Jenvey Throttle Bodies On The Mi16 - The Results

[Jonmurgie 2]

Have posted this seperatly so it doesn't get lost in my FULL thread here: http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=45599

 

Well... it's finally been mapped!! Took me by surprise a bit as I was expecting more weeks of nagging and waiting and hoping not to miss Llandow on the 18th, then this morning Rich says he's going to map it today

 

There are a few things to tidy up before I can drive it on the road (so I STILL haven't actually driven it) but the I'm very pleased with the results

 

before

170 bhp @ Flywheel

130 lb/ft @ Flywheel

Link to PDF Graph: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/H490OKG.pdf

LInk to Dyno Movie: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/movies/mi16power1.avi

 

after

200 bhp @ Flywheel

147 lb/ft @ Flywheel

Link to PDF Graph: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/H490OKG_motec.pdf

Link to Dyno Movie: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/movies/mapping_done.mov

 

So a nice 30bhp increase with the fitting of the throttle bodies and the mappable ECU, which I'm very very plased with. The power is very smooth as you can see on the graph, almost identical to the power delivery of a standard car, ideal really! TO be fair the car is still pulling when they lifted, but as this is a standard Mi with well over 100k under the belt I didn't want to risk it going higher... I can see the benefit of raising the rev limit on the Mi from this

 

This is the main spec of the engine:

 

1.9 Alloy Block Mi16 (~130k miles)

Longmands 4-2-1 Manifold

Magnex Back Box (no centre box)

Jenvey 45mm Throttle Bodies

90mm Trumpets

Elise Airbox with 100mm intake

Pipercross Filter & 100mm ducting

 

Can't wait for the new engine....

 

DISCLAIMER - I do not wish to get into another long debate about the 'wheel' figures on dynos. These before/after runs are on the same dyno so are direclty comparable. I will say, however, that in the latest run the car is now running a 1.9 gearbox with Mi final drive and on sticky A048's

Edited March 6, 2006 by Jonmurgie

[James_m 0]

That on standard cams? Seems quite a result....

[Jonmurgie 2]

Yes, the engine is totally standard internally...

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Have posted this seperatly so it doesn't get lost in my FULL thread here: http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?showtopic=45599

 

Well... it's finally been mapped!! Took me by surprise a bit as I was expecting more weeks of nagging and waiting and hoping not to miss Llandow on the 18th, then this morning Rich says he's going to map it today

 

There are a few things to tidy up before I can drive it on the road (so I STILL haven't actually driven it) but the I'm very pleased with the results

 

before

170 bhp @ Flywheel

130 lb/ft @ Flywheel

Link to PDF Graph: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/H490OKG.pdf

LInk to Dyno Movie: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/movies/mi16power1.avi

 

after

200 bhp @ Flywheel

147 lb/ft @ Flywheel

Link to PDF Graph: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/H490OKG_motec.pdf

Link to Dyno Movie: http://www.mdracing.co.uk/movies/mapping_done.mov

 

So a nice 30bhp increase with the fitting of the throttle bodies and the mappable ECU, which I'm very very plased with. The power is very smooth as you can see on the graph, almost identical to the power delivery of a standard car, ideal really! TO be fair the car is still pulling when they lifted, but as this is a standard Mi with well over 100k under the belt I didn't want to risk it going higher... I can see the benefit of raising the rev limit on the Mi from this

 

This is the main spec of the engine:

 

1.9 Alloy Block Mi16 (~130k miles)

Longmands 4-2-1 Manifold

Magnex Back Box (no centre box)

Jenvey 45mm Throttle Bodies

90mm Trumpets

Elise Airbox with 100mm intake

Pipercross Filter & 100mm ducting

 

Can't wait for the new engine....

 

DISCLAIMER - I do not wish to get into another long debate about the 'wheel' figures on dynos. These before/after runs are on the same dyno so are direclty comparable. I will say, however, that in the latest run the car is now running a 1.9 gearbox with Mi final drive and on sticky A048's

 

 

Sorry jon but that is a load of bollocks... how the hell can you pick up 30BHP from a set of bodies and mapable ecu. unless im mistaken you are running a std engine..... Those rollers are well out. 180BHP is a mopre realistic figure at the most. You need a massive spec to get anywhere near 200BHP, im expecting 195-200 GENUINE BHP from my engine on bodies and omex. Theres a lot of dogs*it rolling road results out there and the mapping maybe perfect but that result is well high.

