I'd love to see before and after on that RR. 
Tuning Rolling Road......
- Thread starter thefrannyman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- remap rolling road
Currently reading:
Tuning Rolling Road......
you have the paper saying its got that much power. you have a warm fuzzy feeling from it... the dyno guys are happy your happy (and they have your cash) stop questioning it
you have the paper saying its got that much power. you have a warm fuzzy feeling from it... the dyno guys are happy your happy (and they have your cash) stop questioning it
I agree. Does seem awfully high, however like its been said, it may have had work done thats not been documented and it might also be a tad more due to fiat working BHP wrong so could be right. I suppose the best thing to do would be to take it somewhere else and get it done again.
If figures match, Then you have an awesome amount of BHP for the amount of work done or if they do not then its a possibility the machine has been tricked??!
But if the GSR man was there he would (i would hope) of corrected the RR man if he did something wrong.
i would be happy with those results so i'm not gona moan and say ure wrong, it would probably just be jelousy kicking in on my behalf
but i can't say i'm not gona follow ure route and see what i get, just that ill use gsr induction coupled with 40mm tb and performance exhaust system maybe just throw the remap in for the heck of it when i'm there...
but i can't say i'm not gona follow ure route and see what i get, just that ill use gsr induction coupled with 40mm tb and performance exhaust system maybe just throw the remap in for the heck of it when i'm there...
Easiest thing to do is take car to another r/r and get them to produce a print out showing the torque, the power at the wheels, and then corrected flywheel power, ambient temperature, air pressure as well as this should be part of the correction factor.
Though be aware some r/r's can't get coast down figures for low powered cars, ie those generally with less than 100bhp at the wheels so don't always show this.
Really any r/r should show these items and torque and bhp should cross at 5252rpm IIRC.
bhp = torque x rpm/5252 or something like that.
Though be aware some r/r's can't get coast down figures for low powered cars, ie those generally with less than 100bhp at the wheels so don't always show this.
Really any r/r should show these items and torque and bhp should cross at 5252rpm IIRC.
bhp = torque x rpm/5252 or something like that.
We had a Fiat Punto Sporting modified with having the cars rrd at Red Dot and at Track & Road on their TAT. Track &Road is considered to be one of the most accurate and best maintained place in the country. The dofference in reading was 0.2 bhp.
A C2 recently rrd at Red Dot and then at Weston Performance showed a difference 2.3% in bhp
A car rrd at Red Dot and then at ABP showed a difference of 1.05% in bhp or 2bhp in absolute figures.
Another car rr'd at Ecosse at 154bhp was showing 1.4bhp difference, which is less than 1%.
Surrey rolling road as well as Torque of the Devil have confirmed to be in numerous cases over the years that the rr at Red Dot is not over reading.
Every Alfa 2.2 has not shown any more than 165bhp, despite the claims of 185bhp. The 3.2 V6s hav never shown mor than 245bhp and are usually much lower than this. The 2.0JTS' usually come out at 137 to 139bhp and never have shown anything better like the claimed 155bhp.
From what we can provide as comparisons we can be confident that the rr is reasonably accurate. We haven't got time for the inflating bull.
What is rather annoying is that the people who never even have seen the rr and the people working there seem to know best.
When we make quarter mile testing and lap time testing on the track then we get in the future also told that we slowed down the clock?
A C2 recently rrd at Red Dot and then at Weston Performance showed a difference 2.3% in bhp
A car rrd at Red Dot and then at ABP showed a difference of 1.05% in bhp or 2bhp in absolute figures.
Another car rr'd at Ecosse at 154bhp was showing 1.4bhp difference, which is less than 1%.
Surrey rolling road as well as Torque of the Devil have confirmed to be in numerous cases over the years that the rr at Red Dot is not over reading.
Every Alfa 2.2 has not shown any more than 165bhp, despite the claims of 185bhp. The 3.2 V6s hav never shown mor than 245bhp and are usually much lower than this. The 2.0JTS' usually come out at 137 to 139bhp and never have shown anything better like the claimed 155bhp.
From what we can provide as comparisons we can be confident that the rr is reasonably accurate. We haven't got time for the inflating bull.
What is rather annoying is that the people who never even have seen the rr and the people working there seem to know best.
When we make quarter mile testing and lap time testing on the track then we get in the future also told that we slowed down the clock?
