The good old days ?

blah blah blah blah Welcome back Dave

Ok what budget do you want? You want to make it 5?

No lol, its a complete waste of money. Get an Atmo, advance the timing, open up the original silencer and put it straight through, adjustable fuel reg, which made me 180bhp for the princely cost of under £100 and enjoy the damn things

Without even touching the engine, Garrett GT30 is going to be near a grand, decent chargecooler kit near a grand, Atmo 3-1 manrdel manifolds £500, custom link pipe and put the turbo down at the bottom of the car and supports, say another £250, ECU, injectors, fuel pump odds and sods, £1000.....

I wouldnt even touch the engine.

Fuel supply will be from the test cell.. this is an engine dyno test, not a chassis dyno test.... so assume that pressured fuel is available at what ever pressure you require..

I'll happily up it to a 3.5k limit for you to enter, but I'm happy to stick to 2.5k

Without even touching the engine, Garrett GT30 is going to be near a grand, decent chargecooler kit near a grand, Atmo 3-1 manrdel manifolds £500, custom link pipe and put the turbo down at the bottom of the car and supports, say another £250, ECU, injectors, fuel pump odds and sods, £1000.....

I wouldnt even touch the engine.

Fuel supply will be from the test cell.. this is an engine dyno test, not a chassis dyno test.... so assume that pressured fuel is available at what ever pressure you require..

I'll happily up it to a 3.5k limit for you to enter, but I'm happy to stick to 2.5k

Bernoulli's law - You wouldnt want to increase pressure, you'd want to increase flow...

yawn...

are you going to join in or not?

yawn...

are you going to join in or not?

For 2.5k you will get 260-270 bhp, and about 300lb ft torque. Its already been done by a few people.

You won't get anymore power until you spend decent money on a decent turbo and manifold setup, and thats the budget blown.

Until someone does something like this - no matter what you do to the engine, is futile - You could make it 5 litre, valves the size of dinner plates, and cams like a mugtree, it will make diddly difference - just make the same power, sooner.

I shall just say ....bullocks Dave ,name the three .Peter G drove into a tree before any real proof ....and we all know what state that lump was in .
Nice bling pic but it means nadda .

I shall just say ....bullocks Dave ,name the three .Peter G drove into a tree before any real proof ....and we all know what state that lump was in .
Nice bling pic but it means nadda .

Peter G ran 260bhp and 300lb foot for all his seasons on the original ECU

He then went full mappable and only made about 10 bhp more (why would he - he still had original manifolds, and a turbo good for 300bhp max) and made 380lb/ft all day long on the rolling road.

Unfortunately as discussed before, when it was being mapped, it had air temperature retardation on, of about 8 degrees. So it made 380 with no det on the rollers, retarded. Pete then went out on the road, no retardation and popped it. Might have been well over 400 because of this, hence booom.

SteveatYork ran 260bhp on his modded standard ecu, turbo, exhaust, chargecooler etc

I don't believe it .

He had no engine mods and ran 260 ?? not possible for any sustainable period .

I shall just say ....bullocks Dave ,name the three .Peter G drove into a tree before any real proof ....and we all know what state that lump was in .
Nice bling pic but it means nadda .

Bling pic lol....Thats for a Porsche 930 turbo, the old 80's 911

3.0 Turbo, 286bhp standard....not to far from ours eh....

That manifold system, just that alone, even with the standard turbo, adds 55 EXTRA BHP.

Of course, won't do 'nothing on a GTA with its pencil sized asthmatic manifolds eh..

I don't believe it .

He had no engine mods and ran 260 ?? not possible for any sustainable period .

Of course he didnt have any engine mods,you know that, everyone knows that. Petes car must have been the most documented thread on this forum. Its not like it was all show no go, he won every race he entered.

Completely standard engine, bar turbo, exhaust, chargecooler, fuel pump and regulator.

Pete was the only guy with proper dyno plots from different rollers, and race wins to back up his development.

I've seen all sorts of shite over the past few years ..the manifolds are a big problem ,hence my comment about PG and his 260 with std cams and std mani .
Shall I post a pic of something totally unrelated to prove my point ??

I've seen all sorts of shite over the past few years ..the manifolds are a big problem ,hence my comment about PG and his 260 with std cams and std mani .
Shall I post a pic of something totally unrelated to prove my point ??

We've always said 260 was the limit. I just said that when he ran the mappable ecu and more boost, he made litterally no more power.

270 is about the max limit on those manifolds on a 2.5. With a bigger exhaust housing maybe a little more.

For ref, heres a pic of that Porsche 930 with its 55bhp sapping original manifolds - Look at the pipe size...

Its not hard to grasp the concept, and why the cams are a moot point in comparison to the manifolds.

Even with their lazy profile and limited lift, if you sum together the total area against the lift, by the duration, it works out that there is the equivalent of at least the area of one valve open 100% of the time.

Its a 44mm valve, and lifted enough to flow 100% of its area.

The manifold pipe isnt 44mm in diameter, is over 2 feet long, and we also have pressure behind this flow, and as I mentioned Benouille's law, flow decreases with pressure.

Sort the manifolds first, then the turbo flange, then the turbo exhaust housing - then worry about cams because they ain't your blockage.

Only once you have removed all restriction out of the head, can you get any meaningful figures out of what can be gained from changing a cam.

If you change a cam with this restriction still there, you might gain in one area of the power curve, and choke more in another.

I feel a sense of deja vu...

are we having fun yet ? Is it like days of yore ?

Posting about Porkers is irrelevant ( one for the grammar police there ..is it correct or is it not )