Thanks Shaun I am very happy with it as a road car but you do have to be aware as you rightly say, methanol will be the ingredient for the next step and that should take it close to 600 I think. Te LM500 billet is working extremely well. Iain advises there is scope to up the ante on it as well :D

cheers

bob

Nice figures Bob, and more to come by the sounds of it.:thumb:
Oh and my car performed great on Saturday, managed to keep within 2 secs of JF so i was a happy bunny, finished up with a 1.03.35 round stowe which put me 5th in class.
Only 6 seconds covering the whole class, so nice competitive racing, you should have a go, i think your car would be very suited to it.

Hi Dan, great that the car performed well and well done its not easy keeping up with these experienced campaigners :thumb:

You are not the only person to suggest that I track it, but to be competitive it would need proper tyres and suspension all of which will come but not straight away.

I will be taking the car up to RCM soon and it will be interesting to see what sort of performance the rollers up there give it as a comparison.

So more graphs to come.

cheers

bob

Bob - As you say, the comparison at RCM will be interesting.

Do you think you're at the maximum ignition and boost for set-up (as we all know boost on it's own doesn't mean a fat lot if your running a shedload of ignition - which we don't know by looking at a dyno graph).... i.e. anymore "left" on current spec?

In terms of ignition I've mapped it "normally" as I would any other car, its not on the ragged edge or anything. Given the need to maintain headroom I would say its sat at a "nice" level given the fuel is only V Power. There is definitely more to come if I use meth, but this will do nicely as a V Power level. I am not really chasing numbers here, I continually "play" as it were since its my own car and I tend to tweak things after every drive. I also like to try differing combinations of map configurations to see if a different "mix" can get any improvement in a particular area.

I can run more boost easily but at this moment I am not looking to do so.

cheers

bob

RCM today
 

Was at RCM today doing a bit for them and we took the opportunity to put the car on the dyno, given that there have been several instances of people stating the RCM dyno produces figures about 8% lower then Surrey Rolling Road this may be of interest.

At SRR the car was run in third gear with the bonnet down and on the first latch so we set the car in the same way and ran it in third.

We did a 0.5 bar throttle controlled run, 1 bar throttle controlled run and 1.3 bar throttle controlled run to start with. ! bar run was just over 420 bhp, 1.3 bar run was 470 bhp. Both these numbers line up pretty well with the SRR part throttle runs.

We then ran at full throttle achieving figures of 526 bhp, but the afr's were very rich compared to when it was run at SRR. So leaving all else alone I adjusted the fuel maps progressively to achieve the same afr's again.

The results are as below.

Boost profile is identical, ignition map unchanged, afr's the same.

The differences were that I had a full tank of fuel instead of a part tank, I kept the cars side lights on to stop the alternator messing with the fuel pump voltage levels and the RCM fan system is more comprehensive.

That said I fully expected the car to run at a lower level, but ....... :D:D

552 bhp and 550 ft lbs, peak power about 300 rpm higher due to me remembering to turn of the knock control above 6k (ecu was pulling some ignition but there was no det at SRR) so peak rpm was lifted.

The only problem discovered is that the intake pipe is sucking closed by an amount at the elbow so I need to change that, this is almost certainly what is causing the boost profile to slope down and vary as it is. So a quick call to Mark at Lateral has ensured that will be sorted.

The drive back to Swindon was "interesting" and revealed that the standard dump valve currently on the car is not coping well so thats also an item to investigate.

cheers

bob

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6222796/DPP_1099.JPG

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6222796/DPP_1098.JPG

A few other observations, its clear that the ignition map can be increased in the mid range from its current level without any problem, I have not touched this at all so far, I am still using exactly the same ignition as was being run on the std turbo but with the load axis extended.

Charge temperatures are definitely not an issue and neither are coolant temperatures although a track environment is needed to absolutely confirm this.

Turbo intake pipe needs to be change to a fully wired item.

Dump valve needs to be investigated and either changed or removed completely.

Injectors are at 97% duty at 7200 rpm.

Maf is at 4.94 volts peak.

Peak torque at 1.66 bar and peak power at 1.5 bar.

Fuel pump must be run from a voltage stabilised source.

cheers

bob

nice update bob, interesting comparison between rcm and srr

So was it rich on your own wideband or rcms?

How is it on the road now afr wise?

