit lost somewhere!!
My cars engine modifications are:
APS FMIC
APS Dump Valve
APS Air Inductor
Power Enterprise PE1818 Turbo
Link ECU (10 row - Q Chip)
Scoobysport 2.5" downpipe
HKS Titanium Hiper (3")
HKS Iridum Plugs
Standard Injectors & Fuel System
The Link was mapped by Bob Rawle and was mapped to run on Optimax.
A lot of things have been suggested and rumours flying around about my car!
ONLY Bob Rawle has mapped my car. It has only been mapped once and if someone was so concerned they could have checked my map cand compared it with Bob's one! The car was due a fine tune, but we didn't get round to it.
The tyre pressures on my car was 35psi all round. I've been running this a while and is my usual setting.
I used a WHOLE bottle of NF, but I just wanted to offer better protection top end. Why, because I changed my exhaust and it was leaning out slightly at the top end, along with my injectors reaching 100% duty cycle at 6000rpm.
It has also been suggested that my boost was lifted a lot higher than the figures quoted! (1.3bar, dropping to 1.25bar at the top end)
*IF* I had done all the things people suggested, I doubt I would have made it there, let alone run!
I thought it was a "No Excuses" rolling road day, so anything went. But yet I seem to have upset a few people and they accuse me of cheating [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] (although I'm not suggesting it's any of you!)
Get a life it was meant to be a bit of fun, but yet I can understand why some people pulled out!
Everyone seems to believe that I've cheated or I'm pushing the envelope (and poeple constantly suggest my engine will let go), but yet the people who have worked on it don't seem to have a problem with my car! To be honest I can't be bothered with peoples jealousy!
I've spent a bit of money on the car, and although £4k on engine modifications sounds like a lot, it's pissed a lot of people off, who have either spent a lot more or have a better car/engine (closed deck, STI, etc)
I talk to a lot of people, I've taken advice from many people and all this advice is readily available, so why haven't people done the same! I can't answer that!
I have a different turbo, which is good, but it won't go to full spool until 4,300rpm. When it does, it seems to push the car harder than some the other cars I've been in. The turbo was suggested by a man a few of you know, but he took the time to explain the differences, the characteristics and compared it to various VF turbos.
I've chosen a FMIC, which is well made and now seems to have a proven reputation in the UK.
I got the one man everyone would entrust their cars to, when it comes to mapping the Link.
I've had a very good mechanic carry out all the work on my car.
With this sort of knowledge backing my decisions, what would you expect? I know a few people wanted to see me fail, but it seems to **** them off more that I've suceeded and done it well!
To be honest I'm very pissed off with this so called 'community'. I've struggled quite a bit of the way to try and achieve one of the most powerful UK cars. I've done that, so it's time to move on!
Thanks to Bob Rawle, Branko, Jan Shim, Steve Lawson and the others who have supported me all the way.
To those who have made snide comments behind my back, sent me dodgy emails, give negative comments on my posts, do down my achievements.... bollocks to you!
Cheers
Andy
My cars engine modifications are:
APS FMIC
APS Dump Valve
APS Air Inductor
Power Enterprise PE1818 Turbo
Link ECU (10 row - Q Chip)
Scoobysport 2.5" downpipe
HKS Titanium Hiper (3")
HKS Iridum Plugs
Standard Injectors & Fuel System
The Link was mapped by Bob Rawle and was mapped to run on Optimax.
A lot of things have been suggested and rumours flying around about my car!
ONLY Bob Rawle has mapped my car. It has only been mapped once and if someone was so concerned they could have checked my map cand compared it with Bob's one! The car was due a fine tune, but we didn't get round to it.
The tyre pressures on my car was 35psi all round. I've been running this a while and is my usual setting.
I used a WHOLE bottle of NF, but I just wanted to offer better protection top end. Why, because I changed my exhaust and it was leaning out slightly at the top end, along with my injectors reaching 100% duty cycle at 6000rpm.
It has also been suggested that my boost was lifted a lot higher than the figures quoted! (1.3bar, dropping to 1.25bar at the top end)
*IF* I had done all the things people suggested, I doubt I would have made it there, let alone run!
I thought it was a "No Excuses" rolling road day, so anything went. But yet I seem to have upset a few people and they accuse me of cheating [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] (although I'm not suggesting it's any of you!)
