Jenvey Throttle Bodies On The Mi16 - The Results

[205turbz 0]

 

id like to see a flake measuring device althou i prefer to just eat the icecream

 

and everyone knows n/a is better alex

 

 

 

I meant the N/A tuning costs of tuning a XE 2.0 16v lump... More power and torque for less £... from a XE..

 

 

 

 

 

As for N/A is best, u should have a go in my sierra cosworth wen its finished in the summer, im sure il change ur mind

Edited March 7, 2006 by 205turbz

[huckleberry 0]

It looks like everybody is attacking Jon for that RR having some kind of wrong power-readout. He only posted what that RR printout told him I suppose. I just hope he enjoys his engine. But then again Jon, very foolish to try and defend 200 bhp here. You knew what was coming.

 

About the ECU. He has MoTeC right? I'm no computer-freak but somehow you can't tell me that an Emerald ECU is just as good as a MoTeC or Haltech setup of whatever. The price difference is huge. That can't all be just name can it? Or is that the extra gadgets the system is capable of?

 

Tim

[Jonmurgie 2]

Man there are some long posts on this thread... good stuff Though a couple things I'd just like to pick up on:

 

But then again Jon, very foolish to try and defend 200 bhp here. You knew what was coming.

Where are I trying to defent 200bhp here? I am only defending the increase between before/after of the flywheel figures because that is what this MAHA LPS3000 dyno is designed to calculate. So calling me foolish, I feel, is a little harsh It may well turn out that on another dyno it shows 190bhp, but without a before graph there is no way of knowing what INCREASE the TB's and MoTeC M48 have given...

 

he is your typical Max Power chav bragging about his 300BHP corsa

Couldnt have put it better myself.

That's taken completley out of context and is inplying that I was called a 'typical Max Power chav' which anyone who has met me will know that I am not! What GLPoomobile actually said was "As far as I can tell, he didn't post this topic to brag. Despite this, various people have jumped down his throat and treated him like he is your typical Max Power chav bragging about his 300BHP corsa".

 

And he's right, I totally didn't post this thread to brag as I know at the end of the day I don't give a fook about how much BHP the car has, as long as it drives well and is rapid round the track... however, having the fortune to be able to report my dyno results I choose to do so, though I'm begining to wonder why bother at all...

 

This isn't the first thread that has degenerated into bollox... People always want to argue... John made an increase, which is great... Those TB's will be transferred to his new engine, so it really isn't that important what he got with this engine... Read between the lines and you can see what sort of increase you might get... Whether it's a true 200bhp engine or not is irrelevant really, unless someone particularly wants 200bhp and believes they can get it from just TB's and an ECU...

Great statement, and sums up my personal feelings on this entirely! I'm never going to suggest to people who want a 'genuine 200bhp' that it will easily be achived with TB's and (decent) ECU cause there's no way of knowing if it would do that or not! As Dom says, I have this figure and then when the new engine is in I can clearly see what improvements that engine have made, and again it WILL be on the PowerStation rollers as it can be directly comparable to these figures so far.

 

A good point was made earlier, if my car had be RR'd at 160bhp and then again at 190bhp would there be so much of an uproar? Are most people incapable of seeing past the 200 figure? Perhaps if I'd have actually stated it as it actually is, 199.4, would that make it better? If the car had 120 and then 150 afterwards I'd be just as happy with the outcome and I bet you wouldn't be making such a noise about it

 

Will get the specs of the injectors when I can, but doing a flow test I think they are good for around 220bhp @ 80 Duty. They were just something we had laying about really, will be using 803's for the new engine

 

I keep telling myself that I won't post on this topic anymore but there's just too much stuff going on to ignore! And as to whether I'm happy or not... ask me once I've actually driven the bloody thing!! Hope to get it out before the weekend, which would be nice

[Mattsav 1]

Without trying to get into any sort of argument the figures do seem a bit high.

 

I wouldn't ever give a customer a power gain for a set of TB's anyway. The TB's just let the engine breathe to its maximum potential and the main restriction is having a valve at the end of the port. As Dave Baker says if the plenum is restrictive then you'll get a good gain. If not then you wont gain anything.

 

A couple of good examples are the Honda S2000 and the Focus ST170 engine's which both give very little in the way of power increase when fitted with TB's although you do get an increase in torque.

The std manifold's seem to give more than enough airflow for the breathing capacity of the head/cam combination.

 

Jon gained 30bhp. I'd say the actual numbers are off and 30bhp seems a bit much but if his old injectors were a bit clogged, he wasn't getting complete full throttle or the air filter were dirty then this may well explain the bigger than expected gain.

 

Plus he's running a 421 exhaust manifold and the tuned lengths of this and the trumpets may be working in combination to pick up the power.

