Fao itb users

[Chip-mk1]

I can't help but laugh mind Chip when you keep going on about the standard corroded loom as isn't this infact what you splice in to with the OMEX loom? so your still effectively using the corroded loom that you keep mentioning

or am i missing something

Depends how you do the omex mate. For an ideal solution I would be taking the old loom right out and making one from scratch like I have on my mk1.
But cheapest and quickest way is just to splice, you can always redo it later on if (when) you get issues.

 

[Cup M@]

Is there anyway of leaving the bonnet catch in or is it bonnet pins for defo ? And how difficult are they to do

 

[Chip-mk1]

If you want big trumpets (reqd for decent torque) you need to lose the slam panel really.

Couple hours with a Dremmel.

 

[mitch1503]

Depends how you do the omex mate. For an ideal solution I would be taking the old loom right out and making one from scratch like I have on my mk1.
But cheapest and quickest way is just to splice, you can always redo it later on if (when) you get issues.

Yes but making a loom from scratch will be out of a fair few people's capability's and also like you say about redoing it later on if (when) you get a fault will make no difference if its a section of loom what hasn't been spliced thus in fact still being a problem of a corroded loom which wouldn't make any difference should you have the GEN90 or OMEX ecu so i still can't get my head around your comment about using the GEN90 as it's using the 'bad' stock loom

 

[Cup M@]

If you want big trumpets (reqd for decent torque) you need to lose the slam panel really.

Couple hours with a Dremmel.

Again cheers chip no doubt I will seek you again nearer to the project date for a bit more advice

 

[mitch1503]

If you want big trumpets (reqd for decent torque) you need to lose the slam panel really.

Couple hours with a Dremmel.

why a few hours with a Dremmel?? its a few bolts to remove the slam panel which you can have off in less than half hour. only place i can see the Dremmel being any use is for fitting aero catches

 

[Cup M@]

why a few hours with a Dremmel?? its a few bolts to remove the slam panel which you can have off in less than half hour. only place i can see the Dremmel being any use is for fitting fitting aero catches

He answered both questions mate

 

[mitch1503]

He answered both questions mate

arr i get you,didnt realise i just thought it was a follow up basically sayin it should take a few hours loosing the slam panel with a Dremme

 

[Chip-mk1]

Yes but making a loom from scratch will be out of a fair few people's capability's and also like you say about redoing it later on if (when) you get a fault will make no difference if its a section of loom what hasn't been spliced thus in fact still being a problem of a corroded loom which wouldn't make any difference should you have the GEN90 or OMEX ecu so i still can't get my head around your comment about using the GEN90 as it's using the 'bad' stock loom

yes making a loom from scratch will be past some people. But it's still the proper way to do it if you want to be able to trust it.

 

[Chip-mk1]

why a few hours with a Dremmel?? its a few bolts to remove the slam panel which you can have off in less than half hour. only place i can see the Dremmel being any use is for fitting aero catches

Exactly mate. I figured you still want to be able to shut the bonnet when the slam panel is gone.

 

[mitch1503]

yes making a loom from scratch will be past some people. But it's still the proper way to do it if you want to be able to trust it.

Yes but this will bring the price right up either way which seems to be the biggest gripe about the GEN90 its price so i can't really see them paying for a loom to be made up, i for one could rewire a house no problem but wouldn't have a clue where to start when it comes to car electrics

 

[MG cup]

Yes but this will bring the price right up either way which seems to be the biggest gripe about the GEN90 its price so i can't really see them paying for a loom to be made up, i for one could rewire a house no problem but wouldn't have a clue where to start when it comes to car electrics

Omex plus Pre made loom will cost £800 and then it completely avoids Renault loom other than starting/charging circuit that are simple to pare the Renault loom back to and be more reliable and better to look at and work on.

 

[mitch1503]

Exactly mate. I figured you still want to be able to shut the bonnet when the slam panel is gone.

Hadn't seen that he asked you 2 question's above

 

[Chris205]

Just lost an hour of my life reading this thread, only conclusion I've gained from it that n/a clio tuning is still bloody expensive and pretty pointless unless you're going turbo, then reliability comes into the equation.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Just lost an hour of my life reading this thread, only conclusion I've gained from it that n/a clio tuning is still bloody expensive and pretty pointless unless you're going turbo, then reliability comes into the equation.

