197 on rr?

[TheJesus]

why would the corrected be lower?

it was a fairly standard day as far as i remember

no idea, a decent RR operator would know or one of the tuning geeks on here, but from every RR day I have done and been to corrected figures have always been lower than the power run on the day. I think corrected is meant to be the lowest possible figure you can achieve, like for example a car that spends it's days thousands of feet above see level would more than likely be down on power. It doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, but I remember the Hill power day when people were making like 145-150 @ the wheels and then it was corrected to 135ish at the wheels

 

[Nigel]

As said P/stations wheel figures are always a big talking point I had my 182 ran there as it is just round the corner from mine.

What gear did the run the 197 in ?

What did yours run Rich?

I think the powerstation rollers do over read but as said in this thread, when i went there, other cars were making either book power or similar to runs at other dynos on the same day mine was ran.

 

[Rich]

Corrected Power was 185.3 - on the day lots of other cars where running 'book' figures be they the corrected fly figures.

 

[_Tom]

That seems fucked up?

My Clio ran 152 atw on a few rr's and that was 185bhp atf

My sx runs 240 atw which is 290bhp atf..

 

[Dan 172]

Powerstation always seem high.

My mates Impreza ran 246bhp at Powerstation, a month later 231bhp somewhere else which was more like it.

I think mine was around 139bhp atw which came out at 170bhp atf.

 

[skinner]

So people actually pay £40 a go to get results as obviously flawed as that??

I'm off to build my own rolling road out of egg boxes and sticky tape. I'll stick an old 486 with a copy of lotus 1-2-3 in front of it and charge £40 a go.

Just ask the customer how much power they think it has, add 10% and every one of them will be happy.

 

[ja.jack]

My wheel power with ecu and inlet was 135.6bhp. A bit more than the standard 182s that Falkland had done. I am happy with it as I have driven a few 1*2s and mine compares favourably.

IMO the facts are this: 172 cup ,not far off claimed power. 182 cup, stretching it a bit. 197, taking the piss lol.

 

[TheJesus]

James, those are low wheel figures, but if other cars on the day are similar for the mods etc then it's accurate in that sense, but I'd have thought stock 182's should be around 150ish at the wheels.

 

[ja.jack]

Search me Jon. Like I said my motor made more power than other 182s they had done. Perhaps it's just under reading , or just honest.

 

[TheJesus]

Search me Jon. Like I said my motor made more power than other 182s they had done. Perhaps it's just under reading , or just honest.

probably just plain wrong tbh James, if the RR is setup incorrectly it seems they just alter transmission losses to give a reasonably accurate fly figure. Thing is, it doesn't matter if others on the same day are all running roughly similar for the mods etc, as long as there is consistency like with your day at least you can go home knowing its as quick or quicker than other RS's... just you dont have that impressive sounding figure I guess. I remember going to the mini sport RR day and they all read high figures, like max power type, but i'd have not thought too much of it had there been some consistency, but when you get a standard Williamsmaking 180bhp at over 7000rpm (on stock ECU... 6400rpm limit) it makes you wander... lol

 

[ja.jack]

You're not wrong Jon. I take the numbers with a pinch of salt. Main thing is my mill is a good 'un. Me and my Clio will be hopefully together for a long time. She will def' be getting more mods, from who and when, I'm not right sure.

 

[stu197]

Hello carina are you getting it done this weekend?if so what time? may come take a look if you dont mind, i only live ten minutes away

 

[carina]

Hello carina are you getting it done this weekend?if so what time? may come take a look if you dont mind, i only live ten minutes away

Yeah sure thats fine... think we are postponing it til next saturday though, as a day/night out for a friends birthday has cropped up.

I am going to ring them tomorrow to reschedule, so i will let you know the time and date!

 

[RobT]

Bit of an old topic, but got my 197 RR'd again yesterday with a more realistic result I feel. Must be pretty close to the mark as I went with my old fiesta club and standard STs were getting 148bhp. Maybe I'd get a bit more with v-power or something, but the cheap petrol is good enough for me!

 

[RSTuning]

I think that's the first time i have seen a dyno dynamics graph on here that's got all the right numbers on the bottom!

That won't be far off an engine dyno figure believe it or not!

