Petert Inlet Cam

[nick 3]

I'm just wondering if anyone has any decent RR results with just the inlet fitted? Mine made 148bhp at the Ripley RR day a couple of months back but that was overfuelling quite bad. The overfuelling would explain the 12bhp loss but PeterT quotes on his site that it should make closer to 180bhp, has anyone seen anywhere near this figure?

 

This isn't a moan or an slur against PeterT I'm just interested as to how people get the 20 extra bhp. As you can see from My signature this engine is fully rebuilt with a slight compression hike and std head, I would have like to have seen a bit more than std power from it but tweaking the mixture isn't going to gain me 30 odd bhp!!

 

Nick

[Baz 421]

Mine made 163 while mapping before doing a proper power run, (1.9Mi, TB's, stage1 regrind, 4-2-1) but then it suddenly went very lean so we aborted, it needs to be booked in again soon now i've hopefully sorted it.

[kyepan 291]

richard made 242bhp with a stage one peter t

[Masekwm 2]

richard made 242bhp with a stage one peter t

 

With lots of other bits surely?

[kyepan 291]

With lots of other bits surely?

of course

 

and that's my point, it's not just the cam but the engine around the cam that will determine the engine output.

 

Either way, i think they work very nicely and cost a fraction of the cat cams, peter can also supply a chip to match which plugs into the standard ecu.

[James_R 3]

Is the cam dialed in or just 4 inlet pulley'd?? Not trying to make excuses but if the timings out and the engine's over fueling then that could easily explain the 30BHP loss

[nick 3]

Kyepan, with you saying "they work very nicely" I'm assuming that you have a one of these cams installed and it's making close to 185bhp? If you aren't running one of these cams where is the evidence of them working nicely? (which is the question I am asking in the first place)

 

A quote direct from the website,

 

"A mild hydraulic grind suitable for standard engines but will make up to 185hp with compression and ECU modifications. Use with standard or Stage 0.5 exhaust cam"

 

I have upped the compression and had the chip installed (which to be honest made it run like s*it) on the dyno it made 148bhp.

 

I am using a number 4 pulley as advised on PM by PeterT, timing is absolutely spot on (it was done with the engine on a stand and rechecked after a couple of thousand miles)

 

Nick

[John_B 11]

I had the catcams inlet cam which I understand is similar to the peter T one (I may be talking bo**ocks) with the 4 inlet and 2 exhaust and I made 177bhp.

 

Assuming the rollers are reliable surely there must be a problem? If the chip made it run like s*it is it possible to run it on the std ecu? Mine was on the std ecu.

[cybernck 402 1 Cars]

I've driven a 405 Mi16 with DFW engine equipped with petert's stage1 camshaft and chip and it revved very nicely and went really good!

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

What exactly have you done?

 

You say you have higher CR, but PeterT's 'up to 180bhp' will count on all things running properly as Keypan said. You say you have the timing correct so perhaps that's not the issue.

 

This 20bhp gain will be running on 10.8:1 (block and liners evenly decked and correctly levelled), fully functioning AFM and injectors with a properly sorted head and his chip. I.E. the whole combo.

 

Are you getting fully open throttle? Is everything else tickety-boo? Have you run it on any other rollers? Are the dizzy, plugs, coil and amp and leads spot on?

 

I'd say you're missing some of these elements, as the cam certainly does work.

[nick 3]

As far as I know all things are working well, with no idle issues and it runs perfectly. I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, I'm just trying to find the extra power.

 

I have no idea what the compression ratio is, it had a skim and then some, plus all valves where lapped in. All the plugs, leads, cap, arm etc.... are all new (or near as damn it) and to be honest, if there was a problem with any of that lot it wouldn't run as well as it does!! The engine was built be myself and CRF450 and between us we have a fair bit of knowledge and experience of putting egines together (Martin more than me..)

 

It ran on the same rollers, on the same day as all the others that were there (Henry Yorke, Allanallan, Matt etc...) and all the figures seemed spot on.

[Anthony 1,003]

All the plugs, leads, cap, arm etc.... are all new (or near as damn it) and to be honest, if there was a problem with any of that lot it wouldn't run as well as it does!!

Never rule anything out purely because it's new(ish) or because it seems to run alright.

