Finally Mapped...

[smckeown 1]

also, as you can see from the top speed, the RR results are from running in 5th. I'm sure dave has covered what effect that has, i'll have a look tonight when i have some spare time

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Why is it so heavy?

 

James.

 

 

It will be heavier than that now as im running a solid block mi. Its easy to gain weight, not easy to lose it.

 

Just to add something into the oil surge issue that most of you seemed to be scared of with mi`s, the solid block mi (2.0 version) dosent suffer at all from surge in my experience, unlike the alloy block, 1.9 version.

 

Maxi

[macaroni 17 1 Cars]

also, as you can see from the top speed, the RR results are from running in 5th. I'm sure dave has covered what effect that has, i'll have a look tonight when i have some spare time

 

They ran my car in 5th on the rolling road too. I was under the impression it should be done in the gear with the closest ratio to 1:1 and in my case, that is 4th.

[boombang 2]

i may consider a roof scoop in the future

Something I've been looking at too!

 

Anywhere reasonable to get one that preferably won't drip on me round ever corner?

[petert 586]

They ran my car in 5th on the rolling road too. I was under the impression it should be done in the gear with the closest ratio to 1:1 and in my case, that is 4th.

 

But what if you've got a 4.4:1 diff, or even 4.7:1?

[veloce200 3]

But what if you've got a 4.4:1 diff, or even 4.7:1?

good point I guess that could give greater coast down losses and a bigger flywheel figure?

[macaroni 17 1 Cars]

I didn't think of that. What effect would those final drives have?

So, if the xs has a 4.3:1 final drive, what would be the best gear?

[Sandy 191]

Depends on what fourth and fifth you have too.

Overall ratios......

4.06 x 0.97 = 3.94

4.06 x 1.07 = 4.34

4.06 x 0.87 = 3.53

4.06 x 0.76 = 3.09

4.29 x 0.97 = 4.16

4.29 x 1.07 = 4.59

4.29 x 0.87 = 3.73

4.29 x 0.76 = 3.26

4.43 x 0.97 = 4.30

4.43 x 1.07 = 4.74

4.43 x 0.87 = 3.85

4.43 x 0.76 = 3.37

4.78 x 0.97 = 4.64

4.78 x 1.07 = 5.11

4.78 x 0.87 = 4.15

4.78 x 0.76 = 3.63

[macaroni 17 1 Cars]

OK, (apologies if this all going a bit off-topic!), my xs is closest to;

4.3 (final drive) x 0.94 (4th) = 4.042 or

4.3 x 1.17 (5th) = 5.031

 

What gear should I do RRs in?

[Sandy 191]

How is you fifth shorter than fourth??

[macaroni 17 1 Cars]

Sorry, got myself confused;

4th is 1.05:1

5th is 0.85:1

 

Should still be done in 4th I reckon.

Right, thread hijack over!

[smckeown 1]

Was he a miserable git that hardly spoke to you, or does he reserve that treatment for me?

 

Sorry, still bitter. Are you happy with that power output with your spec?

 

Just stumbled across some text describing their background and a vid of them in action mapping a caterham

 

"The Rolling Road, in Rainham, Essex where the power run and remap was done is a collaboration between Steve Pitcher (Track n Road) and Steve Greenald (Race Engine Calibration). Between them they have over 60 years experience with performance engines. When Steve.P. decided to upgrade his Rolling Road facility 4 years ago he invited Steve.G. to move his 400 BHP Schenck engine Dyno from Ilford where he'd operated since 1984, to share the premises at Rainham. They in fact built 2 Engine Dyno Cells and hope to have Steve P's freshly reconditioned 800 BHP Froude machine running mid 2006.

