302 Hp Na Gti6 205

[MiniGibbo 142]

I call custard test..

[Sandy 191]

I'll do my best to ignore the remarks questioning my results. You can take the or leave them as you see fit. The Excel graph shows plotted steady state figures, we (John Read and I) took while testing/mapping that engine on a calibrated and DIN corrected engine dyno. The figures are taken as the stable reading after about 10 seconds at that RPM, so not the flash reading software captures on an acceleration run or while the dyno pulls it in. The Dyno is an electronically controlled Froude (the industry standard machine), and is calibrated regularly using a balanced torque arm. I'm sure engine builders that don't achieve torque like that would sneer and dispute, I get it all the time. It's not just me doing it mind, John's Vauxhalls are often regarded as the best in the business and perform similarly, likewise we have tested serious engines from numerous other highly regarded engine builders; I'm not interested in bulls**t figures, what do you learn from that?

 

Anyway... putting aside my reservations about the way rollers record their result, including the ~£45k Superflow single roller system shown here (we've looked into buying one, I know what they cost). If for a moment I acccept that the transmission (Tx) loss is a realistic figure, then I encourage people to look at the figures shown on the video as it coasts down. They have a distinct hump about 8800-9300 rpm, which doesn't look right, if you plot the figures against the graph figures (excuse the cheap/free Excel graph), see what you get:

 

From a mathematical point of view, it's obvious that the machine software averages the coast down, to produce a steady, believeable curve that tallys with the simplistic view that they climb, exponentially as you put it, with speed. But the hump upsets that a bit, looks kind of like a sudden additonal load? Putting that to one side too, if the Tx loss is added literally to the video wheel figures on the way up, we get this:

 

With the hump, it shows peaks of 182lbft and 292bhp at 9000rpm, with the hump smoothed it's more like 280@8250rpm. Respectable figures either way and the fact it doesn't crap itself running to nearly 10k rpm shows it's got to be a half decent motor.

 

People can take want they want from this, I have to repeat myself; what I've learnt since I've been using an engine dyno, is that rollers simply can't be taken too seriously. On the gearing issue, it's the overall ratio that matters in making comparable figures, not the gear on its own. You should be running in a gear that gives around 15mph/1000rpm on rollers as a rule and running it in different gears will give different results. It would be very interesting to do some sort of back to back test; but I'm not going out of my way to do it and as has been said, what makes one engine better than another? I wouldn't judge that on peak power alone and neither do my customers.

[GTI6BOY 29]

One of the reasons I've lost the love for the 205 and sold every part possible after 8 years ownership is because of stufff like this and a certain company.

 

Back in 2008 at USC I was fighting for the trophy against this car and I won by the skin of my teeth.

 

If I remember correctly this was running 280 bhp, I had 180bhp, a whole 100 horses less

 

I knew 2009 would be difficult so decided to spend thousands on a genuine 280bhp touring car engine and purchased all new parts which Richard recommended. I attended USC and managed a 13.0 sec run while still spinning all the way up the track. The car was f***ing imence.

 

Straight after I decided to take it to track and road in Essex who believe they have the best rolling road in the country. They have an excellent name in the mapping world so i booked a dyno run and a mapping session at £500.

 

When I pulled in they said what are you expecting? "280bhp easy, is f***ing rapid"

They laughed, you been told a figure by some one the same as everyone else and people base their figures on that.

They said I will be making a little over 210bhp, my jaw dropped. I've just spen thousands!

Anyways on my car went and it made 220bhp and they said after mapping they could prob find 6 horses. I declined ame home and sold everything.

 

These cars are so quick is unreal and i will prob never drive a car as quick again but I strongly believe people have had stupidly high figure drummed in to them over the years.

 

I would love this car to go to track and road and see what it makes on their rollers.

 

This is not a digg at pug1off as I think Matt is a cracking bloke and and also the owner of the car but I do believe they are getting false readings on a dyno which is not as good

 

One last thing to add is 1 of the gaurenteed 260bhp supercharged kits knocking around all with the same power print off went to track and road and it made 205bhp. Which to me sound right as we have had tear ups with these cars in standard 205 gti6's and we push them out the way

[GTI6BOY 29]

Just to add when my car made 220bhp it also made 180ft lb torque not far off this car

[dcc 855]

Didnt sartys make 196ftlb ??? Where is he! We need him in here!

[welshpug 1,657]

Didnt sartys make 196ftlb ??? Where is he! We need him in here!

 

2.2

[MiniGibbo 142]

So its not 302bhp..?

[GilesW 41]

Myself and my friends have always had our cars mapped by the Steves at TnR.