Get a life it was meant to be a bit of fun, but yet I can understand why some people pulled out!Everyone seems to believe that I've cheated or I'm pushing the envelope (and poeple constantly suggest my engine will let go), but yet the people who have worked on it don't seem to have a problem with my car! To be honest I can't be bothered with peoples jealousy!
I've spent a bit of money on the car, and although £4k on engine modifications sounds like a lot, it's pissed a lot of people off, who have either spent a lot more or have a better car/engine (closed deck, STI, etc)
I talk to a lot of people, I've taken advice from many people and all this advice is readily available, so why haven't people done the same! I can't answer that!
I have a different turbo, which is good, but it won't go to full spool until 4,300rpm. When it does, it seems to push the car harder than some the other cars I've been in. The turbo was suggested by a man a few of you know, but he took the time to explain the differences, the characteristics and compared it to various VF turbos.
I've chosen a FMIC, which is well made and now seems to have a proven reputation in the UK.
I got the one man everyone would entrust their cars to, when it comes to mapping the Link.
I've had a very good mechanic carry out all the work on my car.
With this sort of knowledge backing my decisions, what would you expect? I know a few people wanted to see me fail, but it seems to **** them off more that I've suceeded and done it well!
To be honest I'm very pissed off with this so called 'community'. I've struggled quite a bit of the way to try and achieve one of the most powerful UK cars. I've done that, so it's time to move on!
Thanks to Bob Rawle, Branko, Jan Shim, Steve Lawson and the others who have supported me all the way.
To those who have made snide comments behind my back, sent me dodgy emails, give negative comments on my posts, do down my achievements.... bollocks to you!
Cheers
Andy
27 November 2001, 10:22 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
So are you telling me that if you compare a given rpm/load point on your 10 row Link, against the same, rpm/load point on your Motec, lets say 1.2bar 5000rpm, you're running circa 10 degrees more (as a mapped number) on the Motec ?
As far as mapping the ignition, or fuel goes, I've always felt that the "zone numbers" are irrelevant. One should be adjusting the fuel, to give the appropriate fueling, for a given rpm/load, and when it comes to advancing the ignition, well that's a little different.
Through the cruise, and low boost zones, it would be quite easy to hit MBT, but unless you had the luxury of a bench dyno, it would be hard to identify this point on the "road", other than using the infamous "seat of the pants", and some datalogging.
However, hitting MBT on max' boost, in our cars is pretty unlikely (even with WI), and we're far more likely to benifit from being able to advance the ignition in these areas. I believe you found similar results when you mapped engines on the dyno.
Now, Andy's car. I'm not saying he didn't get his peak power at circa 6900rpm on the "posted" graph, but he certainly hit over 7800rpm on another of his runs, and IIRC, his peak power was at 7400rpm. That's fine, I'm just surprised that you'd set such a high rpm limit for a UK car.
Andy:
I hope your comments weren't aimed at me. I think your figures are great, and as for people claiming you "cheated", that's just jealousy. We're just discussing how they were achieved.
Mark.
So are you telling me that if you compare a given rpm/load point on your 10 row Link, against the same, rpm/load point on your Motec, lets say 1.2bar 5000rpm, you're running circa 10 degrees more (as a mapped number) on the Motec ?
As far as mapping the ignition, or fuel goes, I've always felt that the "zone numbers" are irrelevant. One should be adjusting the fuel, to give the appropriate fueling, for a given rpm/load, and when it comes to advancing the ignition, well that's a little different.
Through the cruise, and low boost zones, it would be quite easy to hit MBT, but unless you had the luxury of a bench dyno, it would be hard to identify this point on the "road", other than using the infamous "seat of the pants", and some datalogging.
However, hitting MBT on max' boost, in our cars is pretty unlikely (even with WI), and we're far more likely to benifit from being able to advance the ignition in these areas. I believe you found similar results when you mapped engines on the dyno.
Now, Andy's car. I'm not saying he didn't get his peak power at circa 6900rpm on the "posted" graph, but he certainly hit over 7800rpm on another of his runs, and IIRC, his peak power was at 7400rpm. That's fine, I'm just surprised that you'd set such a high rpm limit for a UK car.
Andy:
I hope your comments weren't aimed at me. I think your figures are great, and as for people claiming you "cheated", that's just jealousy. We're just discussing how they were achieved.