 

The Rolling Road is a superbly accurate and repeatable German manufactured TaT CH2 machine, 1 of only 4 made to date. It's 1200 BHP single roller technology combines with a 4000 Nm retarder which caters for serious mapping work as well as inertia only power runs"

 

Mapping in action vid 22mb

 

Sean

[fxi1900 0]

Very interesting thread this, Looking at all your pictures the build is superb, I only wish i had the patience to put the attention to all the small expensive but important things that you have done so well! Something is not right though 167 brake from that spec and further £400 mapping says to me that money has not been very well spent. I have seen a 8v hotrod motor at a tad under 200 brake on the rollers on injection!!!! The engine was then put into a group "A" rally car and was succesfully campaigned in the welsh tarmac championship being 100% reliable. One other thing is you have spent all that money on the motor but seemed to have skimped on some very important bits of rubber!!! Why on earth are you running yoko 48's? For a little bit more money you could buy dunlop moulded slicks which would improve your handling immensley. Before anyone jumps in, YES they are road legal. Please don't be offended by my comments maybe i have a bit of green eyes at your motor!

[smckeown 1]

I have a few thoughts about it all now looking back.

 

Firstly I have agreed with des-developments and PeterT that the 2.5" exhaust was the wrong choice. I originally had a GrpN system bought but as the claims of 200bhp came in I switched to the 2.5" system. Admittedly I knew 200 was out the window months before the delivery of the engine but I had NO idea that a too large system would effect torque. Well it now seems listening to the 2 gurus I mention that low down torque will and has been effected. So a des GrpN system is going on soon.

 

Secondly I am CONVINCED that all was not well when it was mapped. I think torque is dropping off too quick. I was playing with the graphs earlier and just by dropping off less quick will put the bhp over the 175 mark (what puma originally predicted on this final spec). So I think this issue of not holding high revs has been a problem ever since the beginning.

 

But I am confident that des will get this sorted over xmas. And I am convinced it will come back even stronger than it was when it was originally mapped.

 

I'm not a fan of slicks period. I much prefer the ACB10 slicks, alas i'm having to sell these to fund this work

 

I think i'll wait until the new results post xmas before commenting. I'd love however to see any genuine torque and bhp results from a longmans head,, i'm pretty sure they aim for more top end than puma's mid range on his BV heads

 

Lastly, thanks for the comments, i'm highly disappointed with the engine side, but as a package I know this car will seriously fly in 2007!

 

I mean it was seriously quick at anglesey and while being well down on torque and peak torque arriving 2k revs later than on the old cam. I'm looking forward to 2007

 

Sean

Edited December 8, 2006 by smckeown

[fxi1900 0]

I agree Sean, The work has been done and the money has been spent you need to look into whats wrong, Once you have found the problem(s) i'm sure you will have one hell of a tool! I have yet to try avon's acb10's but from what i hear they are the future of grip!! Back in the 90's avons turbospeeds were superb but then the likes of yoko came and bettered them.

[TB_205GTI 1]

I would have thought that the head could flow for more power than this - 43mm valves and rather large TB's. Would the power not be a bit higher with a cam with more duration? now it tops at 6.600 - there should be space for more, or am I wrong here?

 

What happens to the torque curve, it looks like it is all over the place why does it dip at 3.500?

Edited December 13, 2006 by TB_205GTI

[smckeown 1]

I would have thought that the head could flow for more power than this - 43mm valves and rather large TB's.

 

I would agree, but even mentioning anything regarding PR...the forum pikey's lose it and the thread gets pulled.

 

Would the power not be a bit higher with a cam with more duration? now it tops at 6.600 - there should be space for more, or am I wrong here?

 

I was advised to try a cam with slightly more duration and lift (even DB was told and agreed it might show an increase) but the proof was in the pudding, it turned shed loads of torque into less peak and much worse curve.

 

What happens to the torque curve, it looks like it is all over the place why does it dip at 3.500?

 

Don't all wild cams to that ? I'm no expert

 

Who knows the real reason for the torque falling off so quick, I have my suspicions but i'll keep them to myself.

[Grahamrally 0]

Hey Sean, I've been following the posts on your track car build since time began! lol Anyhow, the info on the weight saving has been very helpful. Anyway, I noticed your still pondering about torque and power over the build etc and wanted to add helpful well probably depressing information from myself.

 

I have a 1.9 GTI rally car, it has what I'd call a fast road engine in it rather than a balls out build. However. I had my cylinder head done and R Longman's, not big valve, it's got a Piper 285(uck), twin 45 dhla's and a complete brand new 1.9 bottom end (lightened and balanced). I had it set up at Hi-tech (someone said his rollers are optimistic) near Birmingham with an old bottom end and saw 151bhp with 125 lb/ft of torque. The torque is very smooth and has a good upwards slope to 4500 then just flattens to 6500 then gently drops, peak bhp at 6500rpm. Now I've since done the bottom end complete rebuild as the previous one decided to very badly oval the conrod (it may have been before hand).