 

I believe there will always be variences between rr's so the important thing is repeatability and always use the same one to map your engine.

 

Like I said before genuine 300+ engines are rare, but do exist maybe this is one, maybe not, or maybe honestly believed to be. But really in the real world it kinda matters very little as engines go in cars, its the car that races, so its the whole package that really matters.

 

RR results make great headlines and pub talk (and annoyance from those that may not believe they're true), but maybe its not the be all and end all.

 

Even if one engine makes higher figures how it makes it and delivers it may still see it come second to another

[Batfink 201]

what type rolling road do TnR have?

[j_turnell 137 3 Cars]

Im really not sure there is any point in keeping this topic open as nothing more constructive is coming out of it. Just turning into 'my car is faster than your car'. Its clear both Sandy and Matt can build a damn good engine and that both parties have been very successful.

 

I dont think it would have mattered what rollers were used in this instance, RR results always cause controversy, and its how the car drives which is important, clearly both parties are satisfied in that department! As mentioned before, if people have any questions regarding our rolling road then please give us a call, as im sure Troy would be happy to speak to you about it as myself personally dont do a lot on the rollers, Troy does the majority of the tuning/ mapping and will be able to answer any questions. All i will say is we have a very good reputation and have a very wide network and look after a lot of very competative cars, some of which have bhp limitations in their classes so it speaks for itself really that our results have to be accurate.

 

cheers, James

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

As said looks pretty good, the times not that I have any idea on 1/4 mile times look good, All I know about that is my mate does it in a shade over 9 seconds on a old Quacker 'Z' Bike which has had s*it-loads spent on it.

 

But I'm looking forward to hearing the 8.5+k on mine, as it will sound mint, My mapping man also use's the Superflow roller's now, They did have the old Dyno Dyamics before but he didn't like them for some reason or other

[Baz 421]

Perhaps he didn't like paying for them...

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

dcc, on 05 May 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

 

Didnt sartys make 196ftlb ??? Where is he! We need him in here!

 

2.2

 

Yes. 196lbft from 2187cc, XU10 on Sandy and Colin's ITBs, 4 branch Maniflow with no titanium in sight. It was designed as a tractable road car.

 

The lbft per cc/per litre challenge has been 'beaten' since by Sandy as his builds have evolved, and the 196lbft was also the measurement at Emerald before Sandy mapped it again on staged injectors, where we measured 202bhp at the wheels.

 

My higher torque figure (compared to the 180's mentioned here) is perhaps a blend of where it was measured, what the engine was designed for etc etc, which adds even more unknowns to the race for big BHP figures, which time after time show themselves to be meaningless and rather subjective.

 

This is an interesting thread.

Edited May 7, 2012 by DrSarty

[dav1 7]

Is pug1offs 2litre thow?

[Matts205gti-6 3]

Hi guys sorry lot of people have telling my what's being written on here and we need to clear a few things up I own the green 205 gti-6 which is 283bhp @9250revs ! It's not chavey as someone put earlier it is completed standard on the outside

 

It has won USC last year with 12.4 111mph look on www.ultimatestreetcar.co.uk and fast show this year with 12.6 also go to www.fastshow.co.uk

 

And at the start of link people saying a 200bhp car does 11.8 is ridicoulous it's impossible unless in something like a mini I also challenge anyone commenting on this forum to race me at pod or have a passenger ride I'm not going to get

Into an argument over rolling roads lets just settle

It on the track or strip.

 

Also gti-6 boy didn't you do a 13.5 best time that's what you won with?

 

I also think there is alot of people on here trying to ster things up its quite clear everyone's got an opinion but the facts speak for them selves I've driven the blue 302bhp car and it's immense please anyone here you need to drive it to believe it.

 

So I'm arranging a rwyb at santa pod at the end of June who wants to come along my car and the blue 302bhp gti-6 will be there and anyone wants a ride or race are more then welcome??

 

Sandy you sound like an experienced engine builder so you and Matt should discuss this not everyone who does not no about the technical side of things (me included).

 

Sandy have you got any of your cars that come to the rwyb just be good to see how our cars fair against yours? And anyone else commenting want to come ? I will sort a date

And confirm thanks hope I haven't upset anyone just i don't like people writing things that are not true thanks Matt

[cybernck 402 1 Cars]

As there's no more constructive data being posted in this topic, I have now locked it.

 

If you need any more info about this particular engine or any other engine mentioned in this thread, please contact the original poster.

 

To conclude this topic, here's photo of a ~300 bhp Peugeot Sport XU10 engine