ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
South West Rolling Road at K-tec Racing: 21st January
- Thread starter Will.
- Start date
lemonnobby
ClioSport Club Member
what so hes only got 250? oh dear oh dear was he happy or not with that seeing as he paid for 2 maps? what are they standard?
Jarred was running 250bhp..
I went from 172bhp 153ft.lbs in december to 180bhp 168ft.lbs just from a different induction setupwell chuffed with my improvement from last month. Need to get an exhaust now and then it shall be much better
Thats surprising, I thought a test by evo (or the likes of) showed that the stock induction was the best without a remap?!
Jarred was running 250bhp..
I went from 172bhp 153ft.lbs in december to 180bhp 168ft.lbs just from a different induction setup
15lbft from a different induction setup?
Thats not just surprising, its literally unbelievable if he means a filter or different airbox and a bit of pipe!
One or both of these readings is nonsense IMHO if thats the only change to see you gain TEN PERCENT more torque!
Other cars where there with identical setups as before Xmas. Made identical power (well within 0.4bhp and lb ft)
I know this induction setup is the tits, as I did it on my 182 and made more peak torque than my mates ITB setup. Granted the torque curve wasn't quite as good, but was epic none the less.
Also it's a hell of a claim to say that one isn't right, as you don't know what induction setup he had before.
I know this induction setup is the tits, as I did it on my 182 and made more peak torque than my mates ITB setup. Granted the torque curve wasn't quite as good, but was epic none the less.
Also it's a hell of a claim to say that one isn't right, as you don't know what induction setup he had before.
Well you can eat your words then when I post up my graphs. It made 172bhp 154ft.lbs on a shitty halfrauds air filter, then made 175bhp with near the same torque on a standard airbox about an hour after.
Then at this rolling road day just over a month later it mate 180bhp and 168ft.lbs
So I'm sorry but that's an improvement of 8bhp and 14ft.lbs torque.
Care to go on or shall I prove you wrong?
Well then they clearly didnt test this induction setup as its the dogs danglys..
Cooksport FTMFW!!!
That is all..
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
Guys, got mine back from K-Tec today after the work I left it for. They have outdone themselves this time. With the 438 cams and mechanical TLC from Mike and some free of charge custom induction kit creation from Andy, coupled to the mapping, got me a rise from 174.8 bhp stock / 156 lb ft to a whopping 197 bhp / 165.6 lb ft. Epic work, and with the Group N mounts it has completely transformed the car. More info and graphs on my project thread here;
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?612638-Cub-172-s-Flamer-Project&p=8389438#post8389438
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?612638-Cub-172-s-Flamer-Project&p=8389438#post8389438
BoatNonce
ClioSport Club Member
Packed the camera. Packed the tripod. Packed 4 sets of batteries. Left them all in the boot.
I did see a few cameras out though so no excuses
I did see a few cameras out though so no excuses
Golf GTD
Luke took pictures, i've been waiting for him to post them up haha
LOL
I dont care what your graphs say, unless you actually had a completely blocked filter or some other basic error like that, the difference wasnt what the graphs claim.
If you did have a blocked filter or similar, then you would have gained most of the difference from a good condition standad setup.
The only intake change thats going to gain you that sort of torque over a good condition standard setup is a set of throttle bodies.
Either you had a fault with the setup somewhere before, or the rollers are wrong.
Last edited:
9lbft is good, thats just over half as much as Luke got changing his filter to a super spec one apparently. lol
Seriously though, great power gains, saw the graphs on your other thread, cams look to be working nicely considering its still on the standard inlet etc.
We ran it against a standard air filter as Luke already stated.
However there isn't any point arguing with you, as your never wrong.
Out of interest, what industry do you work in?
If im not fairly sure something is correct, I dont post it in the first place, so yes I dont post stuff that I feel there is any risk of it being wrong.
I have a lot of experience of different intake setups on cars, and I firmly believe that the standard renault inlet isnt restricted by the standard renault filter anywhere near enough for ANY other filter to give gains of 10% in torque.
Im not calling the lad a liar, im sure thats the result of his experiment if he says so, I just believe the experiment to be flawed in this case.
