Erm Gavin ... 120°C and above is what was measured during a few experiments *after* the turbo *before* the intercooler. Don't have the reference to the website anymore, think it was an Oz one.

Hope this explains things a bit and might help you with the question marks.

Thanks.

Theo

 

... and since these comments seem to be classified now as "scaremongering", I'll refrain from making them any further on this BBS.

You are of course right, keeping a turbo at 1.1 bar at 7500 RPM is what a P1 was designed for. Even if it runs slightly like a dog on the rollers, it is cool & OK.

Just about every turbo company is wrong, Bob Rawle is wrong, Mark Verhoeven is wrong, we are all just after your money. It's a plot.
I'll admit that now.

I'll get my coat. Sorry for the scaremongering.

You sir are slightly on the arrogant side.

Theo

 

OK Theo - 120 degrees C is the turbo outlet temp rather than the intake temp. I wasn't sure if we were talking degrees F ?

What was the intake temperature at the time?

It would be interesting to see some intake temps if John and/or Harry can measure them ?

Thanks

Gavin

 

Theo,

There is no mention of high revs and high boost in my post.

"GET IT OFF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE" - scaremongering ? you decide..

I know you qualified your statement but even so....

Not arrogant and not sensationalist....

Thanks

Gavin

 

Gavin,

Martin said:

Does this relate to holding high boost at high revs, or is my grasp of the English language a bit off ?

Maybe not ?

I then replied with :

Not meaning to be funny, but if that is what the MBC does ... GET IT OFF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (sorry for the shouting)

I don't think that this qualifies as scaremongering.

You seem to do ? I frankly don't really understand that.

Apart from the fact John Banks is probably right about the UK car giving a bit more "playground", I think he misunderstands the function of the stock boost solenoid (see Drivetrain).

It reduces (well, the ECU is programmed to) the boost because it is programmed to do so, not because it can not "keep the wastegate shut".

I am not a scaremongerer, never have been, and frankly I resent being called one.

I hope you understand.

I am not an expert, but I do know how my car was mapped, why it was mapped that way, and I had a Subaru Select monitor on my lap for 20 hours, so I do now a *few* things.

I also have the highest powered UK car on Powerstation rollers, but then again this debate *surely* was not about rolling roads was it ?

Theo[/b]

[Edited by EvilBevel - 12/20/2001 5:27:03 PM]

[Edited by EvilBevel - 12/20/2001 5:27:38 PM]

 

Theo,

I think we will have to agree to disagree on what is scaremongering...

The "keeping the wastegate shut" comment is discussed at length in the other Dawes threads as is the lack of tapering of the boost curve at high revs.

My apologies if you took my comments as offensive - it was not my intention to upset you.

Thanks

Gavin

 

Chill guys! Lets keep it technical or pseudo-technical and not get personal. Don't know if I do understand the factory boost control solenoid Theo - has been a steep learning curve for me and all the rest and I am as amateurish as the next guy. I certainly do appreciate that the ECU drops boost well below the flow limits of the turbo by changing the duty cycle as revs increase and that this is intended, I just think on a UK car it is a little excessive - shall we call it "safe" - so I'm quite happy to exploit this. I also think that the std boost control system sucks big time, and more so when you modify - it could not control a P*SS up in a brewery as far as I have seen. I am also aware that if I go beyond the edge all I will get is heat, risk of detonation, lots of ignition retard and no extra or even less power. I think some people need to stop thinking about boost and nothing else It's not like power = 120bhp + boost in PSI x 10 (firmly tongue in cheek).

The Dawes certainly gives superb boost control as far as I have seen - if setup when it is cold with a good margin and short hosing. What level of boost run is an individual choice - I run 17.5 PSI with 18 peaks when it is sub zero. I rarely go beyond 6000rpm. I am acutely aware of fuelling issues having constructed an AFR meter and it all looks fine. When summer comes I am not going to yank it back up to 18 PSI when it is 25-30C.

Trouble with the P1 as I see it is that to mod very far you really have to do the ECU, the UK model being much easier to get fairly impressive power increases with.

Please no one get offended and keep it polite.

Thank you.

 

OK, so just that I'm not paranoid or something ...

Do you accuse me of scaremongering ?