 

Hope you have fun in it anyway.

 

Maxi

[Jonmurgie 2]

Sorry jon but that is a load of bollocks... how the hell can you pick up 30BHP from a set of bodies and mapable ecu. unless im mistaken you are running a std engine..... Those rollers are well out. 180BHP is a mopre realistic figure at the most. You need a massive spec to get anywhere near 200BHP, im expecting 195-200 GENUINE BHP from my engine on bodies and omex. Theres a lot of dogs*it rolling road results out there and the mapping maybe perfect but that result is well high.

 

Hope you have fun in it anyway.

 

Maxi

 

Thanks for that Maxi

 

Same dyno... nothing's changed... you can argue over whether the car has 200bhp or not but esentially it's gained 30bhp from the throttle bodies and MoTeC... nothing you say can change that.

 

Maybe see you on track one day... maybe...

 

Edit to add - their dyno is calibrated by MAHA themselves and has a certificate to proove it's within tolerances... many standard cars have gone on their dyno in the past year and produced the correct factory stated power. The figures don't lie... though I would be interested in some figures from an alternative dyno, though without a 'before' from that dyno the end result would be meaningless as I wouldn't know what power I had gained. As has been discussed before, and something I didn't really want to get into again, dyno resutls are only really for comparative results of tuning IMHO

Edited March 6, 2006 by Jonmurgie

[sekim 0]

I don't know anything about this mapping lark but I'm curious...

 

In the graphs you linked the "drag power" which seems to be the difference between engine and wheel power went from 51.7bhp (standard) to 65.5 (throttle bodies), what's the cause of the difference?

[Jonmurgie 2]

DISCLAIMER - I do not wish to get into another long debate about the 'wheel' figures on dynos. These before/after runs are on the same dyno so are direclty comparable. I will say, however, that in the latest run the car is now running a 1.9 gearbox with Mi final drive and on sticky A048's

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

Thanks for that Maxi

 

Same dyno... nothing's changed... you can argue over whether the car has 200bhp or not but esentially it's gained 30bhp from the throttle bodies and MoTeC... nothing you say can change that.

 

Maybe see you on track one day... maybe...

 

Edit to add - their dyno is calibrated by MAHA themselves and has a certificate to proove it's within tolerances... many standard cars have gone on their dyno in the past year and produced the correct factory stated power. The figures don't lie... though I would be interested in some figures from an alternative dyno, though without a 'before' from that dyno the end result would be meaningless as I wouldn't know what power I had gained. As has been discussed before, and something I didn't really want to get into again, dyno resutls are only really for comparative results of tuning IMHO

 

 

Why does everyone else struggle to make over 175BHP with bodies and a std engine?? If you want bring the car to a strip or something and straight line drag my car with its managment as it is making not a lot over 170BHP, I WILL get past it! Matt is runnig HUGE cams on bodies and management and his make 192BHP. How can your engine possibly be the only one on the planet to buck the trend??? Its a load of toffee.

 

 

As long as you enjoy it thats the main thing!

 

 

Maxi

[Toddy 7]

John

 

Good result in added 30bhp!!!

 

I'm with Maxi does seem a little high though

 

1) Without verniers thats a good hike in torque let alone power

 

2) Maybe the airbox has helped alot, would be good to know the direct benefit of the airbox alone!

 

3) Maybe worth a power run @ Emerald since everyone seems to respect them?

 

Anyway before the debate starts hope you enjoy the added performance Hooning around on track!!!

 

Toddy

[jackherer 543]

before

170 bhp @ Flywheel

130 lb/ft @ Flywheel

 

without worrying about absolute values (or @wheel figures ) how can a standard engine make 10bhp more than the book figure while making 3 lb/ft less torque? surely the only way that could be possible is if it revved higer than the standard limiter? or am I missing something?

