Don't forget the CR won't be chnaged 220hp will be abot the limit better RON fuela nd you can run a bit more boost etc but you'll hit the limit very quikc myabe on very good fuel and mapped 230~2450hp but the second you stick lower spec fuel in you'd have to have the ecu recognise the chnage and adjust else you'll det the engine a lot be interesting to see what safety margin there running since stock injectors run about about 208hp in theory and whilst there using uprated I wonder how much.From what I've read and understand the kit will turn any 172/182 into a 220bhp beast even when running only the standard cat and exhaust, so with the turbo fitted I'd expect a decent decat/sport cat and exhaust system would push another few ponies from it.
I'd be careful with MPG after al some cliam a 172 will do 40mpg driven with some gusto I've yet to see one though.1. Fuel consumption, when not booting it.
3. If the boost could be notched up any further, although guessing that would kill a clutch/internals/box pretty quickly.
The parts will be the ECU etc will be the issue sill a mapper could use the stc ECU to run it with a boost sensor so you'd just telll the supplier you want some some ££ as you don't want his ecu mapps etc.Will this be suitable for a ph1 172? Just thinking ahead to my next car
The torque will kill the box over time that a massive increase.sounds like the perfect compomise, 7psi is low boost so it shouldnt brake anything, im guessing it will use a thicker head gasket, or maybe even standard.
Yep that will be the issue plus clutch won't last long if its used so add a hundred or so for that plus 7 hours to fit a new clutch I'd stick an uprated one in before even bother driving it.I guess the usual problems with gearbox would emerge about repeatably hard use?
They won't saves cost and makes it bolt on as such else lowering the CR means either stripping the engine for pistons or chnaging the cambelt for the head gasget multi trick which becomes expensive.How the hell are they going to lower the compression ratio
I'd agree would be a nicer car to rev but this might be more usable at the lower rpm.Bodies and cams would be more exciting I'd say.
so a summary is this turbo worth it for a 182??
so a summary is this turbo worth it for a 182??
Don't forget the CR won't be chnaged 220hp will be abot the limit better RON fuela nd you can run a bit more boost etc but you'll hit the limit very quikc myabe on very good fuel and mapped 230~2450hp but the second you stick lower spec fuel in you'd have to have the ecu recognise the chnage and adjust else you'll det the engine a lot be interesting to see what safety margin there running since stock injectors run about about 208hp in theory and whilst there using uprated I wonder how much.
I'd be careful with MPG after al some cliam a 172 will do 40mpg driven with some gusto I've yet to see one though.1. Fuel consumption, when not booting it.
3. If the boost could be notched up any further, although guessing that would kill a clutch/internals/box pretty quickly.
The higher boost will be a problem with det as I wrote ealier.
The parts will be the ECU etc will be the issue sill a mapper could use the stc ECU to run it with a boost sensor so you'd just telll the supplier you want some some ££ as you don't want his ecu mapps etc.Will this be suitable for a ph1 172? Just thinking ahead to my next car
The torque will kill the box over time that a massive increase.sounds like the perfect compomise, 7psi is low boost so it shouldnt brake anything, im guessing it will use a thicker head gasket, or maybe even standard.
I'm sure they didn't chnage the CR so no cheap head gasget wedge trick or lower CR pistosn as to save ££.
Yep that will be the issue plus clutch won't last long if its used so add a hundred or so for that plus 7 hours to fit a new clutch I'd stick an uprated one in before even bother driving it.I guess the usual problems with gearbox would emerge about repeatably hard use?
They won't saves cost and makes it bolt on as such else lowering the CR means either stripping the engine for pistons or chnaging the cambelt for the head gasget multi trick which becomes expensive.How the hell are they going to lower the compression ratio
I'd agree would be a nicer car to rev but this might be more usable at the lower rpm.Bodies and cams would be more exciting I'd say.
no but higher octane fuel=more resistance to det therefore more scope for boost without lowering cr.Don't forget the CR won't be chnaged 220hp will be abot the limit better RON fuela nd you can run a bit more boost etc but you'll hit the limit very quikc myabe on very good fuel and mapped 230~2450hp but the second you stick lower spec fuel in you'd have to have the ecu recognise the chnage and adjust else you'll det the engine a lot be interesting to see what safety margin there running since stock injectors run about about 208hp in theory and whilst there using uprated I wonder how much.
I'd be careful with MPG after al some cliam a 172 will do 40mpg driven with some gusto I've yet to see one though.
The higher boost will be a problem with det as I wrote ealier.
The parts will be the ECU etc will be the issue sill a mapper could use the stc ECU to run it with a boost sensor so you'd just telll the supplier you want some some ££ as you don't want his ecu mapps etc.Will this be suitable for a ph1 172? Just thinking ahead to my next car
The torque will kill the box over time that a massive increase.sounds like the perfect compomise, 7psi is low boost so it shouldnt brake anything, im guessing it will use a thicker head gasket, or maybe even standard.
I'm sure they didn't chnage the CR so no cheap head gasget wedge trick or lower CR pistosn as to save ££.
Yep that will be the issue plus clutch won't last long if its used so add a hundred or so for that plus 7 hours to fit a new clutch I'd stick an uprated one in before even bother driving it.I guess the usual problems with gearbox would emerge about repeatably hard use?
They won't saves cost and makes it bolt on as such else lowering the CR means either stripping the engine for pistons or chnaging the cambelt for the head gasget multi trick which becomes expensive.How the hell are they going to lower the compression ratio
I'd agree would be a nicer car to rev but this might be more usable at the lower rpm.Bodies and cams would be more exciting I'd say.
edde just because of the high comp ratio doesn't mean you're approaching the RON limit!
you could map a WRC car to run on 89RON fuel, hell even an F1 car
by altering ignition advance- at the expensive of power+torque.but if the mapper knows his arse from his elbow comp ratio becomes meaningless
you could map a WRC car to run on 89RON fuel, hell even an F1 car
if the kit is reliable, id buy it. i dont do flying starts in my car and dont nail it until its rolling. would be mucho fun, for minimal outlay.
franx, make sure you update the thread with your thoughts please about the car - be very interested to hear them.
Cheers.
Yeah I'm mean 2.8 secs to 60mph and 194.7mph top end isn't really that quick...fast ford - take the reyland lot, honnestly their cars arent that quick IMO, the old spec escort (600 odd bhp) was lapping 1min 30 odd round donnignton yet everyone worshipped that car!
i've seen std cups go round quicker than that!
LOL Ralph , stop being contentious, I know it's late and we're all a bit apres pub, but Andy is no what you said. I'd say he will be in the future the equiavelent in Reno tuning as what Dave Vizzard was to A series in the past.