injectors

It might be 280BHP on the Motorscope rolling road what a load of crap re´the pigyback re´: the afr readings who´s to say that the reading he is getting are not good for a GTA? my RX7 runs in the 11´s on full throttle-boost, Noble seem to think that the prob with the GTA is the head`s which are restrictive? doeas anyone know? Peters GTA made around 260bhp at a bit less boost, but it didnt last, WHY?
its no good slagging off what no one knows, like i said it might be 280bhp on another rolling road. i can remember taking my 16v tr7 on some rollers and got 180 bhp a week later it was 160 on different rollers

Anyway im off for a pint next to the pool it to hot here in Fuerteventura

Suppose a good test will be on the dragstrip or against my TR7V8 or the RX7, i reckon it will do OK
S--- a Euro goes a long way on here

Dad to the rescue!!! It might be 240bhp at Motoscope too!!
My engine didnt last because the tuner didnt turn off the ignition retard feature when tuning it (he didnt realise it existed....D'oh!) on the rolling road, so as soon as I drove the car out into the cool evening air.....BANG! He has done me a few free jobs since then! It made 260bhp in the July heatwave when it was over 30 degrees even here in Cumbria...and with a lot lower spec than GT5s car.....apart from the ECU!
As for Noble recommending heads......of course they will....they want more money without going back on what theyve already insisted is right!!
Have another beer.......it'll all make sense if you keep going!

lol even if i had made 300bhp on the rollers then what would you have said peter dodgy rollers?someone elses graph? maybe i should take it to where you took yours then i might make 400lb/ft tourqe noble have already proved you wrong about controlling the fueling at the end of the day they tune cars day in day out i think they know what there on about like i said a while ago they could have sold me a standalone and probably made more money out of me,but they said there wouldnt be much point unless i had a mega spec engine(not just bolt ons) anyway i thought ur alp had uprated cams?

If you had acheived around 300bhp I would have thought that would be about right!!! My old GTA does now have mild lift cams, but it didnt at the time of the last RR session, it also has a bigger turbo now whereas at the time it had one up from standard. As for graphs.....we havent seen yours yet....it may give some clues if you post it. It will be interesting to see how much my old car makes once David has sorted it. I believe its getting bigger injectors (my old ones were at their limit with 260) as well as the bits done since it blew up.
My original point was simply that your car isnt producing the figures expected so something somewhere isnt doing what it ought to....go on, get a second opinion.....even if you just ring up Prima racing. Noble may tune cars all day, but they probably havent done an old GTA before or know how jurassic the ECU and set up of the electrical systems are.

i will let my dad post the graph up as i havent a clue,it doesnt mention anything about power losses though,the bloke at noble was a bit miffed why it wasnt produceing more power and put it down to a possible flow problem whens dave hoping to have the car ready?im not planing on taking it back to noble for a while yet as the engine runs perfect at the minute and i have other things to get sorted first so big boost will have to wait but like i said i will get it on another set of rollers to see what its doing

It might be 280BHP on the Motorscope rolling road what a load of crap re´the pigyback re´: the afr readings who´s to say that the reading he is getting are not good for a GTA? my RX7 runs in the 11´s on full throttle-boost, Noble seem to think that the prob with the GTA is the head`s which are restrictive? doeas anyone know? Peters GTA made around 260bhp at a bit less boost, but it didnt last, WHY?
its no good slagging off what no one knows, like i said it might be 280bhp on another rolling road. i can remember taking my 16v tr7 on some rollers and got 180 bhp a week later it was 160 on different rollers

Peters car made 260 bhp for ages and in the Summer peak temps, its only when it went back again cooler weather it was tuned further and made no extra power, but made more torque due to more ignition advanced dialled in....

His turbo was only good for 260bhp, and the injectors are 219cc's, which if you do the math max out at exactly 260bhp again....

Why does no one listen? We are not slagging Steves car, we're trying to help. He has less that the power we expected and the torque has not show the gains that can be met through proper mapping, so either the Dastek isnt capable of it, or the programmers couldnt be bothered to play with the ignition. You have to remember, with a piggyback it very easy to do very little, as you have the original ECU map to rely on, and most piggyback mappers will just add the extra fuel if needed at top end, and maybe just hike the whole ignition map up a few degrees. With a standalone, because you have to start from scratch, you may as well optimise the WHOLE map from the start, fuel and ignition..hence why you see big gains in torque from the off..

Both Peters and Tonys cars running standalone made over 330lb ft torque with low boost. Steves is still at 250 with more boost, and a far bigger turbo and unrestrictive exhaust side, but 250 is standard ECU mapping torque - so its evident that it hasnt been touched..

