Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
One thing i will point out about the results from this rolling road is that it is not a continuous load RR, meaning they revved the car to 2000 revs, held it there and then put the load on the rollers, they then repeated this for each 500 revs.
This resulted in us being given a line graph with the points joined up like a dot to dot, so if any cars actual peak power was at 6250 this would not show up on the graph or results.
This is compared to a continuous load RR where they just run the car from idle to redline with the load always on the rollers and taking the power from all the rev range.
I think its clear that 2.0 F7R Williams power is a massive leap over the 16v - far more than the 13bhp at the flywheel quoted by Renault. On these rollers and with the cars tested, the difference between a standard 2.0 and a 1.8 is over 20bhp at the wheels.
I was a little disappointed that my tuned 16v wasnt showing major power gains over other 16vs (Ben Js 16v with a de-cat, chip and breathing mods was a mere 2bhp behind). I think that might be due to my head spitting out a spark plug and the subsequent repair, and that the exhaust is blowing at the de-cat pipe joins. But I can only guess what gains those things being OK would give - and I doubt Id be beating many 2.0s even then.
For all the Saxo VTS non-believers, the fact that the VTS made more power at the wheels than all the 16vs bar mine shows that the VTS is a force to be reckoned with - especially given its 50kg+ weight advantage.
ok...........forgive me for being silly here but....... the 1.2 16vs.......... they are showing 72bhp AT THE WHEELS?????? Am i right in thinking these are specified as 75bhp at the FLYWHEEL as standard? Hence the mods that Bambam and Fred have done have made a BIG difference??? Sorry, my RR knowledge is limited lol!
Thing is the chipped 172s showed quite an improvement on the RR they was chipped at so its not as if they was chipped and got no improvement. I dont understand it though cos its a bit odd that they are both low compared to others/non chipped ones. Had any thoughts on this Roamer/Chris?
I wish i knew JJ172...although standard mine was pushing about mailto:128@tw">128@tw it now has mailto:151@tw">151@tw so in my case chipping was the way to go.
There are serious differences in power outputs from 172s and I know I had a slow one.
All the 52 plate ones ive seen on the rollers so far appear to be developing closer to mailto:172+@tf">172+@tf so if they get chipped and modded then they should show good results.
Although when speaking directly to Superchips about having mine chipped and explaining Roamers results they were very surprised about the final bhp figure he got as they said that the chip would improve torque mostly and not bhp. So the Viper and K-tec must have been instrumental in the final figure.
Wayne, Im going to hold off any making any judgments about the capability of mods until I see one of the 172s which were at saturdays RR tested down at Power Engineering (Hint Hint Mike)
I have my doubts about the way each of the cars were tested, and feel that they didnt do repeatable testing (and I feel that this is held up by the fact that they didnt want to retest Mats car - only my opinion of course), (imho) a car should be given a few runs to make sure that everything is correct (oil heat even, distributed well etc)
I only comment on this because at PE (and Im would think at other rollers) they say they give the car a couple of runs before just to make sure that everything is correctly running (oil etc) in order to give a good, and repeatable, power run.
If anyone else with a 172 or cup is willing to do a power run at PE, give me a shout.
Chris, I would only take the figures you got from PE as the comparison of your mods, as you cant compare between rolling roads, but from my experience PEs results are repeatable (mine was down there in October) and when mine was down there on friday it still - instantly (after 2 warm ups and a power run) - pulled the same power as in october, so I take this as a good test of their rollers, NOT that Im saying they give the correct figures, because I dont think that they can give absolute figures (even at the wheels) but for comparisons it seems to be dead on.
(And just for info, I would love to be able to have an RR that I felt like I could trust close to home, doing a 200 mile round trip just for a power run aint great, but PE has my business for the mo)
yeah roamer, at most those results imho are just good for a comparison, cos lets be honest those cars arent pushing out those phenomenal figures. although it does show cars like waynes have a healthy ngine out the box, hedhave to be getting low 14s on the 1/4 mile. i mean, is that like 200bhp or what? in a car that light. also not dissing anyones cars, just stating what i believe to be true, like the 1.2s with 72 or summat @ the wheels
which is why i wanna see the graphs for the 1.2s..........im certain i saw a few people discussing there results and it was about 75 at the fly and around 60 at the wheels, but both figures in the results table show 72 bhp at the wheels
Well I have seen that claimed before on a k&n filter..... Plus its not like its a highly tuned 172 where mods only give you slight increases. The RR wont be more than 5 bhp out or there would be no point in a RR.... Plus is gave the same figures for both 1.2s which have basicaly same mods...
Basically, you are shocked, Brun, that they are coming so close to yours?! Personally, i think this will all be a bit far-fetched too, as i hear lots on here about how quick these 1.4 Rts are...........it will all come out in the wash i guess eh
Roamer - we all know RRs can give wildly differeing readouts and youre always at the mercy of the operator! Certainly from other BBs (e.g. ScoobyNet) its a well-known fact that PEs RR outputs are on the optimistic side.
But, the point is, so long as the RR can maintain a consistant result, then the key is to use a RR you can trust and use the -same- RR for all the runs. That way, at least youll be able to measure the results of any mods, etc. BTW, how much do you pay PE for a power printout? They quoted me £50 a shot!
Im actually off to BB Tuning (not too far from me) this weekend to get a power plot for my -std- 172, now with 4800 miles on it. Next step is fitting a HP induction kit - if it doesnt produce any more power Ill leave the car as std!