Theo

 

Martin's car could be running perfectly healthily with his setup and it could just be a RR "quirk". Unless you had det cans, EGT, calibrated boost gauge, exhaust gas analyser and a display of ignition advance and injector duty cycle we are all just speculating. If Theo is convinced it is the MBC than his response is appropriate. If in doubt Martin should take it off until he knows things are safe and he has a margin for hotter weather/bad fuel etc.

Theo, from what I have seen the effect from the MBC at the top end even on a UK car is not to completely steam roller the boost curve. With a dustbin sized turbo it might be different? The best effect is the lightning spool up.

 

John,

As you know I'm not on a mission to prove something. There is a lot of bull**** in tuner's talk, but that's not what I am about.

You are an intelligent bloke, so you *do* know not to start playing around with your setup when temps get hotter... you do measure things ... my concern was more for the people that got into a "group buy" and half understand what's happening.

To put it in your field: I have an ulcer, and I take Pariet 20 mg, so everyone take Pariet, it really helps... would you be glad with that advice ? Would you be glad if there was a Pariet group buy ?

My car runs *perfect* with the VF23, stock solenoid. Smoother than with your stock PPP ECU, but a lot more powerful. Surprise surprise, it has taken 40 hours plus on the German Autobahn to get it that way (I was the guinnae pig). I have *no* spikes at all, no overboost (as in first x.x bar, then x.x bar), winter or summer, I have a *very* powerful car (too bad I drive like **** ), and in PE terms I would have about 320 BHP on a UK car (do your own research on this one).

The factory solenoid is more than OK. Trust me.

But do you agree there is a point of no return ? My VF23 is not efficient at 1.1 bar/6500 RPM. It's not made to be. Even with 100 % fuelling (see the dyno site), there was a point of diminishing returns. So the boost goes down to 1.0 bar at 6.500 RPM. The stock fuelling can easily cope BTW, and if you fit an uprated fuel pump, you actually have to *LEAN* out the stock ECU to keep at 9 CO (which was our target, most English tuners laugh with that, call us stubborn).

I'm not getting into the debate whether a P1 is actually a STi V5 in evening gown, and I didn't call anyone names, I admit to being a tad agressive though. But they are *very* sensitive motors, I still don't understand why BTW.

But if you have a brain worth more than 70 IQ points, you would *not* call me a scaremongerer in this case.

Here my rant endeth

Theo

 

"To put it in your field: I have an ulcer, and I take Pariet 20 mg, so everyone take Pariet, it really helps... would you be glad with that advice ? Would you be glad if there was a Pariet group buy ?"

Good example - some would need two antibiotics and a higher dose Pariet, some would have cancers! I can exactly see your point.

I probably need to work out what the TD04 should be doing for efficiency at various engine speeds - don't tell me it is factory levels please or I will be cross.

I'm sure the factory boost solenoid is capable - it is more the ECU and program which is the problem - why did you not go three port - would it have been easier?

Back to topic - where can I find "ideal" boost pressures at various RPM - and we can do the same for the P1 turbo (VF 23?) and then Martin knows what boost he SHOULD be getting at various RPM? This could be quite constructive...

 

Anyone advise a good mounting point for checking charge temps them and I'll see what I can do?

 

John,

I'm glad you see my point on the Pariet thing, I thought I was out of line actually, as this stuff is *far* more serious than some stupid engines ...

At least I had to endure a garden hose stuck in my gob for 5 minutes to get the Pariet diagnose LOL

TD04L ... I'm out of my league here, but no, stock boost is something I would never say. They indeed took a *big* margin (blame em eh ?)

OK, at the risk of completely making a complete fool out of myself...

Given that all is OK with your turbo, engine, fuel (97 RON is so-so, 98 is better) etc, and we are talking UK Turbo cars ... more importantly, I am talking MY99/00 cars ! Forget the older cars with needle dick injectors OK (or the MY01 for that matter)

3.500 RPM : 1.3 bar (short peak)
4.000 RPM : 1.25 bar

this goes to

5.500 RPM : 1.15 bar
6.000 RPM : 1.0 bar
6.500 RPM : 0.9 bar
7.000 RPM : 0.8 to 0.7 bar

This is from memory when I had my previous setup... I could be off 0.1 bar at the higher RPM, and you have to take the gears into account, outside temp, etc etc...

