Power Engineering Results-Good & Bad :-(

[Roamer]

Well guys (n gals) me and Fred are back from Power Engineering, and the results from the remapping are ..... Good

Now, before you all say anything, I completely forgot to ask him to get bhp @ the wheels values (Bugger) but there were no setup changes to the RR between runs so the results will be valid as a relative comparison.

1st Run - 173bhp, bit down on what both Dave and I thought it may be, but youve gotta have a starting point.

2nd Run - uploaded the first map, and came up with 178 - not bad I started to be happy at this point

Dave checked the fueling, and it was running leanish, so the mapping had to take this into account.....

3rd Run - Timing and fueling altered, and came out with 182.

4th Run - Timing and fueling changed again slightly, upd the rev limit and this time it came out with 184

Dave wanting to see if he could squeeze a little bit extra out and so did a minor timing change again, and re-ran, but came out again with 184, so thats what Im left with now, a RenaultSport Clio 184

The rev limit raise has left me with 98 at the top of 3rd and 120ish at the top of 4th, the increase on 3rd will be useful for the 1/4 mile.

Ive got the printouts of bhp and torque, Ill post these up when I get my scanner setup tomorrow (sometime).

The Bad :

Well, after stopping for a quick MaccyDs, we made our way back up the M40, going well, felt good, esp. at top end, then.... BANG got hit by a shovel head! which had been lying on the carriageway and got kicked up by a Merc in the outside lane, car still ran ok, so decided to pull in at the next services, I was thinking that it prob just hit the bumper and might have just split that - Oh how wrong I was It hit the bumper - split, grill - smashed, offside light cluster - smashed the lower mounting and internal plastic and the bonnet - kinked the bottom offside corner and about 5" up the side.... Bollox.

Gotta get a few quotes and see what the damage is going to be, but I know it aint gonna be cheap, Ive got some photos of the damage which Ill post up tomorrow when I get chance - Anyone know of an Iceburg 172 Mk2 at a scrappy with rear end damage??????

 

[Fred@BTM]

Yeah it was a wicked day, i would recomend power engineering to anyone, those guys know there stuff!!! There was an evo 5 there that pulled 320bhp and a badly detonating cossie which was getting sorted and finally pulled 297bhp!!!! There were 3 scoobies and an EVO6 outside. I can confirm that Roamers car now FLYS!!!!! (noticable difference)

 

[chris172]

What an arse about your car after all youve done. That could run into a lot of cash. Did you get the No of the Merc? You may have been able to claim of his ins.

184 sounds good...in fact 173 sounds brilliant!! Not taking anything away from Arjun and Nick H, as his was in its early development, but he got 166 if I recall and I got 163 totally standard (1750 on the clock!!) and I think JamieW got 161with replacement panel filter. Looks like the Viper can increase up to 10BHP then. I would be interested to know how lean was it running on its first before run though??

Right...I am off to fit mine.....OK later then..LOL!!!

 

[Roamer]

Chris, I doubt I could (Or would want to) claim off him, as he only hit it himself and probably got some damage off it as well - Im gonna get a few quotes for repairs, and then look at possibly just getting the light cluster and grill for now, and find someone to repair the bonnet and bumper later ? possibly.

I can defo feel the difference, and the rev limit increase is great, no more running out of 3rd on the 1/4 mile strip well, if I do Ill be doing damn well

It was running lean enough for Dave to mention it, and to say it needs to be pulled back into the safe zone. Seriously, these guys really know their stuff, talk to them and theyll see you right, like fred says, theyre used to big cars with big problems (that cossie was a case in point) and they keep you informed about what theyre doing every step of the way, BTW it cost £352.50 all in.

 

[BRUN]

the problem with the flywheel figure is its completely calculated by the RR operator, it simply cant be measured unless the engine is out and run on a dyno

do you know what figure he was using for transmission loss ?

i think Arjun made 145 at the wheels on the RR day, and depending on what figure your using for transmission loss then that could be anything from 159 - 189

 

[Roamer]

BRUN, I dont know the transmission loss figure, but I fairly sure it wasnt changed throughout the runs, the PC was right in front of us all the time, I will try and remember to call him on monday and ask, but as it was the same throughout as a percentage increase it works out as 6.358%, which aint bad is it?

Well, at the end of the day it does feel different and goes better, so it was worth it

 

[Pillesnoppen]

Told you they were good!

What ECU are you using? Not the standard one, I take it? Might drop down there myself again...

 

[BRUN]

im not havin a go Roamer, what matters is that your happy and that you can feel a difference, its not a bad increase no, i was just interested in the figures he was using for transmission loss, so i can possibly compare some of the results we had at RE Performance Centre

 

[chris172]

When Cliosport had the Rolling Road Day 2 there a while back all the @TWs figures were really low. Check out the results in the members area I think. Dont know what was going on there but maybe Nick Read can give a definative answer.

I dont think you can compare different RRs, you need to use the same one to get an acurate comparison of before and after mods and monitoring. Hence the North one was giving really high figures both @TF and @TW. So every one that used that one can compare themselves to each other, but not to other roads.....sounds like im being picky but im not really, honest!!

