182 remap, with or without decat?

[john lloyd]

i have another rolling road planned for this saturday since my last run on the rollers (will be the third time the 182 has ran on these rollers) i have added samco induction pipe, itg panel filter and a btb cat back exhaust system.

basically i have a yozza decat (not currently fitted) but im aware adding a decat to the breathing mods i already have and on std map may help with maybe an extra bhp but some recent rr tests have indictaed that i'll lose some torque.

i want the best results possible for my money so do i remap car as it is and keep torque and few extra bhp or have it mapped with a decat and hope the mapper can get even better results both torque/bhp?

any tuners advice paul murray/fred/yozza/gdi etc or edde?

 

[edde]

Differences won't be huge since the 182 has a decient cat anyway for flow..

Who's remapping the car?

 

[Fred@BTM]

be a man and fit the decat

 

[john lloyd]

cheers i wanted a silenced de-cat but hard to find, quality of yozza looks very high.

i know RS run a 200 cell decat as std so im know im not going to get huge gains but every bit helps when working on a 2.0 n/a lump, no gains are easy just got to be realistic really with your expectations.

edde - thinking paul at rs tuning as he knows them inside/out or maybe wayne at chip wizards.

 

[john lloyd]

update - the rr on sat didnt give the figures i was after.
Feb 2007 it ran 182 bhp and 160lb torque (std car)
Dec 2007 it ran 176 bhp and 149lb torque (itg filter, btb exhaust)

same rollers but i know its quite a few months apart im afraid they didnt give me at the wheel figures this year i know last year fly figure result was high and as always, take figures with a pich of salt.

it did make me wonder the itg filters come caked in green substance like fairy liquid i relaise this is for cleaning but does it prevent air flow? in my head how can a filter covered in green slime be more effective than a cotton k+n thats oiled do they offer same filtration rates and air flow?

since saturday i have fitted my yozza decat and have also sneaked onto another rolling road at chipwizards.

 

[RSTuning]

Your standard result is way off mate. I see some only make 165 on our dyno and the figures will always be repeated. The 176 seems about right and torque a touch on the high side.
What dyno is it?

 

[mattjk]

Feb 2007 it ran 182 bhp and 160lb torque (std car)

Hmm dont know if thats correct seems a little high for a standard vehicle :S

 

[kully]

defo do it with the decat on matey ......

 

[john lloyd]

yeah i mentioned above the std reading was high in feb this year a lot of the other cars were a little high also, but i take them with a pinch of salt. i have fitted the decat and have another rr run at chipwizards next week for comparison.

paul - it was at awsome gti, irlam would have to check their website for what rollers they use i know its a 4wd with 1 large single roller running full width across vehicle.

 

[john lloyd]

am also going to be swapping my itg with a k+n filter not expecting much diff between the two but i like to try different parts myself and test them not just read the gains from the back of the box.

 

[mr_merc]

Firstly, 182 bhp at the fly seems a little too much a coincidence to me to be dead on for a "182".

Secondly, fly figures are at best guestimates. The real figure is the at the wheels figure.

I really don't see why rolling road tuners quote at the fly figures when they cannot accurately measure flywheel figures unless the engine is out of the car, they can only take the wheels figures and add the perceived drivetrain losses.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd only ever want the at the wheels figures.

 

[Diesel_Power]

Firstly, 182 bhp at the fly seems a little too much a coincidence to me to be dead on for a "182".

Secondly, fly figures are at best guestimates. The real figure is the at the wheels figure.

I really don't see why rolling road tuners quote at the fly figures when they cannot accurately measure flywheel figures unless the engine is out of the car, they can only take the wheels figures and add the perceived drivetrain losses.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd only ever want the at the wheels figures.

Id agree with that.

Ive also ordered a yozza decat the otherday, go for it.

 

[john lloyd]

yeah your right fly is calculated from the atw figure and coast down along with some other things i wont even pretend to understand it seems a lot of rolling road operators use differnt methods and corrections to end up with a fly figure, problem is as its the fly figure were sold the car on and what they are advertised as producing people want the fly figure after engine work to cpmpare with what renault "say" it has as std, car builders should sell cars with atw figures to make life much easier for us. (never happen)

with the 182 just run in with a few k on the clock it got, 160.81 at the wheels and 149.8 lbt torque (they calculated at 179.26 bhp at the fly)
with about 10k on the clock it got 163.02 at the wheels and 157.54 lbt torque (again they calculated at 182.89 bhp at the fly)

the run i had last week didnt give a wheel figure only fly im afraid and it came back as bhp @ fly 176.16 and 149.59 lbt torque this was with panel filter and btb exhaust system added since the last run.

i know rr are not all accurate and should really be used for mappers to live map cars etc and maybe for direct before and after runs but they are good fun and can at least give you an idea of how healthy your engine is, will see what next week brings with the swap of my itg for a k+n and additional de-cat.

diesel-power they are a nice looking bit of kit, i had to use a slightly wider clamp at the back where it joined onto my btb to make sure it didnt blow the orig clamp just wasnt really wide enough.

 

[edde]

I really don't see why rolling road tuners quote at the fly figures when they cannot accurately measure flywheel figures unless the engine is out of the car, they can only take the wheels figures and add the perceived drivetrain losses.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd only ever want the at the wheels figures.

Because you can always up the cliamed power gains that way.
Plus people want to here 200hp not 170 ATW as that doens't sound as good.

 

[mr_merc]

I really don't see why rolling road tuners quote at the fly figures when they cannot accurately measure flywheel figures unless the engine is out of the car, they can only take the wheels figures and add the perceived drivetrain losses.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd only ever want the at the wheels figures.

Because you can always up the cliamed power gains that way.
Plus people want to here 200hp not 170 ATW as that doens't sound as good.

Ah I see, so I am right. The only rolling road I've ever used where the rolling road controllers made sense and I didn't feel like they were trying to feed me a line of bullshit was G-Force in Aylesbury (who service and map racing 911's). They only measure at the wheels figures and adjust the fly on a set drivetrain loss that they have for that model of car. That said, if you have the money they have the ability to engine test as well for genuine fly figures.

But yes, Edde, it sounds about right. People hope and no doubt inform the rr controller that they're hoping for 200 bhp from their 182/172 and of course coming back with 170 bhp @ the wheels doesn't sound as nice.

Funny stuff.