Paul

 

[2 live]

most 172/182's iv seen run up on the rollers make around 165 max. you have to remember the 172/182/197 etc arent quoted in bhp, but the french equivalent. ps i believe.

worst one iv seen on the rollers tho, was a supposed respected tuner fetching a car hed been working on for a while, to a club r/r day, was mag featured, the results were so poor he didnt want mentioning in the mag, and disappeared from the rollers very quickly...u know who u are lol.

thankfully the mk 1s do seem to be fairly accurate with book figures, most valvers making around 122 at the wheels, and williams' varying from 136 upwards.


as said above tho, best way is to pull ur engine out n run it on a dyno, altho a rr thats in a sealed enclosure, with all ambient temps etc adjustable is the next best thing.a la chip wizards.

 

[RSTuning]

You don't need to be in a sealed room to get repeatable results. Check the graph above. IT=Intake Temp and AT=Ambient Temp, The DD corrects the power using this also. This is why you have to watch out for low AT and high IT. The figures could be wrong!

Paul

 

[2 live]

but if the temp is controlled, as it is in a sealed enclosure, theres no margin for error in reading things wrongly, therefore more accurate.

 

[RSTuning]

Yes if the dyno does not have temp correction

 

[2 live]

if its a power run, and the temp is controlled. you dont need correction.

 

[Waitey]

Bit of an old topic, but got my 197 RR'd again yesterday with a more realistic result I feel. Must be pretty close to the mark as I went with my old fiesta club and standard STs were getting 148bhp. Maybe I'd get a bit more with v-power or something, but the cheap petrol is good enough for me!

Your running cheap 95ron.

Read your handbook. The 197's must not run on 95ron.

 

[RobT]

Must be my eyes, says 95 or 98 ron to me, doesn't say anyway "must not run on 95ron"

 

[RSTuning]

It's false economy on that engine to run 95 as it will do more MPG with higher octane. I have seen a couple pinking quite bad on standard fuel. Get some 98 in there!

 

[Waitey]

Must be my eyes, says 95 or 98 ron to me, doesn't say anyway "must not run on 95ron"

Jeremy Townsend was on here iirc sayign that the 197 unit should only be ran on 98ron and above.

 

[Waitey]

Ta Da

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1845345&postcount=20

 

[RobT]

Well that's different to saying the handbook says it

I do occasionally run it on v-power, I'll fill it up with some of shells finest when I come back from holiday in a few weeks.

 

[steve@wests]

renault dealers were given instructions to advise customers that 197s should only be run on 98 octane

steve

 

[Waitey]

Well that's different to saying the handbook says it

I do occasionally run it on v-power, I'll fill it up with some of shells finest when I come back from holiday in a few weeks.

As the link states. The hand book should have been changed along with the sticker in the fuel cap.

 

[RobT]

Well this is certianly news to me! Doesn't seem to run noticably worse with 95ron, but shall try to use high octane as much as possible now however much my wallet hates it

 

[ado]

I think that they also said that you can run it on 95ron after the run in period. Seems to be a grey area.

 

[Loopz]

Well this is certianly news to me! Doesn't seem to run noticably worse with 95ron, but shall try to use high octane as much as possible now however much my wallet hates it

Like someone said before me, running on a lower octane juice will cost more, as the car has better consuption with a higher octane gasoline.

Also, in the long run, engine will benefit from using 98+ octane.

 

[hellsbells]

my 52 type r read 152!! i have an CAI and other mods.. was run in 3rd gear and i found out hondas are meant to be run in 4th gear! was well gutted..
To be honest where ever you go it will be different!

 

[RobT]

On the day we also thought that it had to be run in 4th gear (well even 5th for mine) but they did a run in 3rd and 4th gears and showed exactly the same results, of course this is dependant on the RR but on this one the gear didn't seem to matter.

On another note I haven't noticed any increase in fuel economy using v-power, maybe I need to run a few more tanks through but I got the same 35mpg on my run to and from Birmingham this week on the motorway using 95ron and v-power.

 

[rustybolt]

i never use low octane fuel, my car runs like a bag of spanners and it gives better fuel econemy with 97/98 ron.

If premium unleaded works out at say 8p a litre more, and you put 40 litres in its costing you £3.20 a tank more.

Thats nothing if you can afford to run a car anyway, and the fuel econemy will balance out that cost anyway, so why not run the car as it was designed??

 

[197ant]

On the day we also thought that it had to be run in 4th gear (well even 5th for mine) but they did a run in 3rd and 4th gears and showed exactly the same results, of course this is dependant on the RR but on this one the gear didn't seem to matter.

On another note I haven't noticed any increase in fuel economy using v-power, maybe I need to run a few more tanks through but I got the same 35mpg on my run to and from Birmingham this week on the motorway using 95ron and v-power.

I wish I got 35mpg I've never got it out the 20's I don't think and I've always used V-Power since I've had it