Lots of things are pointless. Buying a Renault Sport in the first place is pointless arguably.

I think most people have made up their mind before they've even started reading. Like if I told you that your car felt unresponsive and slow. Would you really care? Probably wouldn't lose any sleep over it would you.

 

[Chris205]

Lots of things are pointless. Buying a Renault Sport in the first place is pointless arguably.

I think most people have made up their mind before they've even started reading. Like if I told you that your car felt unresponsive and slow. Would you really care? Probably wouldn't lose any sleep over it would you.

Indeed mate, the thing I've found with ITB's is the more cars you read about them being done, the more they seem to break, i.e yours, sharkys, Ash's race car etc, maybe its just coincedence that the only cars I read about with ITB's are the above mentioned however it puts me off, has anyone fitted Itb's, had them mapped then never had to touch them again throughout the life of the car?

 

[Chip-mk1]

An engine will last longer at half throttle than full throttle even when standard and if you are going to increase the load at full throttle that will be exaggerated so if you take an old engine that is worn and then add a load more cylinder pressure and drive it using a load more rpm then its going to wear even more as a result.

 

[Silent_Scone]

ITBS need general maintenance with balancing and cleaning once every few months really depending how much it's used. Sharky had a run of bad luck but the engine in his trophy was rough to start with. Which was overlooked by there tuner. I just like going through engines.

The lump that did a head gasket on mine recently was a scrap yard engine with some cams thrown in to boot. It's no basis to base your own purchase on lol.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Indeed mate, the thing I've found with ITB's is the more cars you read about them being done, the more they seem to break, i.e yours, sharkys, Ash's race car etc, maybe its just coincedence that the only cars I read about with ITB's are the above mentioned however it puts me off, has anyone fitted Itb's, had them mapped then never had to touch them again throughout the life of the car?

Nonsense - Mines been built for over a year now, not a single fault ever at all. It has never failed to start even in -4c when it hasn't started for 2 months.
I've only had to re-balance them once and I've never had to tweak the map or anything
And that's on a 117k old engine

 

[Chip-mk1]

ITBS need general maintenance with balancing and cleaning once every few months really depending how much it's used. Sharky had a run of bad luck but the engine in his trophy was rough to start with. Which was overlooked by there tuner. I just like going through engines.

The lump that did a head gasket on mine recently was a scrap yard engine with some cams thrown in to boot. It's no basis to base your own purchase on lol.

ALL engines will ultimately die, it will just happen quicker if they are thrashed, and by definition if you are fitting a set of bodies its because you want to thrash the engine, otherwise there would be no point having them.
So its partly about the use that an ITB car will typically get.

Same story with a turbo really, look at the engine in my old car, it was a high miles snotty old engine to begin with, MWM then turbo'd it and Jack from MWM drove it around for a few thousand miles with no issues, then Aydon bought it and drove it around for another few thousands miles with no issues either (but all road use no trackdays). Then I bought it and started doing trackdays with it every chance I got and increased the boost and just generally gave it a much harder life, and it relatively quickly expired after that.

These engines are all 10 or so years old now, and essentially over halfway through their lives anyway in a lot of cases.
Put it this way, if you were going to put together a new rugby team, would you go and get healthy young lads from the local college or would you go and pick your squad from the old folks home? lol

 

[Chip-mk1]

Nonsense - Mines been built for over a year now, not a single fault ever at all. It has never failed to start even in -4c when it hasn't started for 2 months.
I've only had to re-balance them once and I've never had to tweak the map or anything
And that's on a 117k old engine

Its only a matter of time, give it to someone like me who does 20 trackdays a year and is properly hard on the car when they do so, or give it to someone like Ash who is racing, and your engine will be dead in a season or two I would expect.

How much actual genuinely hard use as your engine had since it was converted?