Like if you put 2+2 into a calculator and told me the answer was 5 I would also be telling you that I dont believe the result and that your experiement is flawed.
I am in a few different industries vocationally at the moment, I remap cars (mainly trackday stuff and hill climb cars that sort of thing) I write technical articles for several car magazines, mainly about engine tuning, and I work as a technical consultant, mainly to a couple of japanese car manufacturers, why?
Hahahahahahahahahaha. I just have to laugh at people like you who come on and shout about because you think you know best.
We ran the car on the rollers back to back with the first setup then with a standard airbox with a pretty much brand new filter fitted. The car went from 172bhp to 175bhp. This was also ran on the rollers straight after another 172 ran a 178bhp run.
When we went back this time, my car had exactly the same modifications bar this induction setup, that's when it ran a 180bhp 168ft.lbs, then straight after the exact same 172 that went on last time ran the rollers again with an rsTuner map which everyone knows doesn't make much difference to figures..this car then ran a 178bhp again...
So is that a flaw or am I right in sayin that this has made a huge difference to my car. Not to mention that in a race on my private road before said modification this 172 I couldn't shake off. Now I can pull over a car length with ease..
Care to try to prove me wrong further?? As you were not there I think you really have no place to say what is right and what is wrong, plus it's you against probably 8 of exactly the same people that were there before. I would crawl back into whatever hole you came out of..
We ran the car on the rollers back to back with the first setup then with a standard airbox with a pretty much brand new filter fitted. The car went from 172bhp to 175bhp. This was also ran on the rollers straight after another 172 ran a 178bhp run.
When we went back this time, my car had exactly the same modifications bar this induction setup, that's when it ran a 180bhp 168ft.lbs, then straight after the exact same 172 that went on last time ran the rollers again with an rsTuner map which everyone knows doesn't make much difference to figures..this car then ran a 178bhp again...
So is that a flaw or am I right in sayin that this has made a huge difference to my car. Not to mention that in a race on my private road before said modification this 172 I couldn't shake off. Now I can pull over a car length with ease..
Care to try to prove me wrong further?? As you were not there I think you really have no place to say what is right and what is wrong, plus it's you against probably 8 of exactly the same people that were there before. I would crawl back into whatever hole you came out of..
Luke, if you want to believe that changing the airbox gains you 15 lbft of torque you are welcome to, but I know it wont have.
As I wasnt present I cant comment on what did give you the misreading in difference of the figures, wether it be operator error, or something else different on the car (like for example if you'd had the belt changed in between and the timing was out before or similar) but altering the airbox on a standard inlet is not going to give you 10% more torque, unless you alter it for a turbo, lol
Can you post the before and after graphs please, as it may well be that its something so obvious just from looking at them than I can explain it to you very easily, like if the roller sync was different for example, thats the most common operator error that gives massive differences in torque.
As I wasnt present I cant comment on what did give you the misreading in difference of the figures, wether it be operator error, or something else different on the car (like for example if you'd had the belt changed in between and the timing was out before or similar) but altering the airbox on a standard inlet is not going to give you 10% more torque, unless you alter it for a turbo, lol
Can you post the before and after graphs please, as it may well be that its something so obvious just from looking at them than I can explain it to you very easily, like if the roller sync was different for example, thats the most common operator error that gives massive differences in torque.
I have to side towards what chip is saying i think.
Althogh i certainly wouldnt complain about the figures, and would be happy as larry, but 15ft lb's from an air filter.. just plain doesnt happen unless there was something wrong with the other filter beforehand
BUT if what your saying is true then its all good
Althogh i certainly wouldnt complain about the figures, and would be happy as larry, but 15ft lb's from an air filter.. just plain doesnt happen unless there was something wrong with the other filter beforehand
BUT if what your saying is true then its all good
I'll post them up later.
But answer this question?
Clio 172 number 1 on December Rolling road day made 178bhp 159ft.lbs
My Clio on December Rolling road day made 172bhp 154ft.lbs
Clio 172 number 1 on January Rolling Road day made 178bhp 160ft.lbs
My Clio on January Rolling Road day made 180bhp 168ft.lbs
Every run was done 3 times all the same way and the figures never varied at all..