Fuelling on all this could go over 10% CO depending on your particular car.

This setup gave me 265 BHP on Powerstation RR... about 20 BHP more than the highest tuned UK car with stock turbo

So that gives you more to play with than the stock levels, no ?

People constantly slag off the Superchips for the "high boost, what about the fuelling". They are not always right, the bad thing about that "chip" is they remove the fuel cut entirely (I still don't know after 2 years of Scoobynet if that is right BTW ).

[just to be clear: I was not running a Superchip, but the Dutch EMS chip]

The stock ECU on a MY99/00 can do a lot of tricks ... the downside with my Unichip (MAF dependant) is also a plus if you want to see how the stock ECU reacts (as you are constantly "correcting" that with the Unichip). The MAF is a cool thing ...

Read on ... we had to up the fuelling with about 20 % on my VF23 (which is a lot bigger than the standard ECU would expect, right ?) at high RPM, until ... the guy who does my car fitted an uprated fuel pump. He then had to lean out the mixture at high RPM ... go figure (he was as amazed as I am)

What I am saying in the end is ... this is not about magic numbers, but about measuring, selling your knowledge, and keeping a margin.

Saying 0.9 bar on a stock TD04L at mid RPM to be the limit is plain silly.

Fitting a 25 UKP device on a 30 K car without knowing what's happening, and hoping the turbo keeps its highest boost to the redline is even more silly (especially when it's running cr@p on whatever rollers)

Being a total newbie to cars, and still knowing that info borders on Kafka.

I'm just not scaremongering, that's all. I *really* take offense to that.

I'll shutup now

Theo

 

Blimey! It wasn't my intention to begin World War Three

As you will all have guessed, I know very little about cars, and so I agree that I may have been foolish to have fitted a device with the potential to badly mess my engine up. I actually thought that I was being sensible because I was not tempted to increase the boost, just to change the point at which boost drops off. From what people have said, maintaining the boost at high revs may be of detrimental effect to the engine. Obviously I don't want to risk my engine, so would I be best removing the MBC?

I would ultimately like a Link ECU, but I don't have £1500 spare..

No other comments on my low torque figures then!?

Cheers,

MS

 

Sorry Martin, my intention was not to make this look like WW3, but my hormones play up sometimes I guess

>>Obviously I don't want to risk my engine, so would I be best removing the MBC?

When having a problem - perceived or not - go back to the previous setup and check if that still works OK ... this works in about just every field I know ... so just take if off for 2 minutes, do another run, and see if it's even remotely related to this device. That would be my advice (and maybe do an ECU reset to iron out things, and run it for 100 miles to be sure). But we could be miles off.

>>No other comments on my low torque figures then!?

Distrust RR's, they are crap Other than that, ECU ignition back off would be the most sensible guess (SecretAgentMan bet his left nut on this one )

Tuning is cool, but just find someone you can trust. Bob Rawle has been mentioned, there are a few others. It's not about hardware, it's about knowing your/their stuff.

Theo

 

I think he did run it with the MBC off and lost about 4 bhp!

Those boost figures are interesting. My car hits just over 1.2 bar at 2400 rpm and after 5000 rpm it tails off in a fairly linear fashion until it is about 0.9 bar at 6500 rpm and drops a bit more as I fight to find the clutch and gearstick! Sounds like I am around the optimum then. Certainly feels like it. There is no drop off in performance over time, and it doesn't run any better after an ECU reset. Which makes me hope that it is not too retarded. Cannot find efficiency curves on the web anywhere. Interesting that you tune to 9% CO. I was seeing 7% on part throttle 1 bar before I took the induction kit off. Maybe about 8% now.

 

Martin

Didn't you used to have an Evo?

Flame suit on

All joking aside, the TJ rolling road normally seems to give the sort of results you would expect. As long as you are happy with the performance of the P1, why worry? Manufacturers have given dodgy performance figures for years, in order to keep up with the oposition, perhaps that is the case here?

 

At the risk of sounding hyper

>>I think he did run it with the MBC off and lost about 4 bhp!

Did they do an ECU reset in the mean time to get rid of the (suspected) ignition retardation ? And if they did, did they give the time to the poor computer to learn it's optimum values with optimal fuel ? Is a rolling road capable of producing the same numbers run to run with an error margin of less than 4 BHP ? Was his intercooler heat soaked when he did the first or the second run ? Did the temps change in the mean time ? Too many variables, sorry.