 

(edit: standard figures are 160 bhp / 133 lb/ft for those that dont know...)

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

without worrying about absolute values (or @wheel figures ) how can a standard engine make 10bhp more than the book figure while making 3 lb/ft less torque? surely the only way that could be possible is if it revved higer than the standard limiter? or am I missing something?

 

 

I might visit this RR and make some PUB horse power too!!! This is where people get silly power figures and expectations from. on a SENSIBLE rolling road I would be suprised to see it make anything over 180BHP with this new spec.

 

I thought we all knew Powerstations rollers were a mile off anyway?? They are notoriously high I thought???

 

Maxi

[Toddy 7]

without worrying about absolute values (or @wheel figures ) how can a standard engine make 10bhp more than the book figure while making 3 lb/ft less torque? surely the only way that could be possible is if it revved higer than the standard limiter? or am I missing something?

 

(edit: standard figures are 160 bhp / 133 lb/ft for those that dont know...)

 

Maybe Johns engine had some reprofiled cams in which he didn't know about?, Miiles attained 200BHP with Bodies & Kent Repro's?,

[Jonmurgie 2]

So is it that it made 200bhp or that it's added 30bhp that is the issue? Personally, despite 200bhp being a nice thing to 'brag' about, I'm more interested in the fact that it's added 30bhp

 

The '200bhp' thing is cool, but I'm not as fussed about that really... and to be fair I'm yet to drive it on the road so have no idea what this extra 30bhp is going to be like (I guess similar to going from 8v to 16v!)

 

With regard to the air box... when/if I get the chance I wanted to do 2 other power runs, one with the K&N Filter on the airbox (instead of the headlight induction) and one with no airbox/filter, just trumpets. Maybe that will shed some light on how the figures have been atained.

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

So is it that it made 200bhp or that it's added 30bhp that is the issue? Personally, despite 200bhp being a nice thing to 'brag' about, I'm more interested in the fact that it's added 30bhp

 

The '200bhp' thing is cool, but I'm not as fussed about that really... and to be fair I'm yet to drive it on the road so have no idea what this extra 30bhp is going to be like (I guess similar to going from 8v to 16v!)

 

With regard to the air box... when/if I get the chance I wanted to do 2 other power runs, one with the K&N Filter on the airbox (instead of the headlight induction) and one with no airbox/filter, just trumpets. Maybe that will shed some light on how the figures have been atained.

 

 

The issue is that you will not pick up 30BHP fromt he mods you have done. If you were runnign a hugely modded engine where the std map/management was a mile out and then you put bodies on and you had it mapped then possibly it might pick up around 20-25BHP but this is a STD engine! remember the 1st RR I put my car on I made 190BHP in std form with repros. On a more accurate set of rollers I made 171.5BHP I would say those roollers are getting further and further away from the true figure. Run it somewhere else and see what it makes. If it is a 30BHP increase the car will feel so much faster! It will wank away from most things on the road. I bet a cammed mi on std management would be allover it if not pushing it up the road.

 

Maxi

[Paintguy 0]

There are a few things to tidy up before I can drive it on the road

It's the results of that test I'm looking forward to

 

For all the discussion (argument?) about the actual figures, it's what the car feels like to drive that matters most IMHO. Sure such things can be subjective, and a bit like a placebo, one would expect ones car to feel faster after spending so much money, but I think you've spent enough time 'in the saddle', to be able to know if there really is a noticable difference or not.

 

 

Who cares whether the cars gained 3BHP or 30? As long as it feels better, and laps faster, it's all good!

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

The issue is that you will not pick up 30BHP fromt he mods you have done. If you were runnign a hugely modded engine where the std map/management was a mile out and then you put bodies on and you had it mapped then possibly it might pick up around 20-25BHP but this is a STD engine! remember the 1st RR I put my car on I made 190BHP in std form with repros. On a more accurate set of rollers I made 171.5BHP I would say those roollers are getting further and further away from the true figure. Run it somewhere else and see what it makes. If it is a 30BHP increase the car will feel so much faster! It will wank away from most things on the road. I bet a cammed mi on std management would be allover it if not pushing it up the road.