If the GSR man said the induction kit will do minimal, then is that a statement saying there are no need to pay the extra price for the GSR kit
Thanks
Ming
I say please only once in this context:
Please do not take my words out of context!
murphya
New member
so if i get back box or get a back box n an cut my cat off an weld a straight though pice off 3inch pipe right through from manifold will the car still run an will i get more power
You will loose power with a 3 inch pipe.
Wouldn't it be a 4 inch?
you loose loads of power on a N/A with a over size exhaust cos you need a bit of back pressure. a 1.1 with a 3 or 4 inch exhaust is as has back pressure comparable to a ant farting in mcdonalds straw
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,181
- Points
- 365
I had mine on the same rollers on the same day and made 99hp calculated at the flywheel. This tallies in pretty damn well with my 1/4mile times.
Letstorquebhp says that with 99hp and 835kilos I should do a 1/4mile in 17.05 seconds. I ran a 16.94 at North Weald which is an airstrip for the majority of the year.
It is surprising yes that this seemingly mildly tuned engine made so much (considering my old 1.1 made 77 with quite a bit more work), but I trust those rollers.
Letstorquebhp says that with 99hp and 835kilos I should do a 1/4mile in 17.05 seconds. I ran a 16.94 at North Weald which is an airstrip for the majority of the year.
It is surprising yes that this seemingly mildly tuned engine made so much (considering my old 1.1 made 77 with quite a bit more work
), but I trust those rollers.
As I said before I think the adjustment from wheel to flywheel output has accidentally been applied twice, this certainly is possible with some RRs, I've seen this in reverse, & would show a similar result as to what is seen here. The thing that gets me is the peek torque is what I'd expect from that setup at the flywheel not the wheels. So it's not a case of the RR being incorrect but someone making a genuine mistake.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,181
- Points
- 365
Always a voice of reason (and there was more than one before I get moaned at ), just a few snidey comments that got to me and I thought details of my run would help debate.
(and there was more than one before I get moaned at ), just a few snidey comments that got to me and I thought details of my run would help debate.
fiatash123
New member
Just had a funny image of an ant farting through a maccy d's straw lol!!
So is my Sei lost power as i have a 3" janspeed backbox, or are you saying that its still producing enough back pressure? Bit confused lol!
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,983
- Points
- 988
Is the pipe 3"...no. The tip is, the main section is a lot smaller. It's designed for looks, noise and power.
Kristian
Boostjunky
New member
Came across something like this when I had a Daihatsu Charade Gtti years ago. It was my second one and went much better than my previous, however apart from an airfilter and exhaust it appeared standard. I'd only had it a couple of weeks and went to a japanese RR day and it put out 156bhp at the flywheel, standard they are 99bhp. Like here it was heavily questioned and checked twice on the rollers. It was only when I had some better weather to investigate it I found reprofiled camshafts, the turbo was slightly larger as was the intercooler. It was all done to look as standard as possible, later on I discovered the engine had been bored out to a 1.1 over the standard 998cc it was also lightened and balanced.
The figure and RR might be wrong but you could also have internal mods in the engine itself. I too doubt that figure from a K+N and backbox but thats what the machine says, there will be a reason for it. I'd be tempted to get the spanners ouot and investigate.
The figure and RR might be wrong but you could also have internal mods in the engine itself. I too doubt that figure from a K+N and backbox but thats what the machine says, there will be a reason for it. I'd be tempted to get the spanners ouot and investigate.
Italian Coke Can
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 487
- Points
- 103
About the same as what i had
However, i had more mods.
Luck of the draw maybe. I have noted that my peak torque is 500 rpm higher up than yours.
However, i had more mods.
Luck of the draw maybe. I have noted that my peak torque is 500 rpm higher up than yours.
Cheers for the info.
So because mine is a two inch bore all the way through then bigger at the backbox i'm alright arn't i?
Like was stated before. The picture of an Ant farting down a micky d's straw makes me laugh so much.
Cheers for the info.
So because mine is a two inch bore all the way through then bigger at the backbox i'm alright arn't i?
Like was stated before. The picture of an Ant farting down a micky d's straw makes me laugh so much.
2" is about the max. It would help to reduce it a bit before the back box.
3" collector pipe would have the peak power point with 1108cc engine and Cinquecento cam at 19300rpm, which makes it absolutely useless as the cam and the ports aren't geared up to it and the engine never would get there anyway.
