Search results

running mint m8.

Is the fuel pump priming?

Looks like you've been quite unlucky! (trust me i know how you feel!) That squeeky noise when you heard at the end of cranking is purely down to the starter motor alignment, they seem to be quite fussy, i had the same problem on my old F7 and also had it on the F4, you have to experiment with...

It's no jokeing matter! They have £5 million of insurance backed money when things go wrong!

I might not rate the performance very well, but i cannot deny that it doesn't look smart, very swish looking product.

Wouldnt bother camming it, i've been there and for the extra purchase cost and mapping its honestly not worth it.

Your car appears to have a giant bar code on it in one picture? :S

An even better way to lose even more power. Car is stunning, kudos :)

And what torque figure is that then? The standard 147ft/lb's that is shown on the graph in post #49? Like i said previously, same torque as standard, just holds it slightly longer, and is flat as a pancake.

Dephaser pulley: 100nM Exhaust Pulley: 30nM + 90 degrees

I got a spare if you need one

"courtney stage 4 software..£6450" wut

You need a syncrometer, and from memory to blance them out to about 6-7 kg/h flow but i would get a specialist to confirm that amount.

Cool bro. This isnt about my engine though. Kudos for trolling though. I spotted the error of my ways and want a complete standard 172 cup to enjoy now :)

For the purpose of what you are arguing i have made a quick overlay of the graphs maybe to help you pull the cotton away from your eyes. Your very mildy tuned engine on stock inlet vs stock RS2. One can argue they arent the same rollers on the same day, and this is of course true, but youd like...

So what figures did it make then? 155ft lb?

That sounds like the typical answer from an agitated modified car owner with a flat torque curve. Its pretty predictable, it will pull the same as a stock car but hold the torque for about 500rpm longer to make the peak figure. Short peak torque of ITB's? lololol as you would say, have you ever...

Has one of these actually hit over 160 ft lb's yet? they might make 185-195bhp but seem to put out about 155 ft lb's which is yawntastically flat imo and barely better than stock?

Yes its fine, the ign timing is identical at top end, 30 degrees. Fuelling is mapped in the table to 8000rpm and beyond (even though the engine will never go there). Of course it wont be perfect but you can make a pretty edcuated guess to the fuelling at 7500rpm if you know what it is at...

This made me rage!! They rattle around so much when driving it along makes it sound like the car is fall to pieces... My solution...found some old pads removed the spring wire. Then i bolted the spring wire to the CL pads with a very short M5 nut and bolt, tightened and threadlocked. Worked...

Whatever it is, it will be expensive to fix.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140565781147&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT Ideal project

I guess the 421's warrant better springs when at 7500rpm? Should be noted the valves are only 5000 miles old tops, but they were "camtec" pattern part ones :S

Haha cars always been set to 7350rpm, had the cams put in and thought it pulled a bit better top end, pulled over in a layby few clicks on the laptop and away we go.....less than 5 minutes later im on the side of the road with a dead car :(

c**ting crappy F4R's

Im sure Ktec can adjust it, lean the fuelling and back the timing off on the base of the map, not rocket science, lol at "engineered" maps for this purpose.

Windows 95 looks better to use than that :/

I can update mine again now its been mapped properly :) Model: Mk1 Clio Valver Mods: F4R + ITB's + Catcam 421's Venue: K-Tec Racing Results: 204.2bhp (@ 6850rpm) & 175 ft lb's (@ 5800rpm) http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q51/laine_16v/POWER-TORQUE.jpg

Well results are in, perhaps not the best peak figure, but the car drives brilliantly and definately feels faster. 204.2bhp & 175ft lbs

168 ft lb's on stock cams.