 

 

At the end of the day Jon's car is bloody fast on track anyway with the std engine. It was running rings around std Mi16's at the French car show. The brakes and suspension are superb so a good dollop of power will make it very fast.

 

And I've just got a set of lumpy sticks for his new engine so that will be going together soon.........

[veloce200 3]

some good points there Matt. Whatever though I'm gonna have to run a diesel compression ratio and methanol on my 8v to catch him at Cadwell... Planning on a trip there this summer hopefully !

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Jon gained 30bhp. I'd say the actual numbers are off and 30bhp seems a bit much but if his old injectors were a bit clogged, he wasn't getting complete full throttle or the air filter were dirty then this may well explain the bigger than expected gain.

 

But his car orginally made 170 so not down on power, clogged injectors or lack of full throttle....

[markrnorton 0]

Jon

 

Good COMPARATIVE result, how long did it take they guys to map it from start to finish ? And do you want to let on how much it cost ?

 

M

[Dino 3]

Dino; Why post that?? My car isnt the fastest by a long way, at the moment its very slow due to my management problems.

 

It was a joke and an attempt to lighten the mood a little!!

 

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

About the ECU. He has MoTeC right? I'm no computer-freak but somehow you can't tell me that an Emerald ECU is just as good as a MoTeC or Haltech setup of whatever. The price difference is huge. That can't all be just name can it? Or is that the extra gadgets the system is capable of?

 

Jon has the MoTeC and it IS better than an Emerald or any of the cheaper options. The difference is in both options/gadgets, resolutions of (load) sites and CPU speed. For example on an Emereld you can map every 500rpm and the CPU calcualted the intermittent values until the next value.

On MoTeC (and DTA and Haltech and Autronic just to name a few expensive ones) you can map every 100rpm or even every 50rpm. So the values that the engine has to work with on any given rpm will be much more accurate than the calculated values of the 'lesser' ECUs.

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Jon has the MoTeC and it IS better than an Emerald or any of the cheaper options. The difference is in both options/gadgets, resolutions of (load) sites and CPU speed. For example on an Emereld you can map every 500rpm and the CPU calcualted the intermittent values until the next value.

On MoTeC (and DTA and Haltech and Autronic just to name a few expensive ones) you can map every 100rpm or even every 50rpm. So the values that the engine has to work with on any given rpm will be much more accurate than the calculated values of the 'lesser' ECUs.

 

Well the new Emerald ECU you will be able to custmise speed sites....DW doesn't beleiev theirs any or even much gains to be had....I use to have only 8 load sites with my Emerald now 16 didn't noticed any difference...

[smckeown 1]

on a clubman type spec of N/A engine a motec simply has more gadgets. The only one Jon is ever likely to make use of is 8 injectors, everything else surplus to requirements

[Dream Weaver 2]

Hey, at least the cars running now though regardless of BHP

[PumaRacing 1]

Jon has the MoTeC and it IS better than an Emerald or any of the cheaper options. The difference is in both options/gadgets, resolutions of (load) sites and CPU speed. For example on an Emereld you can map every 500rpm and the CPU calcualted the intermittent values until the next value.

On MoTeC (and DTA and Haltech and Autronic just to name a few expensive ones) you can map every 100rpm or even every 50rpm. So the values that the engine has to work with on any given rpm will be much more accurate than the calculated values of the 'lesser' ECUs.

 

Sorry but it really doesn't work that way. Engines don't need values for fuel or ignition that change every 100 rpm or less. Mapping every 500 rpm and interpolating in between is plenty close enough. Even if you have all those extra rpm or load sites the guy setting the car up won't use them. It takes too long. He'll map a few of the sites and average the ones in between.

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

I was using GTi6 Injectors on mine,

But good post this and my eye's hurt now

[Dream Weaver 2]

Isn't saying one ECU is better than another similar to saying a spark plug can provide a "more powerful spark/power" due to the "technology" in the electrodes

 

Just as a spark plug is a spark plug and provides a spark, surely an ECU is an ECU and does the same job, its just the gadgets that make one cost more than the other.

 

I still think its a cool result though, and i'm happy the car is almost back with us Jon

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Another mi at a RR meet was meant to be over 200BHp on a set of rollers back inhis area and was meant to be lightening... The bloke laughed at me so I asked him kindly to put the car on the rollers we were using that day. Same thing as on here, nobody dare argue but I always buck the trend as I cant stand bulls*it. With the car strapeed on his 200+BHP quickly depreciated into the late 170's... who was laughing at the end of it. As I have said this figure is not good for those that have had no experience of how mis react to TB's in std spec. Why do all the other struggle to even break 180BHP??

 

Maxi

 

Your refering to Paul Wick's car.....Paul usually quotes 220BHP & 180lbft. The article he wrote in PSOCC last had a rolling road graph and the figure on that was 234BHP (surprised no one noticed)...