 

[BRUN]

yea your right chris, i spose i cant compare, but im still interested all the same on what the guy at Power/E reckons is a decent figure to use for transmission loss

 

[Captain Slarty]

Ok I am cofused lol..

Quote........

it simply cant be measured unless the engine is out and run on a dyno

.................

firstly.. Brun M8, yes you can measure the figure approximately due to coast down loading. So, to measure the figures, first you need a scalar.. this is calculated FROM the ACTUAL torque at the wheels,( there is no other way ???.) by loading the roller and then monitoring drag on the coastdown... but; the key is.. they CANNOT have an at the flywheel figure, WITHOUT having first taken an at the wheels figure.....

sooooooooooooooooo

the figures at the flywheel may NOT be accurate (as in dyno) but, they WILL be accurate in relative terms to at the wheels

Now, that means that the GAIN percentage HAS TO be the same..

soooo again lol.........

Roamer, m8, lol . that sounds excellent !.

tell me more about the mapping please ?.. std ecu ???... modded in real time etc ??. sounds bloody good.

Joe.

 

[chris172]

Not sure youd want to know their figure as my print out from there says 163@TW....140lb/ft....and 120@TF!!!!! as I said earlier all their results were low on the day.

 

[Captain Slarty]

Chris.. do ya mean (I think ya do) the other way round ??

Joe.

 

[BRUN]

Joe, i havent got a clue what you just said, but as i understood matters it isnt possibly to get an accurate figure unless using a dyno, only an approximation can be made

 

[Captain Slarty]

Yep,

Spot on....



But...............

any approxiamtion on a rolling road MUST come from a measurement at the wheels...

That is the only thing it measures, ever - torque, and time...

whatever scalar they use for the figure at the flywheel (and its almost always calculated from the coast down drag - not a set figure) - then the percentage increase is the same.



In power measurement terms, the percentage increase has to be mathematically proportional.

Even if the figure isnt spot on, its a good guide, but, it is absolutely accurate for measuring relative increases of power, as I believe, the original post was saying.. innacuracy here is only relative to an absolute figure, not a useful or relative figure which the rr gives.. and, this figure, by its nature of calculation is EXTREMELY accurate. ---- depending on what you use the results for....

Dont worry m8, I think my head just exploded too lol !

Joe..

 

[Captain Slarty]

BOOOOOOOOOM !

 

[MaLicE]

roamer



where is power engineering???



what put u off power house in cheltenham



and do u know how much roughly it will cost for a standard ecu remap??



MaLicE

 

[chris172]

Joe

You are correct 163@TF & 120@TW....a bit low tho all the same. But as I said they were all a bit low on the day. I still think you need to use the same RR to get an accurate reading of the differential in mods.

Chris

 

[chris172]

MaLice

http://www.powerengineering.co.uk/Power Engineering are in Uxbridge, Middlesex.

Check out their website, they are some serious tuners!

 

[telford_mike]

Nice one John, the last link in the Zorst / Viper / Chip chain. Safe to say thats probably the best we can expect without getting the head off. I look forward to getting blasted into the dust on the next quarter mile we do m8!

 

[desmondo]

Nice one roamer. Most modded 172 Mk2 now I reckon.....??????

Bad to hear about the body work damage though mate. Bad Luck.

Hope you can get it sorted fairly cheaply - your so lucky it didnt hit the windscreen and injure someone though.

Rich

 

[Roamer]

Captain, the remapping was done using serial reprogramming using Superchips gear, PowerStation include London Superchips in the office above the garage, and they did 4 different mappings tweeking it each time, so he would go off, email superchips saying what he wanted to be modded on the next mapping, hed get it back and download it into the ECU, then do another power run, he really does know what hes doing. Oh and Im sure your right about the coastdown loading thing, cos when he did a power run, the pc would build a power graph left to right, then as he came off the gas it would give a larger reading being mapped right to left as it ran back down to idle.

Just incase anyone knows of a 172 mk2 at a breakers at the mo, Im looking for a top grille, offside headlight cluster, and a bumper and bonnet off an Iceberg silver one (The bumper and bonnet can be repaired, but I thought it would be better if I could find replacements instead - maybe, well at least Iceberg Silver is common on the 172s)

I will post the the RR printouts when I get back on sunday, have fun folks!

PS. Watch out for shovels, theyre a b**ch!

 

[Slugger]

John - Thats a real bummer

About the work, do they remap the standard ecu chip or do they put in a superchip and remap that?

 

[Roamer]

They remap the standard ECU, it means no-one can see any physical alteration - very cool indeed....

Ive just got back in from work, and on the way home I tested out the rev limiter in 2nd and 3rd again, just to make sure Ive got it right, now the limiter in both gears is deffo .... wait for it......8000rpm, that means doing about 68-9 in 2nd, and about 97-8 in 3rd..... I had to retest it, cos I couldnt believe the result on the way back on friday, couldnt test 4th cos I just had the thought that someone with a nice blue light setup might want some info on the car if I did and as Ive just changed my plates, Id have to explain that to them

 

[OutKa5t]

bummer about the damage Roamer! Great results though and nice to see a 172 responding to some tweeking on the rollers!