As for AFR's, 12.5 is around the optimum for the GTA, why, because I say so! I have various graphs of mapping on Peters car for instance, at 12.8, 12.5, 12, 11+, and the lower it goes the more the power drops off.

Comparing a 400bhp RX7 for example.....its not even an 4 stroke internal combustion engine for gawd sake...! Every engine is different....

It might be 280BHP on the Motorscope rolling road what a load of crap re´the pigyback re´: the afr readings who´s to say that the reading he is getting are not good for a GTA? my RX7 runs in the 11´s on full throttle-boost, Noble seem to think that the prob with the GTA is the head`s which are restrictive? doeas anyone know? Peters GTA made around 260bhp at a bit less boost, but it didnt last, WHY?
its no good slagging off what no one knows, like i said it might be 280bhp on another rolling road. i can remember taking my 16v tr7 on some rollers and got 180 bhp a week later it was 160 on different rollers

Peters car made 260 bhp for ages and in the Summer peak temps, its only when it went back again cooler weather it was tuned further and made no extra power, but made more torque due to more ignition advanced dialled in....

His turbo was only good for 260bhp, and the injectors are 219cc's, which if you do the math max out at exactly 260bhp again....

Why does no one listen? We are not slagging Steves car, we're trying to help. He has less that the power we expected and the torque has not show the gains that can be met through proper mapping, so either the Dastek isnt capable of it, or the programmers couldnt be bothered to play with the ignition. You have to remember, with a piggyback it very easy to do very little, as you have the original ECU map to rely on, and most piggyback mappers will just add the extra fuel if needed at top end, and maybe just hike the whole ignition map up a few degrees. With a standalone, because you have to start from scratch, you may as well optimise the WHOLE map from the start, fuel and ignition..hence why you see big gains in torque from the off..

Both Peters and Tonys cars running standalone made over 330lb ft torque with low boost. Steves is still at 250 with more boost, and a far bigger turbo and unrestrictive exhaust side, but 250 is standard ECU mapping torque - so its evident that it hasnt been touched..

As for AFR's, 12.5 is around the optimum for the GTA, why, because I say so! I have various graphs of mapping on Peters car for instance, at 12.8, 12.5, 12, 11+, and the lower it goes the more the power drops off.

Comparing a 400bhp RX7 for example.....its not even an 4 stroke internal combustion engine for gawd sake...! Every engine is different....

All i/we were trying to say Dave,
A/ As mentioned and agreed by the majority the figures on dyno plot have to be taken with a pinch of salt
B/ Peters graph was a strange one I dont think anyone could call it a nice power band.
C/ Tonys car/engingine isnt strictly speaking a GTA engine to compare
D/ One of the suggestions they did make was re; the Charge cooler, they reckoned that yes its working but could be doing better, there thoughts were that the pump isnt powerfull enough saying that no one else as complained on here so-----------
E/ And yes i do know the RX7 isnt a 4 stroke Dave and all engines are different but across the board most Turbo engines run in the AFR 11's on full boost inc my T2. maybe for a bit of safty
F/ but things can get misleading, Re; Peters car, at the time the power and touqe figures were looking great, lots of praise for the guy doing the mapping, i think i steve was one of the 1st to congrats peter with the figures. then the bad luck but its the 1st i have heard that (Quote) the tuner didnt turn off the ignition retard feature when tuning it (he didnt realise it existed....D'oh!) on the rolling road, so as soon as I drove the car out into the cool evening air.....BANG! DID HE PAY FOR THE REBUILD PETER
My thoughts are, Lets see a GTA (12V) running with a Adaptronic ECU with some good mapping showing a nice power plot maybe 280 bhp + with no internal engine mods cams, headwork etc, and ill buy him one off you Dave

I bet GT5 is looking forward to you buying him an Adaptronic!! You should have the 280bhp with my old car just as soon as DG gets his asp in gear and finishes the bodywork and gets on with finishing the set up......although apparently it has a few oil leaks from the timing cover that hadnt reared their head when I rebuilt it, so it may be a way off yet

I bet GT5 is looking forward to you buying him an Adaptronic!! so it may be a way off yet

That will do me Peter if its way off All it is, there seems to be a lot of talk re what improvements the Adaptronic will make re; BHP/Torque with little substance at the mo. As GT5 mentioned, Noble said they can sell him a standalone ecu, but there view was that there would be little if anything to gain re power, there views are that the heads are very restrictive and that is the killer?(+the charge cooler could be working better)

Of course a standalone ecu is better, but it would be nice to see a GTA running spot on with a Adaptronic showing good power, Proof in the puding