 

To be fair he did say he's not sure why there was increase on that occasion...Funny thing rollers or maybe operators.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Robsbc

[boombang 2]

Your refering to Paul Wick's car.....Paul usually quotes 220BHP & 180lbft. The article he wrote in PSOCC last had a rolling road graph and the figure on that was 234BHP (surprised no one noticed)...

 

To be fair he did say he's not sure why there was increase on that occasion...Funny thing rollers or maybe operators.

 

Paul's engines just been rebuilt and the spec wasn't what it was sold as - a fair way off actually.

 

Think its due to be run in for this coming weekend, then mapped next week before PSOOC spring meet.

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Paul's engines just been rebuilt and the spec wasn't what it was sold as - a fair way off actually.

 

Think its due to be run in for this coming weekend, then mapped next week before PSOOC spring meet.

 

Well if that is the case he's gonna have more than 220BHP this time round? That's the figure he got from the rollers DES use same figure quoted by the previous owner.

 

Seems logical if the cams were only weedy 270 duration and not the 290 he thought he had he's gonna get more BHP this time round....

[Kev-G 1]

From Jon's print-out's:

 

PAW (Before): 117.6

PAW (After): 136.8

 

That equates to a 16.3% increase in power.

 

160BHP (Mi Std. 'book' power) + 16.3% = 186BHP....Seems in the ball-park with what others have seen....

 

However, there are a # of other factors to take into account:

 

Was engine std. to start with?

 

Were these on the engine for the 1st run:

Longman 4-2-1 Manifold

Magnex Back Box (no centre box)

 

This could have resulted in the higher than std. Before figures.

 

Also note:

 

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

 

This will affect the coast-down figures (which as stated are a matter for debate anyway).

 

And:

 

Edit to add - their dyno is calibrated by MAHA themselves and has a certificate to prove it's within tolerances... many standard cars have gone on their dyno in the past year and produced the correct factory stated power.

 

Maybe, but then the readings are approx. 10 months apart - When was the calibration done?

 

This is no different a claim to that made by Dave Walker....How can 2 dynos which have been calibrated and get std. figures for std. cars be so different?

 

Jon has done what everyone always asks - He's got before + after results, then he gets crucified....

 

It's fair to say that no-one is ever going to be happy with this....Let the results speak for themselves on the blacktop....C U on 28th of May....

[Dino 3]

Let the results speak for themselves on the blacktop....C U on 28th of May....

 

I have to take issue with this point Kev....... the LAST thing we want is people going out on track trying to prove that they or their car is faster than everyone elses.

 

When I see Jon in my mirrors I move over for two reasons - he is a much better driver than I and his car is lighter and faster than mine. Anyone going to FCS to prove a point about how much bigger their manhood is should stay away.

[huckleberry 0]

Isn't saying one ECU is better than another similar to saying a spark plug can provide a "more powerful spark/power" due to the "technology" in the electrodes

 

Just as a spark plug is a spark plug and provides a spark, surely an ECU is an ECU and does the same job, its just the gadgets that make one cost more than the other.

 

I see MoTeC ecu's on Ebay for about 2.500 dollars. And what would a Emerald be like? Anywhere between 1.000 and 1.500 dollars? (Dunno the exact prices). I was always under the impression that ECU's like that were actually better in some way.

[Kev-G 1]

I have to take issue with this point Kev....... the LAST thing we want is people going out on track trying to prove that they or their car is faster than everyone elses.

 

When I see Jon in my mirrors I move over for two reasons - he is a much better driver than I and his car is lighter and faster than mine. Anyone going to FCS to prove a point about how much bigger their manhood is should stay away.

 

 

Calm down to a panic!!

 

The track is not a public road - It's VERY easy to see whether 1 car is faster than another without any risk....If 2 cars come onto the main straight @ the same time then the one with an extra 30BHP will be easy to spot....

 

MUCH safer to do it there than on the road?

[rich_w 0]

Surely 1/4 mile times would be better for the purpose of measuring power?

[Dino 3]

Calm down to a panic!!

 

The track is not a public road - It's VERY easy to see whether 1 car is faster than another without any risk....If 2 cars come onto the main straight @ the same time then the one with an extra 30BHP will be easy to spot....

 

MUCH safer to do it there than on the road?

 

 

Agree its safer on track to compare. It is however difficult to compare two vehicles due to so many different variables. For starters Jons car is much lighter than standard, his suspension set up will be different and so will his tyres. Add all that to his serious turn of pace on track means it's difficult to compare even on track. He carries more momentum out of corners than most people do, meaning that he will look even faster on track. See my point?

 

Rich_w's suggestion of 1/4 miles times would give a more accurate comparison but even then you need to factor in good starts and gear changes.

[Adam B 0]

Guess thats why people do rolling road shootouts then lol

 

All hail Mr Murgatroyd: The Track God