 

[Silent_Scone]

This is it exactly, they're pretty highly strung engines anyway, and with a set of bodies on you're going to be driving it with the intent of at least half the time revving the tits off it! Just like any engine they'll get tired, it's just easier for people to assume it's due to having some tubes on the front and a set of air horns. Also Phil IMO I'd always get the map checked at some point, even if it's every 16 months.

Mine started using oil due to scoring/wear several months after it was mapped enitially and needed some adjustments to account for contamination. Something to do with the Omex 600 not having baro compensation - which I have no idea what that is. But just as an example lol.

 

[Chip-mk1]

This is it exactly, they're pretty highly strung engines anyway, and with a set of bodies on you're going to be driving it with the intent of at least half the time revving the tits off it! Just like any engine they'll get tired, it's just easier for people to assume it's due to having some tubes on the front and a set of air horns. Also Phil IMO I'd always get the map checked at some point, even if it's every 16 months.

Mine started using oil due to scoring/wear several months after it was mapped enitially and needed some adjustments to account for contamination. Something to do with the Omex 600 not having baro compensation - which I have no idea what that is. But just as an example lol.

Unless you were using it very hard at high altitude I highly doubt the lack of baro was an issue, sounds more like whoever mapped it looking for excuses as to why they didnt do so very well TBH.

Mapping is KEY to these engines standing a chance, get that wrong and they can die very quickly.

 

[Silent_Scone]

To be fair he said at the time it would have no effect on power, the bore was pretty knackered. Tends to happen when you eat metal. Mapping is key yes especially with throttle bodies, so no harm just having it checked once in a while

 

[Chip-mk1]

Most engines I see killed by other people's p1ss poor mapping (I honestly cant understand why people have difficulty with something that I consider do trivial, it really is NOT hard to get right if you are just moderately inteligent!) its not the full throttle map that is the problem its the part throttle stuff and it ends up bore washing over a period of time which kills the rings, so in that case there would indeed be NO effect on full throttle power from the map.
The full throttle bit of the map is by far the easiest bit to get right, even poor mappers can generally manage that bit.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Well initially that's where my AFR was far too lean (under load) where as others will tell you there is no power to be had from doing so anyway. It's just as easy to get away with not doing it properly it seems as it is to get right apparently!

 

[Chip-mk1]

Well initially that's where my AFR was far too lean (under load) where as others will tell you there is no power to be had from doing so anyway. It's just as easy to get away with not doing it properly it seems as it is to get right apparently!

What was your AFR?
Different mappers will have different opinions on what constitutes too lean.

Personally I generally map most F4R engines (N/A only, different for turbos) to around the 12.8 mark, although I will go leaner than that at the bottom end to improve full throttle low rpm economy (at the expense of a few bhp from 2-3K) and generally richen up slightly just before the limiter to help keep the valves in one piece if someone is bouncing off the limiter for a while.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Something like 13:8:1. Would have to look it up

 

[Chip-mk1]

Something like 13:8:1. Would have to look it up

I would say that is too lean, and in fact if it was that lean then that WOULD lose you some power compared to 12.6-13.2 where these engines make the most power generally (although in the case of really wild cams with a lot of overlap those target figures can change a little)

 

[Silent_Scone]

It barely made 190bhp when it was reading that particular AFR, with a few changes and at 13.* it made an apparent 7bhp (with low compression on one cylinder)

But again this is a classic example of people being put off throttle bodies due to reliability. The only actual issue I could pin on the kit itself was a jittery TPS which is hardly cause for not bothering

 

[Cup_Phil]

Its only a matter of time, give it to someone like me who does 20 trackdays a year and is properly hard on the car when they do so, or give it to someone like Ash who is racing, and your engine will be dead in a season or two I would expect.

How much actual genuinely hard use as your engine had since it was converted?

Thats not what he said though - he said ALL high power N/A builds are unreliable - that's nonsense.
Like you say it's only if you thrash the s**t out of them - but that's the same with a non ITB'd car, if you thrash the hell out of it.
Saying boosted is better is nowhere near true as you're stressing the engine even further passed it's tolerances, if you took a boosted build out on track 20 or 30 times giving it hell, it'd be dead too.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Arguably you're still putting more fuel / air through the engine so there is an element of strain though, init... Albeit with throttle bodies is it really enough you'd notice any difference on wear over say a year than you would on the standard inlet?