Trying to establish whether you think it was purely a differing wideband reading (rcm v surrey) or whether the air supply, temps, loading were different?
I assume rcm are using the innovative? And surrey now used techedge.

Simon

So reading between the lines, it made 8bhp less on exactly the same map as SRR.
It was however a 10 degree colder day at RCM so it was flowing more air (431g)than it was at SRR (425g) and as a result maxed out the injectors, making it rich at the top end as they go static.

What was injector duty at surrey if 97% after adjustmet at rcm?

In order to help the understanding I've lined up the logs of the two runs and extracted the following. Something I would do in any case for my own benefit just to understand what the car was doing.


SRR 534 bhp 538 ft lbs

AIT start at 26 deg C drop to 24 end at 30
Gm/sec 423.26 at 6933 rpm
Internal boost reading 1.52 bar at 6933 rpm
Internal boost reading 1.67 at 4362 rpm
Injector duty 16.9ms at 6933 rpm (97.68%)
Maf voltage not logged
Coolant temp start 84 deg C end 78 deg C
2.8 degrees ignition retard start at 6157 rpm which ecu added back by 7435 rpm

RCM 552 bhp 550 ft lbs

AIT start at 18 deg C drop to 15 end at 22
Gm/sec 419.68 at 6974 rpm
Internal boost reading 1.48 bar at 6974 rpm
Internal boost reading 1.66 bar at 4298 rpm
Injector duty 96.71% at 6974 rpm
Maf voltage 4.88 at 6974 rpm
Coolant temp start 85 deg C end 78 deg C
No ignition retard

Things look pretty close, looked at like this the main difference is probably the lack of retard at RCM. At SRR the knock correction was left live above 6000 rpm, my fault I omitted to reset it after completing my knock sensor scaling experiments last october and the car hadn't been used. There was/is no det at all just Phantom Knock getting in the way again.

AFR's were measured using both RCM and my wideband systems but the RCM one was pretty badly sooted up and Matt was not confident of it, nor was I. I use an LM2 and that normally correlates very well to SRR Tech-edge. I always use my own as well as whatever is available on the rollers.

On road afr's were the same as the rollers in both cases I didn't need to adjust anything at all.

I also have a PLM which I use from time to time to confirm what my LM2 is doing. Both systems on my car at the same time. Always wary of sensor drift.

cheers

bob

Some great results there Bob. Could you explain the phantom knock please? Why would the ECU pull timing if there was no knock, and why would it think there is knock? Thanks. :)

Mmmm interesting results.

I have my own personal experience with RCM and their dyno recording of my AFR's as mega rich, but I don't want to sway this conversion with that information......

All things being equal 3degs could easily equate to the circa 18bhp increase. :)

OEM knock strategy and forged build!

As Shaun says, but it can happen on a std build as well. the ecu reads "interference" as being knock and reacts, fortunately the knock sensor scaling can be adjusted BUT its critical to do some work to ascertain how much, it still needs to work !!

the 2.5 seems to have a different resonant frequency which clashes sometimes with the knock centre frequency.

I have also relocated my knock sensor.

cheers

bob

Is this because the filter is restrictive due to its size or the elbow material not up to the job. ie would the problem go away if the filter had a greater surface...? (sorry if it sounds a silly question, trying to learn/understand)

Nothing wrong with the filter per se its an intake pipe problem its easily pushed in with one finger when hot in the elbow area. For sure a bigger filter would help but the root cause is lack of pipe integrity.

Looking to use a wired one as mentioned but the ultimate solution is a custom aluminium component as that will also save space.

cheers

bob

so injector duty was lower at RCM but it showed richer on your wideband?? ie. the same wideband?

only other noticable difference is air temp.. but not massive difference..

you sure it was same fuel maps?

So all in all the dynos seem to be very similar readout?

Simon

I think there are so many changes with respect to ambient temperature and pressure, dyno cooling system, fuel map changes and knock control changes that trying to compare the dyno's based on this one result is completely pointless!

That sounds familiar, Bob ;) :D

I was sure I got mine to do it at high rpm the other day on a nice run out (i.e. things would have been hot) having got Vpower back in my area. Went totally flat after about 5.8k preceded by what I'm sure was the "Star Trek closing door sound" :) that we identified when originally mapping mine. Been fine since though.

Looks like you're getting very healthy figures though; must be lovely to drive!

Well I for one am certainly not trying to compare dyno's generally and one result is always one result.

Not even trying to make a point here, simply to inform people of progress, it was you guys, Andy, that started the "great software debate" over on 22B.