So come on Dave get that black GTA running and lets see what a monster it will be No cheating with cams and head work though

FWIW I've got a standard Z7U running an adaptronic and twin turbos - but we too had teething troubles (not witht he ecu) The owner is putting a bit of time into it now, in fact he was down on sat fittng his new right turbo. Other than that we're fitting a better intercooler and replacing the camshaft oil seal and we'll be away. (dizzy has been placed next to #1)

I have to say that Noble saying "the heads are restrictive" sounds a bit like flannel to me. PRV heads aren't particularly restrictive when you look at other engines making more power with worse intakes. How many engines can you poke your finger in the intake port and touch the back of the valve with no difficulty? It's true the cams in the Z7U are very mild though - I believe I can quote Dave that the x-sec of the intake port is greater than the valve clearance provided by stock cams.

How do they know the chargecooler isn't working well? Have they actually probed inlet and outlet temps? Compared to a stock intercooler?....

quote="Stunned Monkey"]

How do they know the chargecooler isn't working well? Have they actually probed inlet and outlet temps? Compared to a stock intercooler?....[/quote]

I would imagine that they did probe the in/out temps, i was away when GT5 collected the car, ill try and post the graph as soon as i can (scanner probs for the last year ) ill ask if they will email it over It looks pretty impresive looking at the power curves (compaired with the last one), just a bit puzzled whay they backed off at 5800 rpm it was still going up really steeply, comparing it to the last graph where it was on its way down at 5845rpm and it was levelling out at at about 5500rpm,

My thoughts are, Lets see a GTA (12V) running with a Adaptronic ECU with some good mapping showing a nice power plot maybe 280 bhp + with no internal engine mods cams, headwork etc, and ill buy him one off you Dave

????

You wont see a GTA 2.5 with 280+ on the standard manifolds etc....How many times has this been said... ?

Pete may have squeezed upto 280 with more boost (but would have needed a sligtly bigger turbo and injectors)

Here are Peters Plots...

1. Standard ECU, standard injectors, Uprated turbo and exhaust, chargecooler : 280ft/lb Torque 230bhp @ 14psi



2. Adaptronic ECU, 219cc injectors, turbo and exhaust, chargecooler, etc
330lb/ft Torque 250bhp @ 14psi (in auto ignition retarded mode too)

NOTE : Peter was running the car around for a month on the road at this level, in the peak summer. (NOTE this graph is a wheel figure one, i dont have a flywheel plot. It made 201 at the wheels which is 250bhp going by the Dyno's calcs)



3. Same as above, 14psi, remapped with more ignition advance (but stil with retard mode running)

370lbft/ 258bhp at 14psi (208bhp that the wheels)



Car was run for 2 days on the rollers at this level with no det - only on the road was it run more advanced, and Peter did hear det but thought it was something else.. probably seeing well over 400lb/ft and went seeya....

Steves car should anhililate Peters with the specification of components he has, yes it is not, and the only different factor involved is the ECU. The glaring fact that a standard untouched ECU has made more torque at lower boost than the Dasteked example leads to the fact that I fail to see any argument to the latter...

Plotwise, I could say the gearbox loss figures seem a little low by about 5-10bhp, (quoting 45-50bhp) so it could be 240, 260 and 270bhp, but I wouldnt....The other fact is the engine is making over 250 bhp at only 4500rpm...

There is also nothing wrong with the shape of the power/torque curve (well there is, but thats just this engine) as the original ECU has a competely trailing off torque curve. The Adaptronic examples are just optimised versions of the original. As Ive said again, and again and again, the engine chokes off the higher in the revs it gets. A torque curve is a perfect example of engine airflow, and the plots make this obvious...

How many engines can you poke your finger in the intake port and touch the back of the valve with no difficulty? It's true the cams in the Z7U are very mild though - I believe I can quote Dave that the x-sec of the intake port is greater than the valve clearance provided by stock cams.

How do they know the chargecooler isn't working well? Have they actually probed inlet and outlet temps? Compared to a stock intercooler?....

Yes, thats right, Noble are just saying this because they have no idea about what sort of modified cam profile a GTA should run, so they just recommend 'headwork' as a get out clause. Everyone knows the cam is the main dictating factor in any engine for airflow, not nesecarily the ports and valves..

Most likely the reason why they fitted the piggyback instead of the standalone, because it was easier for them, and they werent sure what they were doing...Think about it, Noble would have had to messed around with a trigger wheel, finding out the timing settings, had to fit a new throttle potentiometer and housing, figured out how to set up the idle speed control valve, fit all new sensors etc - So fitting a piggyback is a doddle and the easy way out to palm you off....