Mark.
27 November 2001, 11:04 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
sorry that you felt the need to abreact the last couple of weeks in this post - I was trying to trigger a sensible debate about STi v UK tuning. And I hope I have succeeded, I would be sorely disappointed if you, or indeed anyone else felt this was post was either motivated the green-eyed monster, or an opportunity to be an 'excuse'. We had two cars, run at their limit, and got within 2.5% of each others maximum power and as near as dammit on torque. And excluding the mad Professor Bowles with his NOS kit, were easily the most powerful Scoobs on the day, so a useful comparison.
My intrigue goes back to the original point, which has been in part answered here, in that maybe STi cams and heads wouldn't help a UK car any further.
However it does give me heart, if the 'bigger' turbo and FMIC give so much more then an STi in a similar state of tune will pick up far more than the 8bhp difference on the day...or maybe not!
I am not sure about Bob's comments. If it is simply to guide 'personal mappers' from upping their advance by ten degrees - then I fully endorse the statement - they would be taking their car home in a lucky bag.
I am interested in this 'supposed' difference in advance between the cars. I am particularly interested as I have heard from a separate source that the STi engine is set up with a -ve offset and so say a nominal 28deg of advance as 'seen' on the Link is actually only 18deg of 'real' advance. Is this true - how does the Link built in offset of 10deg work. I will check the timing this weekend to see what the displayed timing, v. the actual timing is.
So, the conclusion may be that at the end of the day the UK car and the Sti were running similar advance, and the UK car simply had a bigger turbo and superior charge density. And that the Sti reduced the possible difference between them through water spray and water injection.
Also, another of Bob's hypothesis that there may be 'too much' water - this is small possibility as at 7,000rpm there would appear to be about 550-580cc/min of fuel, and only 50cc/min of water, an 8% mix.
Maybe I should use more, get more advance, but then what about MBT?
Just out of interest, my peak power came at 7,030rpm - the car ran all the way to the limit without any 'noise' from the engine, Link Knock limit set at its lowest limit and tracked in real time. In fact the car was running so cleanly that Merv hit the upper reaches of the soft rev limit (set at 7,900). In terms of peak power the JECS used to get this at around 7,200rpm, with about 1 bar of boost, 280bhp on the same rolling road.
Cheers,
Trout
sorry that you felt the need to abreact the last couple of weeks in this post - I was trying to trigger a sensible debate about STi v UK tuning. And I hope I have succeeded, I would be sorely disappointed if you, or indeed anyone else felt this was post was either motivated the green-eyed monster, or an opportunity to be an 'excuse'. We had two cars, run at their limit, and got within 2.5% of each others maximum power and as near as dammit on torque. And excluding the mad Professor Bowles with his NOS kit, were easily the most powerful Scoobs on the day, so a useful comparison.
My intrigue goes back to the original point, which has been in part answered here, in that maybe STi cams and heads wouldn't help a UK car any further.
However it does give me heart, if the 'bigger' turbo and FMIC give so much more then an STi in a similar state of tune will pick up far more than the 8bhp difference on the day...or maybe not!
I am not sure about Bob's comments. If it is simply to guide 'personal mappers' from upping their advance by ten degrees - then I fully endorse the statement - they would be taking their car home in a lucky bag.
I am interested in this 'supposed' difference in advance between the cars. I am particularly interested as I have heard from a separate source that the STi engine is set up with a -ve offset and so say a nominal 28deg of advance as 'seen' on the Link is actually only 18deg of 'real' advance. Is this true - how does the Link built in offset of 10deg work. I will check the timing this weekend to see what the displayed timing, v. the actual timing is.
So, the conclusion may be that at the end of the day the UK car and the Sti were running similar advance, and the UK car simply had a bigger turbo and superior charge density. And that the Sti reduced the possible difference between them through water spray and water injection.
Also, another of Bob's hypothesis that there may be 'too much' water - this is small possibility as at 7,000rpm there would appear to be about 550-580cc/min of fuel, and only 50cc/min of water, an 8% mix.
Maybe I should use more, get more advance, but then what about MBT?
Just out of interest, my peak power came at 7,030rpm - the car ran all the way to the limit without any 'noise' from the engine, Link Knock limit set at its lowest limit and tracked in real time. In fact the car was running so cleanly that Merv hit the upper reaches of the soft rev limit (set at 7,900). In terms of peak power the JECS used to get this at around 7,200rpm, with about 1 bar of boost, 280bhp on the same rolling road.