 

With the new bottom end it's been able to take more ignition advance and definately is more powerful than previous incarnation. I haven't got an official figure yet but I would put it pessimistically in the 155-158bhp figure with a fair bit more torque to go with it.

 

Why am I telling you this? Well Bearing in mind I'm running carbs and a very badly bodged distributor system with no ECU (car was previously TU engined), then I wouldn't expect to be coming anywhere near an engine of your pedigree.

 

I don't think your lack of power is due to the cam and I think you know what I'm saying. However it may be something else. If I got Longman's to do me a big valve version of my head I'd expect to see 170+bhp quite confidently on the same setup. Add throttle bodies and mappable ignition and it should be more.

 

Perhaps it would be worth thinking about changing that part of the build?

 

I may be barking up the wrong tree but wish you the best of luck with your next step.

 

Graham

Edited December 16, 2006 by Grahamrally

[Grahamrally 0]

Forgot to add I'm running near standard compression ratio too. I think it's 9.7:1 or there abouts.

[chunkymonkey 0]

Forgot to add I'm running near standard compression ratio too. I think it's 9.7:1 or there abouts.

graham i think its very interesting what you have achieved with your engine.although it would be more informative if you actually had the true results of your latest rebuild.get it on those rollers and see what it delivers as many other 8v owners will be itching to see how you get on

cheers gaz

[PumaRacing 2]

Hey Sean, I've been following the posts on your track car build since time began! lol Anyhow, the info on the weight saving has been very helpful. Anyway, I noticed your still pondering about torque and power over the build etc and wanted to add helpful well probably depressing information from myself.

 

I have a 1.9 GTI rally car, it has what I'd call a fast road engine in it rather than a balls out build. However. I had my cylinder head done and R Longman's, not big valve, it's got a Piper 285(uck), twin 45 dhla's and a complete brand new 1.9 bottom end (lightened and balanced). I had it set up at Hi-tech (someone said his rollers are optimistic) near Birmingham with an old bottom end and saw 151bhp with 125 lb/ft of torque. The torque is very smooth and has a good upwards slope to 4500 then just flattens to 6500 then gently drops, peak bhp at 6500rpm. Now I've since done the bottom end complete rebuild as the previous one decided to very badly oval the conrod (it may have been before hand).

 

With the new bottom end it's been able to take more ignition advance and definately is more powerful than previous incarnation. I haven't got an official figure yet but I would put it pessimistically in the 155-158bhp figure with a fair bit more torque to go with it.

 

Why am I telling you this? Well Bearing in mind I'm running carbs and a very badly bodged distributor system with no ECU (car was previously TU engined), then I wouldn't expect to be coming anywhere near an engine of your pedigree.

 

I don't think your lack of power is due to the cam and I think you know what I'm saying. However it may be something else. If I got Longman's to do me a big valve version of my head I'd expect to see 170+bhp quite confidently on the same setup. Add throttle bodies and mappable ignition and it should be more.

 

Perhaps it would be worth thinking about changing that part of the build?

 

I may be barking up the wrong tree but wish you the best of luck with your next step.

 

Graham

 

 

Fascinating. Let's look at your points.

 

Clearly not what you're expecting to hear but the Piper 285 about which you say 'uck' is actually almost identical in performance to the 340 Catcam I used. In fact it has 256 degrees duration at 1mm lift, one more than the 340!

 

If correctly choked and jetted, sidedrafts show very similar power to TBs. They just won't be so good at low rpm.

 

Any distributor can be set to give any advance you like at peak power. It might not be right anywhere else in the range but mappable ignition can't make a scrap of difference to peak power compared to any other correctly set system. It just gives you tractability.

 

A 43mm valve head has 6.8% more valve area than a standard valve head. You won't see all of this as a percentage power increase but you'll get a good part of it. About 5% or 8 bhp at this stage of tune.