 

Certainly on Mi's I've seen few month old dizzy caps lose a car loads of power but it subjectively ran and felt fine, just felt a touch flat. After much head-scratching, turned out the dizzy cap center contact had got stuck and was making lousy contact - a spare cap later, and the car felt like a rocket by comparison - subjectively a good 20-30hp increase. Seen the same with a dying fuel pump, where it subjectively feels fine until you replace the pump, and then again, it feels like a rocket by comparison. Just two examples that I've seen of things that seem fine in isolation losing a significant amount of power without actually making the car obviously run poorly - there's plenty more I'm sure.

 

That said, if installing the chip made the car noticeably worse, I'd put it back to a standard ECU first off and see what difference that makes. Then check the basics like compression and plugs, and go from there. Did the cam seem to make any performance improvement when you fitted it? I mean, is it possible that the cam has made more power, just it started from an even lower figure than it is at now?

[nick 3]

The std chip went back in a few days later.

The engine before the rebuild was a flier and a match for any of the numerous Mi's around my way. Bearing in mind it was three years from the std engine spinning a shell and the rebuilt one going in it is hard to compare like for like. Both Pugtorque and cfr450 have been in the car and will vouch that it runs bang on (I hope!) it just doesn't make the power it should.

 

Nick

[kyepan 291]

hi nick,

 

I see where you're coming from, to answer your question more directly, on my standard engine, it's the difference between wheel spinning in the dry in second.. and not. It revved much more freely in both those gears. i would say it's significantly changed the breathing pattern up the rev range a bit, whilst not loosing anything noticable down the bottom. and the chip stopped the car stalling pulling up to lights when it was cold.

 

 

I would very much hope that if you sent petert a duff cam he would have noticed this and got in contact with you to say it's unusable.. in fact i'm sure he would.

If you're confident about the engine, then I would look at the electric's when under maximum load.

 

I have been working through issues that caused the car to feel very flat over the past few months, and have now narrowed it down to extremely poor battery connections, but previous to that i replaced the fuel pump which also made a difference. The battery connections were also causing poor starting, intermittent hot starting... etc. Also my earthing point for the fuel pump was in shocking condition.

 

Would suggest if you have old battery terminals like the screw on type i had on the negative.. you replace these and clean up all the cables to earth, earth points on the inner wing, and the one from the fuel pump to the left hand inner rear quarter (in boot turn left) if these are poor and corroded you may find a significant improvement cleaning them up, as when under full load, the juice will get to the bits it needs to.

 

Either that or like anthony says, ignition components.

 

sorry to hear your car is not doing what it ought to.

 

J

[petert 588]

Have you done a compression test? If so, what values?

[nick 3]

Me and Martin did a compression test on it at the weekend, all around the 200-210 mark, so all seems fit and healthy there.

 

I am 100% certain that there are no issues with the ignition etc... I'll probably have a proper set up on the rollers instead of just a power run and then see what the outcome is.

 

Nick

[petert 588]

Perhaps the #4 has it too far advanced? The cam is ground 1 degree advanced, which makes it spot on for a #3 pulley, yielding 0.065" at TDC. The compression sounds correct. I would check timing with a dial indicator and make sure you have 0.060" to 0.065" on the inlet and ideally 0.050"-0.060" on the exhaust. The latter is near impossible to achieve without verniers or an offset key however.

 

You said the chip was sh*t. That seems strange because both the 2 and 3 row versions are programmed with identical data, other than the RPM limit. Could it be something like a 3 row running without a knock sensor? That will definitely hurt the power.

 

How did you up the compression? Removing material from either the head or the block will effect cam timing, even on a 16V. The inlet pulley is no longer able to take up all the belt slack, meaning the exhaust pulley takes up all the slack, retarding both cams. I normally have to fit an offset key to both the inlet and exhaust pulleys, even with a #3/#2 combination. Checking lift @ TDC with a dial indicator is the next step.

[James_m 0]

I also seem to have a slow Mi16 with the stage 1 inlet, whilst i have no RR data it just feels a bit flat and not really any quicker than with the standard cam which does'nt really tie in with other people's experiences.

I have'nt compression tested mine yet but have no reason to belive its down on CR, it was rebuilt 7k ago and has a skimmed head and exhaust valves without the small pocket so if anything should be up on standard.

 

I think there is an optimisation issue with the cam timing somewhere, the induction noise sounds nice and cammy below 4-5k then seems to change to a dull drone as you reach the higher rpms. It feels like its peaks around 6500 rpm then tails off a little.

 

Im running 4 inlet 2 exhaust.

 

Peter, what it be worth trying a 2 pulley or would that be too retarded? 3's seems to be hard to come by in the UK

[nick 3]

Thanks for the reply Peter, plenty of things to things to look into there, it might be worth me investing in a vernier for the inlet.