Your boost curve sounds about in line with what I was seeing BTW.

Now we are into betting anyway ... LOL ... I bet John will have a programmable ECU before say 4 months

Theo

 

No. I really can't believe I can extract any more performance out of this turbo. It drives great. Measured 85-105 private road (surrogate 80-100) indicated in 4th gear at under 5 seconds earlier on. That is BALLPARK M3/911/RS4 performance given that they all have six gears and this is near to their 4th gear performance and better than their 5th gear and other measurements also show similar - better lower midrange, similar midrange, worse top end. Good enough for me. And I've still only spent about £20k on this car from new with mods given that I imported it from Europe - that makes me particularly happy. The only reason I would go programmable ECU now is if I changed the turbo and FMIC - which I'm not going to do unless someone can convince me that I won't lose swathes of performance from 2000-3500rpm where I really use it. In other words I am maybe disputing in the real world whether a bigger turbo in the same hands in give and take driving will be any quicker. http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...threadid=60751 Hoppy has just said here what I am on about. only my opinion, but I prefer the 3000 rpm grunt.

I might make a boost controller with a PIC chip though. And monkeys might fly out my but.

 

john banks,

so when are we going to get some figures from your car,say a lap time of Knockhill against my MY00 full decat and WillieF's MY99 PPP+full decat .

 

It is not going on the track, and if it did you would waste me. Simple fact is I can't drive around corners very quickly I just bottle it. Recently REdiscovered that the car feels much better if you don't bottle it. It felt quite scary for a while after the torque delivery changed almost weekly and I am only just really getting used to it - until I change it again with the next gizmo no doubt!

Will happily take you on a ride down a road though - I think you would be impressed by the flexibility.

 

Here are the before and after dyno run printouts for my P1. The first one is before fitting the MBC, with the car as standard apart from the straight through exhaust. The second printout is after letting the car cool a little with the MBC on, set at 1.175 bar.

Any opinions? Do things look as they should?





Cheers,

MS

 

EvilBevel,

I'm not surprised you've got an ulcer!!

Sorry

 

Hmmm, ignoring the valuable contribution to the discussion from the previous poster for a minute

. looking at those graphs, your car seems healthier than we imagined from the discussion
. second run was about 30 minutes after first... did you drive it around a bit, or was it just left on the rollers ? I would imagine a bit of heatsoak if just left. oil temp is 11° higher too
. notice the Dawes reducing the transmission losses with 8 BHP (this is the RR error margin people talked about earlier)

Most interesting to see is that although boost stays up in the higher RPM, the torque curve trailoff looks very similar. That seems to indicate the extra boost is not really gaining you extra power (air heats up)

Also note that at midrange you actually lost power in the second run ... boost comes to 1.1 later than without the MBC. You can see that reflected in the torque curve (it takes longer to near the 240 lb/ft mark). But as said, that could be due to heat soak.

The first setup seems a lot safer for your engine, whilst producing similar power. The car may "feel" quicker with the MBC on, but it will not actually be quicker (it might be slower if you look at mid RPM torque).

The relative "low" peak torque is due to the fact there is no boost "spike" around 3500 to 4000 RPM as you see on UK spec cars, wich is not always a bad thing. Those numbers don't look all wrong to me to be honest.

If you look at http://dyno.scoobynet.co.uk/PSjap/jason_white.htm or http://dyno.scoobynet.co.uk/PSjap/russell_hayward.htm, you will see very similar torque curves for P1's on the same type of rolling road.

My advice would be to take of the MBC, other than that your car seems just fine.

Mind you, this is all from looking at RR printouts, which is slightly similar to reading tea leaves

How does the car feel on the road (before/after) ?

Theo

 

Martin,

Thanks for posting them - very interesting. I would agree with Theo that the PaW figures and BHP don't seem very consistent....

The stock setup looks more stable at high boost - is that how it feels ? This goes against my experience with my car ?

The curve doesn't look massively different although comparing boost at 3000rpm shows 0.6bar (stock) against 0.9bar (Dawes). Whether this is worth less stability at high boost is no doubt debatable...

What difference is there with the two setups on the road ?

Thanks

Gavin