 

Maxi

 

 

The standard mi's on tb's with 90mm trumpets I've seen compared with standard Mi's on single tb at Emerald tend to make gains from most of the rev range especially mid range. Comparing your 2 graphs the torque curves are very similar even identical...

[Jonmurgie 2]

Totally enjoying your input Maxi... defo in a grumpy mood today!! It just amazes me that despite everything you seem to refuse to believe that my car HAS GAINED 30BHP with the mods, even Sean agrees with that

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Totally enjoying your input Maxi... defo in a grumpy mood today!! It just amazes me that despite everything you seem to refuse to believe that my car HAS GAINED 30BHP with the mods, even Sean agrees with that

 

Maxi,

 

What do you John's new engine will produce on the same rollers? Shall we have a guess? 245?

Edited March 6, 2006 by Robsbc

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

I have seen a standard Mi making 201,5bhp on the rollers (flywheel figure offcoruse) by just adding 45mm Jenveys and DTA management.

This was however a ruibuilt engine using new pistons, liners etc.

 

I remember Miles had a standard Mi pushing 200bhp as well.

So might be due to the better management of Motec and DTA as well, compared to Omex or Emerald.

[Toddy 7]

I have seen a standard Mi making 201,5bhp on the rollers (flywheel figure offcoruse) by just adding 45mm Jenveys and DTA management.

This was however a ruibuilt engine using new pistons, liners etc.

 

I remember Miles had a standard Mi pushing 200bhp as well.

So might be due to the better management of Motec and DTA as well, compared to Omex or Emerald.

 

Thought that had Kent 262 Repro's & Verniers Fitted?

 

Emerald got 169BHP & 133 Ib/ft on bodies without verniers & With verniers 169Bhp & 146Ib/ft

 

Looking at the two graphs it has gained good torque in the midrange so let's see how fast it is on track not just a straight line Qtr mile race, since thats why everyone owns 205's, for the corner's isnt it!!!

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

So might be due to the better management of Motec and DTA as well, compared to Omex or Emerald.

 

Can you actually prove that statement? The answer is probably no...The ECU's do all the same thing supply spark and fuel...

 

Back to your original statement Emerald ECU is compatible with the K-series as found on the Lotus Exige and Elise. The Emerald was fiitted to both car model's and gained over the standard MEMS ECU..

 

Soory was talking crap about the graphs...Not the most easiest to read...

Edited March 6, 2006 by Robsbc

[smckeown 1]

yeah i doubt there's must difference in performance for your clubman spec type of car between ECUs. That's why i went for the cheapest

[B1ack_Mi16 67]

Thought that had Kent 262 Repro's & Verniers Fitted?

 

Emerald got 169BHP & 133 Ib/ft on bodies without verniers & With verniers 169Bhp & 146Ib/ft

 

Looking at the two graphs it has gained good torque in the midrange so let's see how fast it is on track not just a straight line Qtr mile race, since thats why everyone owns 205's, for the corner's isnt it!!!

 

Did emerald change to bigger injectors?

The standard ones won't give much over 180bhp afaik.

[sekim 0]

Totally enjoying your input Maxi... defo in a grumpy mood today!! It just amazes me that despite everything you seem to refuse to believe that my car HAS GAINED 30BHP with the mods, even Sean agrees with that

 

Look at the graph... you've gained 20bhp at the wheels and another 10bhp from the increased "drag power".

 

I don't see why the "drag power" should be any different between your 2 runs, <cynical>except maybe to make the tuner look good</cynical>.

[Anthony 1,000]

The figures do sound a tad dubious to be fair for throttle bodies and mapped ECU on what is basically an otherwise standard engine, unless there was something amiss with the old setup (but the initial power run suggests otherwise, assuming the flywheel figure is reasonably accurate).

 

However, clearly you've done all you can to make it a directly comparable test by running at the same rollers with only the TB and ECU swap between the two runs.

 

Most important thing though is how it feels on the road/track, and as Maxi said, 30hp difference should feel MUCH quicker - that's the difference again between a 1.9 8v and a 1.9 Mi16. That will be the most interesting test of all...