Cheers,
Trout
27 November 2001, 11:08 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have to agree with bob and craig re the itnercooler
i have dyno'd my car after each mod i have done. and the itercooler gave the most on the rollers.
link 265bhp, turbo 284bhp, fimc,320bhp. however on the road my car did not feel like it gained that much power from the intercooler. comeon you would feel 35bhp!!!!!!!.
the standard intercooler maybe marginal on the road but on the rolling road there is not way it will give big power. the most i got on the rollers were 45degrees in the 3rd run, while every one else were hitting 70+ obviously on the road the difference although big is not that big.
i have dyno'd my car after each mod i have done. and the itercooler gave the most on the rollers.
link 265bhp, turbo 284bhp, fimc,320bhp. however on the road my car did not feel like it gained that much power from the intercooler. comeon you would feel 35bhp!!!!!!!.
the standard intercooler maybe marginal on the road but on the rolling road there is not way it will give big power. the most i got on the rollers were 45degrees in the 3rd run, while every one else were hitting 70+ obviously on the road the difference although big is not that big.
27 November 2001, 11:13 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of other points on rereading this...
...Bob commented that I couldn't get as much fuel in the car - how can this be as Andy, in theory has taken his injectors way beyond the limit, and the 740s I was running were up at around 72% d/c at 7,000rpm (this is down from 75% d/c post WI).
And, Andy, proper - you know which one is quickest on the road - and again, I do hope that you did not think that this thread was in any meant to denigerate your results - in fact I feel genuinely mortified at the possibility
Trout
...Bob commented that I couldn't get as much fuel in the car - how can this be as Andy, in theory has taken his injectors way beyond the limit, and the 740s I was running were up at around 72% d/c at 7,000rpm (this is down from 75% d/c post WI).
And, Andy, proper - you know which one is quickest on the road
- and again, I do hope that you did not think that this thread was in any meant to denigerate your results - in fact I feel genuinely mortified at the possibility Trout
27 November 2001, 11:15 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
david
i know this is not very scientific but i have had couple of hours on a rolling road a while back, and to my surprise reducing the advance at the top end by 2 degrees did not make much difference to the power out put, however the fueling seemed to make the most influence on the power figures. i did not understand this myself either.
i know this is not very scientific but i have had couple of hours on a rolling road a while back, and to my surprise reducing the advance at the top end by 2 degrees did not make much difference to the power out put, however the fueling seemed to make the most influence on the power figures. i did not understand this myself either.
27 November 2001, 11:21 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy -
Sam,
I can possibly explain why FMIC gave you and extra 35bhp that you couldn't feel.
I ran my car a couple of weeks ago on the rollers - first time with water spray. I cooled the topmount for the first run - they took it up and abandoned the run at 5,900rpm, which produced 320bhp. This would equate to around 340-345 bhp peak.
Subsequent runs were way down - why - because although they had more fans than Man Utd - there was no gas flow into the top mount - in fact the water spray was coming OUT of the scoop, effectively no IC - final result 315bhp, with each run producing less as the charge temps went up.
So at that facility, an FMIC could be been sold to me and produced another '30bhp' which I would not have felt on the real road!!!!!!
Trout
Sam,
I can possibly explain why FMIC gave you and extra 35bhp that you couldn't feel.
I ran my car a couple of weeks ago on the rollers - first time with water spray. I cooled the topmount for the first run - they took it up and abandoned the run at 5,900rpm, which produced 320bhp. This would equate to around 340-345 bhp peak.
Subsequent runs were way down - why - because although they had more fans than Man Utd - there was no gas flow into the top mount - in fact the water spray was coming OUT of the scoop, effectively no IC - final result 315bhp, with each run producing less as the charge temps went up.
So at that facility, an FMIC could be been sold to me and produced another '30bhp' which I would not have felt on the real road!!!!!!
Trout
27 November 2001, 11:23 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the redline Bob set on the car was 7,500rpm (IIRC) I'm sure Bob can confirm or deny this.
I have to admit that on the road, there is no need to go up to those sorts of levels, as the torque curve drops off after 6200rpm-ish.
The 'offending' result!
