172 r-road result

[Stuart.Atkinson]

Heres my rolling road results from my 172 exclusive

mods: Direct replacement K&N air filter.

im MORE than happy with the results

http://www.psycho-home.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clio172_rolling_road.jpg

 

[cliosportcraig]

NICE !!

 

[Paul C]

180bhp? i would say thats a bit much and from looking at the chart it should be about 160bhp.

take it somewhere else to compare

Paul

 

[Stuart.Atkinson]

results compard almost identical on 2 different r-raods. 1 local to me and 1 in bristol.

 

[cliosportcraig]

this man has a freak 180 !! nice one m8 !! tom wont be happy !!

 

[Stuart.Atkinson]

lol, even the gfuys running it ran it twice cos they couldnt believe it lol!

2nd time was free btw lmfao

 

[007]

Need to really have a comparason car to try another rolling road aswell

My Williams got 163.5bhp as totally standard - I will beleive it when another rolling road does it - preferably with some other Clios there for a true comparason.

 

[Ben H]

Is that first green graph line showing just shy of 130bhp at the wheels?

If thats the case, then my old tuned 16V was making 128 at the wheels, which certainly wasnt 180bhp at the fly! More like 155bhp if thats the case!

 

[ross_16v]

my valver is making 110 at the wheels, which makes it about 147 at the flywheel.

 

[007]

Its usually only 15-20% for losses on a FWD car I think. Every car is different mind you so is every rolling road.

 

[stan*]

think is, even tyre pressure can affect results by 10bhp. not trying 2 burst ur bubble, just bein realistic

R/Rs should only be used to set-up cars as a means of simulating constant road conditions for the engine. i.e. its difficult 2 drive down the road and hold engine speed at a constant, and keep that constant whilst breaking the engine (e.g. driving up hill), but a R/R allows all load/speed scenarios to be obtained

 

[tonykart]

again RR is only costing money and only can be used as reference. For instance before tunign and after tuning on the same bench is ok (if the parameters are the same) See here again (no offence Stuart) 180 mailto:Bhp@7000">Bhp@7000 Rpm´s on a non chipped 172 is almost not possible. There is no outside T, no pressure reading etc. Max. power will be in around 6300 Rpm and max. torque will be at around 5300 Rpm on a standard RS.

 

[182 sport]

so goin off that its shud be easy for 190bhp in the 182 (with a filter of course)

 

[Ben H]

No. Youve got in the high 170s to start (thats if youre lucky knowing the 172 engine - not like the Valvers and Willys!) and a poor filter choice will actually rob you of power!

 

[BenR]

graph is a fix,

torque is also calculated on the graph.

 

[Rich-D]

Could that graph be any BIGGER???

 

[Clart]

Chandler??

 

[Rich-D]

To me that looks to be around 130bhp @ wheels, going off the green line...

Also why is the green (@ wheels) power line peaking then dropping off at high revs, as they should do, yet the blue (calculated @ fly) power line does not do the same!?

Not a cat in hells chance youve lost 50bhp between the flywheel and the road wheels, so not meaning to p!ss on your bonfire, but I woulnt trust that rolling road!



A standard 172 generally has 144bhp @ wheels, with a transmission loss of roughly 15%

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitsi on 04 February 2004

Chandler??

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by 182 sport on 03 February 2004


so goin off that its shud be easy for 190bhp in the 182 (with a filter of course)

No...

 

[Adams_16v]

good for comparison against other motors, but RRs vary that much!

iv seen over 20bhp difference between 2 rolling roads.

 

[JAY172]

i know you quite close to me adam so where did you have your rr done then?

 

[crono33]

so that car is developing 115 lbs/ft at 2000 rpm? surely not.

most RR readings are overoptimistic to say the least. a FWD with transverse engine will lose 12% or even less on transmission

 

[Adams_16v]

iv had one done at nobles, and one done at EP motorsport in Stoke!

Nobles it ran mailto:147@fly">147@fly, but the other 2 modified valvers on the day ran mailto:120@fly">120@fly and cups mailto:160@fly">160@fly so i think results were a tad low, and the EP one was mailto:169.1@fly">169.1@fly which i reckon is a tad high! only differences in the car from one to the other were supersprint manifold, BMC CDA, and the engine had fully run in from a rebuilt and some internal mods. The power curve was lurvly though, ill try to get mi scanner working.

i cant remember the @wheels figures off hand!

Where about are u from mate?

 

[JAY172]

from tibshelf mate but i work at lambs which is just down the road from nobles isnt it.

 

[Adams_16v]

yeah i know lambs, was in there the other day!

 

[Roamer]

All I have to say on the matter is come down to Power Engineering in Uxbridge next time we do a Rolling Road day there (which should be soon) and you can get tested side by side other standard and modified 172s.

 

[JAY172]

whats the full address roamer so i can look on route finder.

 

[Lunner]

could be interested be nice to see what my little beast is outputting

 

[Roamer]

their url is http://www.powerengineering.co.ukwww.powerengineering.co.uk

 

[JAY172]

cheers.had a look but i think its a bit far for me.ill have to wait in case there a rr day a bit closer.

 

[Rich-D]

Quote: Originally posted by crono33 on 04 February 2004



so that car is developing 115 lbs/ft at 2000 rpm? surely not.

Why not... mine makes more!

 

[RS-Steve]

Quote: Originally posted by Rich-D on 04 February 2004

Quote: Originally posted by crono33 on 04 February 2004




so that car is developing 115 lbs/ft at 2000 rpm? surely not.







Why not mine makes more...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

so did mine standard! i dont really trust rollin roads much cos ive got a printout of mailto:157@wheels">157@wheels with just a viper on! on the same day it read 170 odd @ the wheels! i trust the original mailto:144@wheels">144@wheels i got 2 weekds previous.