 

You probably won't remember, but my ecu had a number on it that didn't tally with any of the chips that you do, so you sent me one that was close (I have an '40 ecu but the chip was for a '39 or something like that...) I didn't say the chip was s*it, just that it made the car run s*it!! The head had a 20thou skim, but as mentioned earlier all the timing marks lined up perfectly both on the engine stand and again in the car 2k later.

 

Interesting what James says about it feeling flat, the rolling road operator said it felt like it was holding back as it would with a blocked air filter (which it ain't...) and I would say that mine definitely peaks well below the rev limiter. The car is by no means slow and seems very similar to what it was like before the rebuild, but that was three years ago, so very hard to compare!!

 

Nick

[Gentrix 2 1 Cars]

do you have a catalyst in your system? Maybe this is clogged up - I had this on almost every 205 I ever owned now.

 

 

 

andi

[nick 3]

No, no cat.

 

Nick

[Galifrey 1]

I have been watching this thread with interest, and although my 205 etc experience is not great, the first thing that concerns me is the fueling.

 

It is entirely possible overfueling can result in the missing 30odd BHP, and I will explain why...

 

Firstly we are looking at peak BHP, so torque is dropping off and we are working on a multiple of torquexrpm(generically speaking) so a small loss in torque does impact on peak power.

 

Secondly, overfueling results in poor (incomplete) combustion and misfiring which can cut torque substantially leading to a big impact on high rpm BHP.

 

What is happening on the stock ECU chip? What is your fuel pressure like? Does the system use a lambda sensor? is this in good order? Have you tried resetting the ECU after the chip swap (unplug from power)?

 

These are things I would want to try before blaming the cam/chip

 

Can you get a 39 Ecu to try with the chip?

 

Reading back, I seem to have just repeated most of what Anthony said

[nick 3]

No balme being attached to anything really. If you read the original post I asked if anyone had good results with the cam, I never said that there was anything wrong with my engine. I would have thought that to lose 30bhp from overfuelling alone I would guess my mpg would be down to single figures (I used to average 260 - 270 miles to a tank)

 

No lambda fitted and standard fuel pressure regulator so no issues there. Ecu has to be removed from the car for the chip fitting so has been disconected, not that it makes any difference as it can't be reset like a gti-6 ecu can be (allegedly....)

 

Nick

[Galifrey 1]

No balme being attached to anything really. If you read the original post I asked if anyone had good results with the cam, I never said that there was anything wrong with my engine. I would have thought that to lose 30bhp from overfuelling alone I would guess my mpg would be down to single figures (I used to average 260 - 270 miles to a tank)

 

No lambda fitted and standard fuel pressure regulator so no issues there. Ecu has to be removed from the car for the chip fitting so has been disconected, not that it makes any difference as it can't be reset like a gti-6 ecu can be (allegedly....)

 

Nick

 

Sorry Nick, didnt mean to imply you were blaming the chip/cam, my post could have been better worded.

 

30bhp isn't a lot to lose through overfueling, I have see midly overfueling engines drop 30%, it certainly needs to be eliminated. If the ECU doesnt use an adaptive map (via lambda), it probably won't be reset, so that is probably sound (hence my question about lambda). Bear in mind you are down 30 peak BHP and unless you are permanently driving at full power, the fueling issue may be less at lower rpms.

 

Is it overfueling on the stock Chip? Would be useful to know, especially as there is some suspicion about the ECU number.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Galifrey

[crf450 0 1 Cars]

I don't know much about Peter's cam other than it's a regrind.

What I do know is Peugeot aren't mugs. Millions of pounds will have gone into the development of the Mi engine to get the best balance of drivability and power and when developing a engine like this you rely on every part from the entry to the airbox to the tip of the exhaust working together, generally speaking if you take one part of that jigsaw out and replace it with one that doesnt fit properly you will get a negative result. Modern engines aren't like a 2ltr pinto where any idiot can stick in a cam,carb and exhaust and get a 50% hike in power. Sometimes its not straight forward getting big gains from modern engine especially when its as good as the Mi16 is out the box.

Again I'm not making any judgment on Peters cam but when Nick kept quoting power figures to me when we were building the engine with this amazing cam I didn't really give my opinion until the rolling road day when he asked me what power I predicted the car would make, when I guessed at 10bhp less than standard he asked me if I was mental so I explained what I've just explained in the paragraph above. I must admit I was surprised when it made less than this.

Cheers Martin