 

[Nick Read]

oh dear another how a rolling road works thread! My *opinion* which anyone can take or leave:

1. You cannot compare results at two different rolling roads eg Car A gets 130 hp at RR A and Car B gets 140 at RR B, this doesnt mean that Car A is less powerful than Car B. As we are generally talking about variations of less than say 30% in power between one Clio and another (when we do comparisons between our own cars), you cannot compare different results at different rollers. If the differences were much more obvious and marked eg. Car A hits 280hp at RR A and Car B runs 140hp at RR B, then you can be fairly sure that Car A is the more powerful, barring huge unnoticed errors with RR A. I still dont think you could say it was exactly 140hp more powerful though.

2. Back to back testing of different cars on a single RR (rolling road shootout style) are a pretty good way of comparing the relative power of the different cars. Whether or not the absolute power values are correct, youre likely to get a fairly accurate difference between the power figures measured. When comparing cars in this way, other factors like ambient pressure, air temp etc become insignificant unless there is a big change in the weather during the shootout.

3. I still maintain that the closest to an accurate power figure you will get is *at the wheels*. In fact torque at the wheels is strictly speaking the most accurate but everyone wants power, which is a calculation only one step away from the torque/wheels measurement. Seeing as no-one knows the trans loss of say a 16v Clio, and Renault wont reveal what it is either, there is no way anyone can say with *certainty* that the flywheel power figure is x times more than the wheels figure. You can approximate, sure, and thats fine as long as you dont fall into the trap of believing that the figure is as accurate as at the wheels. Ive been to a lot of rolling roads and run my car up on them, and to me it seems nonsense to suggest that my Clios trans loss can vary between 10 and 35% on different roads and different runs. Thats bullsh*t. It should be perfectly obvious that its not the cars trans loss that is changing, but that the different figures are a consequence of using different rolling roads. It is also ridiculous when you look at shootout results of very similar cars, and on the rollers car A makes say 140 at the wheels and car B makes 150 at the wheels. Then strangely enough they both have different trans loss figures that make them much closer when you find out the flywheel figure eg. 172 and 174 bhp. Another weird example is when you put a car on in 3rd gear and it makes more flywheel power than in 4th gear. Yes there is a difference, but not in the *power* that the engine makes at the same point in the revs! Again, a consequence of what I call made-up trans loss derived from things like coastdown loss etc. In my opinion power at the flywheel is all very well but I dont trust it and will continue to only use power and torque at the wheels as my benchmark.

 

[ak_uk]

Good results on the RR Roamer, shame about the M40!

Mine @ PE - posted previously - were:

HP IK (inc. twin scoops) and exhaust 122ATW 141lb/166ATFW

HP IK, exhaust and fuelling 140ATW 154lb/174ATFW

Although that is with *no* increased rev limit. Would that make the difference I wonder? An 8k rev coupled with those excellent in gear top speeds sounds fun ....

 

[Slugger]

John - Cool thats what I wanted to hear

 

[Roamer]

ak_uk - Dont think the rev limit will make a power difference, mine (As the profile says) was 184 @ 6091 rpm, but it does mean you get the jump on others, gear changing later etc etc.

Now, anyone got some ideas on how to get to 200+bhp?????

 

[orlandopaulo]

clio rs cup racer and tuner, says that 20hp are granted with filter, cams and new ecu program.. removing the part of the exaust that lowers emissions and putting a tube instead, 4-5hp "maybe"..

For 200+... without no other change... NOS

 

[JJ172]

A number of people have suggested to me that replacing the air filter on the 172 makes quite a big performance difference, which is very unusual in naturally aspirated engine tuning. It would be interesting to find out the performance gains of -just- an exhaust and then -just- an air filter and the combined effect of -both-.

Do we think that the Viper kit/Superchip gives more power than Nick Hills IK/chip?

 

[BRUN]

well obviously i dont know, but Nick should have some rollers up and runnin in the next few weeks, so if there is a difference i doubt it will be anythin more than 1-3bhp, which you wont be able to measure properly between cars anywayz

 

[telford_mike]

JJ - I have exactly that - Pipercross panel filter and a Magnex. Dunno whether its made much difference, but my best time at York was ok compared with the other Mk2 172s (cue Matt who was faster!).

Planning on doing a Viper and de-cat pipe in the new year, then a trip to PE to get the same Superchip & custom map that Roamer got.

Dont know what improvements the Hillpower set-up gives, but I would have thought a similar amount. The formula of increasing the cold-air, fitting a freer flowing exhaust then setting up the fuelling & timing to suit is common to both solutions.

 

[Roamer]

I have the feeling Im being followed

Time for that Rover V8 conversion eh? hehehe

 

[telford_mike]

LOL! If you think Im spending next summer watching a bad-ass silver 172 disappear into the distance every time we go to a track or a strip youre sadly mistaken!! The only thing that might stop me is insolvency...

 

[Captain Slarty]

Nick.. what do YOU term as transmission loss ?

Joe..