I have to admit that on the road, there is no need to go up to those sorts of levels, as the torque curve drops off after 6200rpm-ish.
The 'offending' result!
27 November 2001, 11:46 PM
#23
Ecu Specialist
Come on guys, read what I wrote .... as David says this thread was started to generate and stimulate.
Mark your post could be mis-interpreted by the uninitiated ... I really don't give a toss what number is in what zone as it is the end result that counts, having said that, as people do appear to place such store by how much timing they are running (or not) then that particular piece of information is very relevent, especially in the pub I guess. BUT if person A says to person B "timing at x could be y according to z" and they go away and use that info WITHOUT appreciating the base timing thing then, as David said, they could be going home with a bag of bits. The rest of my post was intended to open up further discussion's, but never mind.
Its common practice to have "base" timing btw, some ecu's are even adjustable for it. (MiataLinks from the Dealer Alternative are for example, Motec's are as well (function is "crip") and I suspect the Pectel is also capable of it) In the case of the Subaru engine 10 degrees is the base timing used when there is not enough output from the sensors (during cranking). This is the way the Jecs works in fact.
Craig by analysis of the compressor maps the Power Enterprise turbo and the MD254 are very comparable boost for boost, with the MD254 having a more open exhaust housing (P20) compared to the more restricted P18 that the PE turbo is using, there is a version of the PE turbo that uses the P20 as well.
David ... Andy's advance map has lower numbers in it to yours.
You could not get as much fuel in as some of the "space" is occupied with water vapour ... seemed fairly clear, nothing to do with injectors, keeping injectors held wide open could still achieve the same afr, just not reliably or as effectively.
MBT ... who knows but its an interesting thought, David reckoned he advanced his map by up to 5 degrees when he added the water, that makes the timing pretty damn close to MBT afaik, anyone got the actual numbers?
Good thread as it started , be good if we can keep it on track.
Bench dynos are great, only problem is they are a bit artificial since held boost on the dyno may not be achievable on the road so, for example, peak torque at say 3000 rpm due to the held boost on the dyno may end up being lower in value and at higher revs on the road due to the lower load impedance and the inability of the engine to achieve that boost at the revs required. Least that's my personal experience from the work I have done in that area.
Mark your post could be mis-interpreted by the uninitiated ... I really don't give a toss what number is in what zone as it is the end result that counts, having said that, as people do appear to place such store by how much timing they are running (or not) then that particular piece of information is very relevent, especially in the pub I guess. BUT if person A says to person B "timing at x could be y according to z" and they go away and use that info WITHOUT appreciating the base timing thing then, as David said, they could be going home with a bag of bits. The rest of my post was intended to open up further discussion's, but never mind.
Its common practice to have "base" timing btw, some ecu's are even adjustable for it. (MiataLinks from the Dealer Alternative are for example, Motec's are as well (function is "crip") and I suspect the Pectel is also capable of it) In the case of the Subaru engine 10 degrees is the base timing used when there is not enough output from the sensors (during cranking). This is the way the Jecs works in fact.
Craig by analysis of the compressor maps the Power Enterprise turbo and the MD254 are very comparable boost for boost, with the MD254 having a more open exhaust housing (P20) compared to the more restricted P18 that the PE turbo is using, there is a version of the PE turbo that uses the P20 as well.
David ... Andy's advance map has lower numbers in it to yours.
You could not get as much fuel in as some of the "space" is occupied with water vapour ... seemed fairly clear, nothing to do with injectors, keeping injectors held wide open could still achieve the same afr, just not reliably or as effectively.
MBT ... who knows but its an interesting thought, David reckoned he advanced his map by up to 5 degrees when he added the water, that makes the timing pretty damn close to MBT afaik, anyone got the actual numbers?
Good thread as it started , be good if we can keep it on track.
Bench dynos are great, only problem is they are a bit artificial since held boost on the dyno may not be achievable on the road so, for example, peak torque at say 3000 rpm due to the held boost on the dyno may end up being lower in value and at higher revs on the road due to the lower load impedance and the inability of the engine to achieve that boost at the revs required. Least that's my personal experience from the work I have done in that area.
27 November 2001, 11:46 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
Please can you correct your "where from" details !! I think you're really pushing your luck CLAIMING 356bhp, when you clearly only have 354bhp
I'm getting sick and tired of people blatantly exagerating their power figures, just to sell their car...............