Simon the afr's were not consistently different over the whole rpm range, I suspect that the intake pipe pushed the mid range richer due to the extra torque that was being generated as the car was running harder at RCM early on in the rev range than at SRR which is simply a dyno load application difference. They cannot possible be the same. Given the way Deltadash and Flash2004 log then the injector duty's could be considered the same since they are within 1%, also the rpm benchmark point

For me there is no real difference in the results and if I'm asked the two dyno's are comparable no question.

And yes rom not changed from last run at SRR to first run at RCM deliberately.

This 8% thinking would have yielded me a sub 500 bhp figure, instead there was approx 1% which is "measurement error" given the complexity of a rolling road.

cheers

bob

I had a difference of 1.8% between the two dynos, but had a slagging for even daring to mention it!!! ;)

I think you've broke the record now for a GT3076 spec'd turbo in standard position, on VPower.... From my old set-up. :cry: I forgot about this, so well done Bob.

Thank god for that, I can go back to sleeping nights now without worrying about people removing 8% power from my 700+bhp 2.1s :thumb:

That's an awesome result from a bolt on turbo on Vpower BTW Bob, I take my hat off to your sir !

Now you have confused me! Are you comparing them or not?

Interesting you noted the car ran harder earlier at RCM due to a difference in the loading of the 2 dyno's. That's what shoot44 mode is supposed to eliminate.

On 22b I was hoping to gather a cross section of results, some were 8% different, Shauns was 1.8% your own results on the same rom were 1.5%. Charlie from SRR was of the opinion that the new software on average reads 4% lower but as we are all aware, that can also vary from location to location.

Anyway back to the topic, any plans to go to Shakespeare Bob to see how she performs in the real world on the big black dyno!

Before I could go to Shakespeare again I would need to sort out the suspension, it wasn't until I changed to coil overs on the STi5 and also did the engine and g-box mounts that I got anything like a decent time so no point unless I do sort it.

Having spent 2/3 years playing with the Sti 5 over there, to be honest, I'm not that eager to. My thinking was more track orientated, not Time Attack level though. The 22B sprint series for example, would be something I would have a go at.

But as mentioned the handling has to be sorted out first. I've already changed the mounts, std ones are pants.

Made more torque and it spooled a bit better, could have just been the cooler air mind. There are tolerances in any system no two sets of rollers are going to run the same I guess. Ran with the diff locked on both occasions btw.

RCM said they had Matt Neal's BTCC car on there to give it a run, the figures were within a very small number of bhp (less than 5) of those obtained on an engine dyno when it was mapped they said.

Sean I hadn't realised I had got that close to your previous car am feeling quite chuffed now :):)

Martyn thanks for those words, very much appreciated, its taken a long time to get it to this point, nearly two years in fact, but I wanted to stick to the plan even though there were times when it held things up. I was not expecting to achieve quite this much on V Power I had convinced myself I would need to use meth to get much past 500 bhp.

cheers

bob

As part of the dump valve investigation I've replaced the standard one with a Forge recirc. Its fitted with a red spring which allows it to crack open at 0.3 bar. Shimmed it up to 0.8 bar cracking.

Subjective road test shows that boost builds "a bit" quicker but I now get an over boost bounce to 1.75 bar instead of it just hitting 1.65 was mapped. At the top end boost still drops off slightly but thats the intake pipe.

Drivability is better so its clear that the std bov was fluttering open/closed on part throttle.

the std bov is best on stage one and stage two cars, we are into different territory here though. I believe I will end up removing it completely but I want to follow the path to get there.

Next step is to get it to crack at about 1.3 bar and test.

cheers

bob

sh1t! i will add it back on martyn ;)

Bob would it be possible for you to explain in a bit more depth about connecting the Bosch pump, if you have pictures that would be excellent. I currently run a GEMS ECU on my bugeye STi and hope in the next couple of weeks to fit a swirl pot feeding a Bosch 044 pump. This is in readiness for a possible 2.3 build later this year with a GT30 and possibly Syvecs ECU.

Cheers Steve

I will be posting up some engine bay pics at some point, its all pretty routine stuff in pipework terms, electrically a relay is driven by the fuel controller output to turn the 044 on and off with the ignition under ecu control. IIRC the gems will not be controlling the fuel pump controller as such but if it can then you just need to run the pump in the tank flat out.

best regards

bob