Hmmmmm, people like you amuse me and make my day a lot more fun
But answer this question?
Clio 172 number 1 on December Rolling road day made 178bhp 159ft.lbs
My Clio on December Rolling road day made 172bhp 154ft.lbs
Clio 172 number 1 on January Rolling Road day made 178bhp 160ft.lbs
My Clio on January Rolling Road day made 180bhp 168ft.lbs
Every run was done 3 times all the same way and the figures never varied at all..
Hmmmmm, people like you amuse me and make my day a lot more fun
answer which question, you didnt ask one?
Rolling roads are NOT foolproof pieces of equipment, its very easy to get a misreading out of them.
If you can post the graphs, it may be obvious what happened just from looking at them, or it may not, depends what the issue was.
Or of course its perfectly possible that your car simply wasnt running right for some reason on the first run, so actually did make 10% more torque on the second run, but if it did, it wont be just down to your new super duper filter, it will be because of a problem on the "before" figure or something else that has changed since that you have forgotten about (like if you had a cambelt changed for example).
My car was running pretty spot on on the first one so I was told. I didn't have a belt change. I ran the same car, nothing altered at all. Same fuel, everything only thing I changed was that induction setup.
Having not read it properly. This is a whole new induction setup. I didn't just bang a new filter on.
Having not read it properly. This is a whole new induction setup. I didn't just bang a new filter on.
Ahh I was wondering where you had all been! Passed a few of you in Timsbury I presume on your way back
Nick Fox!!
I seen you and seen you wave out. Have to meet up soon kid and show me you 182 Lawrence was telling me about
As per Laine's request above, details of the "induction setup" you are on about.
If its a set of throttle bodies then obviously thats the sort of differenec you'd expect, lol
BoatNonce
ClioSport Club Member
Bucket mod iirc.
It's not an "air filter", he didn't wack a ripspeed filter on it. However, nothing else had changed, no belts nothing. The whole induction tract throttle body forward was changed which also required the battery to be relocated.
168 lbft is not an uncommon figure with 172s, it's not like he is claiming he got 200bhp from a wicked remap. So I don't see why it's so outrageous.
Anyway, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. If nothing else, the test against the previously identical car it has made it better. And by quite a considerable amount. This was tested on a number of occasions in a controlled environment.
I'm getting back to building race cars and engines. 650bhp here I come.
168 lbft is not an uncommon figure with 172s, it's not like he is claiming he got 200bhp from a wicked remap. So I don't see why it's so outrageous.
Anyway, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. If nothing else, the test against the previously identical car it has made it better. And by quite a considerable amount. This was tested on a number of occasions in a controlled environment.
I'm getting back to building race cars and engines. 650bhp here I come.
I havent seen anyone in this thread post that they dont believe a peak figure of 168lbft as being possible TBH, Laine got quite close to that too IIRC.
Its the difference between the two that I personally am saying there is more to than has been presented here, not either figure in isolation, if one is 5 lbft high due to a slight roller sync error and the other is 5lbft low due to the same for example (which its VERY easy to get) then thats most of the difference ironed out and then the torque difference would be back much nearer to the bhp difference which would also seem more likely.
As I said previously, Im not saying you didnt see what you say you saw from the two graphs, im not calling you a liar, I am just saying you are misinterpreting why you saw that difference.
Cool
Probably worth them testing it on a car thats making good torque on the original setup to begin with, there are people making over 160lbft anyway, rather than on a car that clearly wasnt the best example initially.
If they can get 15lbft gains on laines car for example, Im sure they will sell like hotcakes
As I said previously, Im not saying you didnt see what you say you saw from the two graphs, im not calling you a liar, I am just saying you are misinterpreting why you saw that difference.
Cool
Probably worth them testing it on a car thats making good torque on the original setup to begin with, there are people making over 160lbft anyway, rather than on a car that clearly wasnt the best example initially.
If they can get 15lbft gains on laines car for example, Im sure they will sell like hotcakes
That's ridiculous, cams don't give you the same power on each car, nor does any mod.
We are only talking about this car. Not claiming that it will give you this increase on every car.
Lol! Trolling these days.
Similar threads