 

So with a Longman head, similar cam and similar induction you've got 15 bhp and 22 ft lbs of torque less than Sean but despite this you've decided my cylinder head is no good. Even if a big valve Longman head gave the expected percentage increase in power and torque compared to a standard valve one you still wouldn't be close.

 

Just as an aside, and I've refrained from mentioning this before, when Matt had my cylinder head in his workshop he couldn't resist the temptation to flow test it. It beat every other XU9 head he'd ever tested including a Hiflow BV one and his own flow developed BV one. That's despite mine being done as part of a budget build, only designed to flow well to 450 thou lift to suit the chosen cam and never having being anywhere near my flowbench. With some money in the kitty for a proper race engine build and some fine tuning on the flowbench I can produce heads that knock that one into a cocked hat - and that one's still better than just about anything you'll ever see.

 

You don't win every race series you've ever built an engine for without knowing a bit about cylinder head work.

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

DB you did Sean's head?

 

I believe you put it together aswell?

 

And now it's busted after a very short period?

 

And yes I've read all the posts regarding the build and when Sean initially found the problem...

[PumaRacing 2]

DB you did Sean's head?

 

I believe you put it together aswell?

 

And now it's busted after a very short period?

 

And yes I've read all the posts regarding the build and when Sean initially found the problem...

 

What's your point? Something happened but as it wasn't sent back to me under the 6 month written warranty that covered it (yes it had that despite what you've been told) or the offer of examination and repair I made both on here and privately to Matt I can't say what. Maybe a valve spring, maybe a collet broke first. Such things happen. Very rarely and not much anyone can do about it in advance and I fail to see what a one in a million mechanical issue has to do with the basic quality of the head and its flow if that's what you're implying.

[Grahamrally 0]

Yes Dave I have decided your head is no good and by your own admission you've just said it isn't very good compared to what you could have done. The point is you gave a very well known forum user a head of yours which was likely to get a lot of talk. Talk of 175bhp was thrown about and now you're trying to say that it isn't the head that is the problem?

 

I'd love to get a big valve Longman's head and just show you how much better they are, as for comparing your flow to hiflow heads, they produce good heads but not to Longman's standard which would put you in the 'not as good' group.

 

I can well believe if you did a head on your flow bench and spent a long time developing it you would be able to produce much better results. But the original point I made was that the varied torque on the graph and the difference in expected power and actual power may be due to the head work.

 

Mathematics would say yes you would only see a max 8bhp increase from a BV head but I'm not just comparing my power at peak either, looking at my torque and power graph and comparing that to the quite different version on Sean's mine looks a look smoother and consistent. I will try and put them both in excel and post them.

 

Thanks, Graham

[PumaRacing 2]

Yes Dave I have decided your head is no good

 

Sadly no one can stop you forming whatever opinions you like based on zero actual information.

 

 

Talk of 175bhp was thrown about and now you're trying to say that it isn't the head that is the problem?

 

The only talk of power figures that was thrown about came after the event and from the figment of Sean's imagination. The actual agreement that was signed was this.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

".......which should be agreeable to you. If you are I will do the following.

 

Assemble an identical head/cam/ uprated valve spring combination using the same compression ratio as the one supplied to Craig Burgess which on the std inlet manifold recently showed 150 flywheel bhp on Mikanics rollers. Within the realms of manufacturing tolerance of a few bhp either way I expect yours to be the same. I can't vouch for what any other rollers would show.

 

You have decided to use throttle bodies instead of the std manifold. That's a factor out of my control or liability and I'm not prepared to speculate in writing on how it will affect the power.

 

I'm prepared to warrant the head/cam combination will stand any normal use for a period of six months provided obviously there are no exceptional circumstances such as detonation caused by incorrect set up. As you intend to use the bottom end for track use at much higher revs than the standard parts were designed for and as most of the parts were supplied to me rather than by me I can't warrant any part of that other than that it will be assembled correctly and initially work correctly."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Clearly Sean has managed to convince some people of power claims that never existed, told you that there was no warranty when there was, said that the power figures on my website have changed when they haven't and a host of other things that are either blatantly untrue, half lies or innuendo. Perhaps I'll just have to take that up with him in court.