Mark.
Please can you correct your "where from" details !! I think you're really pushing your luck CLAIMING 356bhp, when you clearly only have 354bhp
I'm getting sick and tired of people blatantly exagerating their power figures, just to sell their car...............
Mark.
28 November 2001, 12:17 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark,
The run that Mr Trout submitted was one of 356bhp, although my print out is for 354bhp! Looks like the figures can't be consistant on the same day!!!
And the car is being stripped as there was no interest as a whole car!
Andy
The run that Mr Trout submitted was one of 356bhp, although my print out is for 354bhp!
Looks like the figures can't be consistant on the same day!!! And the car is being stripped as there was no interest as a whole car!
Andy
28 November 2001, 12:38 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
I think things are getting taken out of context, by both of us.....
I was concerned about David saying HE was running some 10 degrees more, and this, as you say, could be misleading. I thought "I" was erring on the side of caution.
Please can you confirm whether there is a 10 degree offset, across the map, or is it just on cranking. I remember we discussed this ignition offset business when we changed to the Motec's, but ended up running very similar advance. Or did you set my Motec up with the same offset as the Link. Now I'm really confused......
My bench dyno experience is very limited, and then, to my own car, but whilst I was expecting the boost levels achieved on the dyno, to be optomistic on the road, I was amazed to find that from 3000rpm, I'm actually very slightly better off. VERY slightly, like .5psi hahaha
I'm sure this will improve, when it's fully up, and running, and the dyno map has been tweeked.
Mark.
[Edited by R19KET - 11/28/2001 8:47:17 AM]
I think things are getting taken out of context, by both of us.....
I was concerned about David saying HE was running some 10 degrees more, and this, as you say, could be misleading. I thought "I" was erring on the side of caution.
Please can you confirm whether there is a 10 degree offset, across the map, or is it just on cranking. I remember we discussed this ignition offset business when we changed to the Motec's, but ended up running very similar advance. Or did you set my Motec up with the same offset as the Link. Now I'm really confused......
My bench dyno experience is very limited, and then, to my own car, but whilst I was expecting the boost levels achieved on the dyno, to be optomistic on the road, I was amazed to find that from 3000rpm, I'm actually very slightly better off. VERY slightly, like .5psi hahaha
I'm sure this will improve, when it's fully up, and running, and the dyno map has been tweeked.
Mark.
[Edited by R19KET - 11/28/2001 8:47:17 AM]
28 November 2001, 01:24 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that philosophical debate only seems to happen late at night.
On reflection, maybe if I had also fueled down to 6%CO, I was running 8%CO for safety on the road, then I would have squeezed out that extra ten brake.
Anyway, bottom line conclusion is that UK and STi engines will produce the same sort of power, with the same sort of mods. The only remaining question in my mind is to why the UK car needs so much LESS advance, accepting that there may be some application anolomoly between the UK and Sti timing strategies. However lets assume that the ignition advance is significantly different, if this is true, and I believe it to be true at least to an extent, what is fundamentally different between these engines.
Compression ratio?
And why doesn't the timing provide the extra power that may be expected - allowing for the MBT debate. To date my experience suggests that for each degree I get around 6-8bhp, on a good day.
Cheers,
Trout
On reflection, maybe if I had also fueled down to 6%CO, I was running 8%CO for safety on the road, then I would have squeezed out that extra ten brake.
Anyway, bottom line conclusion is that UK and STi engines will produce the same sort of power, with the same sort of mods. The only remaining question in my mind is to why the UK car needs so much LESS advance, accepting that there may be some application anolomoly between the UK and Sti timing strategies. However lets assume that the ignition advance is significantly different, if this is true, and I believe it to be true at least to an extent, what is fundamentally different between these engines.
Compression ratio?
And why doesn't the timing provide the extra power that may be expected - allowing for the MBT debate. To date my experience suggests that for each degree I get around 6-8bhp, on a good day.
Cheers,
Trout
28 November 2001, 01:42 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trout
i know it is hard to believe but has anyone considered that the UK car cams may actually be better thant the sti ?
what is the compression ratios for the sti and the uk cars.
i know it is hard to believe but has anyone considered that the UK car cams may actually be better thant the sti ?
what is the compression ratios for the sti and the uk cars.