 

[Chip-mk1]

It barely made 190bhp when it was reading that particular AFR, with a few changes and at 13.* it made an apparent 7bhp (with low compression on one cylinder)

But again this is a classic example of people being put off throttle bodies due to reliability. The only actual issue I could pin on the kit itself was a jittery TPS which is hardly cause for not bothering

TPS signal moving about (ive had it on cars ive mapped where there is physical play within the sensor itself) is pretty much a mappers worst nightmare, especially in terms of transient fuelling, it can be completely impossible in those circumstances to get it to drive perfectly at small throttle angles, although it makes no odds for full throttle.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Thats not what he said though - he said ALL high power N/A builds are unreliable - that's nonsense.
Like you say it's only if you thrash the s**t out of them - but that's the same with a non ITB'd car, if you thrash the hell out of it.
Saying boosted is better is nowhere near true as you're stressing the engine even further passed it's tolerances, if you took a boosted build out on track 20 or 30 times giving it hell, it'd be dead too.

Arguably you're still putting more fuel / air through the engine so there is an element of strain though, init... Albeit with throttle bodies is it really enough you'd notice any difference on wear over say a year than you would on the standard inlet?

If you drive a car around at half throttle it wears less than at full throttle, if you make full throttle now mean swallowing even more air (ie on bodies you are essentially at a throttle opening of 110% of what you were to begin with) then that means even more wear.

RPM has a big effect too though, engines last longer if they dont need to rev, thats why manufacturers will use a turbo if they are looking for big power, by lowering the CR and adding boost you can end up with the same peak cylinder pressures but for longer in the cycle which is far less strain to make the same torque and it means you dont need to rev the car as hard as you can make more torque lower down.
Thats what its easy to build a 265bhp F4RT engine that will last over 100K miles even if driven pretty hard in a fairly heavy, but you couldnt do the same with a 265bhp N/A F4R instead.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Not sure why as I've never tried / seen it but for some reason I wouldn't expect a 225 N/A F4R to last anywhere near 100k anyway! lol

 

[Chip-mk1]

You must have replied before I corrected it, was meant to say 265bhp mate, but even a 225bhp N/A F4R wouldnt be reliable the way a 225bhp turbo one is either.

If you want big power you have 3 ways to get it:
Big rpm
Boost
Big capacity


And those are in order of unreliability!

 

[Silent_Scone]

Well this is it, but for me I've just always prefered the drive from throttle bodies over boost. Although this is on the basis of only driving 2 supercharged mk2s, not turbo. It's just personal preference for me. People on here tend to base their opinion on other peoples, or graphs and charts. That or go in EXPECTING it to fly along like a turbo/sc car which obviously isn't the case.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Well this is it, but for me I've just always prefered the drive from throttle bodies over boost. Although this is on the basis of only driving 2 supercharged mk2s, not turbo. It's just personal preference for me. People on here tend to base their opinion on other peoples, or graphs and charts. That or go in EXPECTING it to fly along like a turbo/sc car which obviously isn't the case.

Agreed mate, on a graph it will ALWAYS look like a turbo is head and shoulders better, but its not the case for every application

Take something very light like the burpspeed car with "only" 215bhp I bet it absolutely flies along, but put the same engine in my heavy road going ph1 with a radio and full dash and back seats and sound deadening etc and it would be quite a slow car, where as with boost mind is no doubt as quick or possibly even quicker (in a straightline only! lol) as the burpspeed car, so the extra weight I have (and so does my car, flol) means that to me boost is the ideal solution, especially as it then means that driving to and from tracks I have a very civilised and quiet engine with bucket loads of effortless midrange torque, where as if I had a very light trackday car I'd probably keep it simple with just a set of cams and bodies (like the 2.0 corsa I have just got rid of in fact which was exactly that)

 

[Silent_Scone]

Bang on, and it's pretty obvious really - I don't see why these threads always turn into a boost vs itb debates as there's never a definitive answer. Other than pub talk

 

[Laine_16v]

Chip what's your turbo mapped to at WOT out of interest?