|
3 registered members (mrc, Master_Mariner, 1 invisible),
1,164
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums48
Topics103,724
Posts1,170,150
Members1,666
| |
Most Online39,516 Apr 16th, 2026
|
|
|
Another 16VT RR, less torque **cam lobes pic added
#450527
06/10/2007 03:59
06/10/2007 03:59
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,897 New Zealand
Saint
OP
My life on the forum
|
OP
My life on the forum
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,897
New Zealand
|
Had another Dyno day today (RR) and made peak power of 230BHP ATW @1.35bar or 275bhp at the fly (based on 20% loss) It was a let down as I have previously made 260bhp (fly) on the standard turbo at 1.1bar - just 15bhp less Mods I have, SIP, Evo 6 FMIC, 3" exhaust (decat), 75mm DP, external wastegate, (HKS 2535)GT2871R compressor wheel machined into T4 hat with stage 2 .48 T3 exhaust side. Something just isn't right? I have also lost torque The 265 on the standard turbo had no external gate, or 75mm DP either. People are telling me cams but by inspection they look fine. The turbo shop don't think it's the problem - this is now on the thrid variation, what with a stage 2 exhaust turbine, and going from the T04b wheel to GT2871R wheel to try and fix this problem etc Bottom line I am running 6psi more boost 5250rpm for an extra 15bhp. I have got a heap more lag and lost alot of low down BHP - the headline figure is better but the power is down 50bhp at 3400rpm The point that peak power is both times at 5250 makes me think the motor can't breath from some reason. Dyno graph showing standrd turbo at 1.1bar and HKS at 1.35bar Thoughts? 
Last edited by Saint; 07/10/2007 09:48. Reason: update heading
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Saint]
#450541
06/10/2007 04:12
06/10/2007 04:12
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,312 Sandhurst
Begbie
ex El Presidente
|
ex El Presidente
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,312
Sandhurst
|
When you checked the cams, did you take the rocker cover off and check the wear indicators on them? I know Vas said he had issues with his air filter hindering him, so another route, unless you have a beast of a filter 
Your car is Usain Bolt with wellies
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Begbie]
#450552
06/10/2007 04:24
06/10/2007 04:24
|
h2ypr
Unregistered
|
h2ypr
Unregistered
|
Whats the afr? All your mods are spot on btw, so no reason why you should be down on power. Think beggars is on the right lines. Esp since its affecting where power is made.
Ross
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Begbie]
#450556
06/10/2007 04:27
06/10/2007 04:27
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,312 Sandhurst
Begbie
ex El Presidente
|
ex El Presidente
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,312
Sandhurst
|
Ross, the mods should be giving more power than that. Ragz85 from Estonia was getting 330bhp with similar mods (had a tubular manifold and stock internals) and was making 330bhp
Your car is Usain Bolt with wellies
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Begbie]
#450559
06/10/2007 04:29
06/10/2007 04:29
|
h2ypr
Unregistered
|
h2ypr
Unregistered
|
Ross, the mods should be giving more power than that. Ragz85 from Estonia was getting 330bhp with similar mods (had a tubular manifold and stock internals) and was making 330bhp Sorry. I meant the mixture of mods, like there is correct size exhaust, proper fmic etc etc. The power is down i agree. My mistake for not being clear. Ross
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Saint]
#450564
06/10/2007 04:35
06/10/2007 04:35
|
h2ypr
Unregistered
|
h2ypr
Unregistered
|
So its not overfuelling.
Ross
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: ]
#450580
06/10/2007 05:23
06/10/2007 05:23
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 759 England
Danhgt
Enjoying the ride
|
Enjoying the ride
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 759
England
|
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Danhgt]
#450595
06/10/2007 07:02
06/10/2007 07:02
|
Fuel
Unregistered
|
Fuel
Unregistered
|
I think the peak number is pretty okay. You are probably pushing the stock manifold to extreme limits. Tubular manifold on my car made a HUGE difference. A tubular manifold will perhaps give you a peak at higher rpms, but I still think that 0.48 a/r really restricts engine breathing because of backpressure.
You seem to have a bit too much lag. (I have less lag than that and im on 0.63 a/r exhaust) Only thing that pops up in my head as cause for lag is either something with cams/cambelt or a boost leak. (Or maybe even exhaust leak) To be sure it isnt caused by turbo you could always change to a stock 16vt turbo and see if you still have problems. (If you have the time :-) )
I really dont see the point in having 0.48 a/r. Even if its slightly laggier with 0.63 you really never drop below ~4500 rpm when you race.
Last edited by Fuel; 06/10/2007 07:09.
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: ]
#450630
06/10/2007 13:29
06/10/2007 13:29
|
tohmahawk
Unregistered
|
tohmahawk
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: ]
#450649
06/10/2007 14:34
06/10/2007 14:34
|
Vas
Unregistered
|
Vas
Unregistered
|
just back from Athens, looking at your graph Paul. I doubt it's the exhaust manifold to blame. Yesterday, went to RR my car again together with a stock 16VT with EVOCARS chip (modified based on last weeks RR data) and a BIG turbo and freeflowing exhaust/from turbo down. Made over 300bhp wheel and it was running dry (AFR 13+) due to either injectors or pump (stock items) maxing out on 1.3bar. From my last few days experience with RRing my car and a couple of more, and based on the fact that you had decent fueling on (remind me) stock injectors, fuel pump wiring mod and nothing else (and we were running dry on modified EVOCARs chips also on stock pump) I'd point out * restrictive induction * turbo Mind you all the cars we RRed we removed the SIP from the turbo and had them run completely open (this fcuked up fueling on mine as it was tuned to the existing restriction and without it it wasn't rich enough to make power). Anyway, it's an easy enough test to remove the whole filter assembly (from the turbo) and drive around to see if it feels like it's picking up better, boosts earlier, drying up from fuel- cannot see this one without a wideband though. Mine made a hell of a difference without the filter. The second possibility (turbo) is obviously much more difficult to assess though... Still a bit confused as it seems that your engine is not getting enough air in (else you'd be running dry with crap AFR like we did  You on a 3bar fpr from a 20vt or the stock 2.5bar one? V.
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR - more boost less torque
[Re: Saint]
#450719
06/10/2007 17:28
06/10/2007 17:28
|
Fuel
Unregistered
|
Fuel
Unregistered
|
OK. With that a/r it shouldnt be the restriction. Due to the design of the stock manifold, I really dont think you should be using it for high effect output. (Reminds me of saab 900 manifolds, wich were glowing red after you took the car for a ride :-), not very effective)
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR, less torque **cam lobes pic added
[Re: Saint]
#451040
07/10/2007 09:59
07/10/2007 09:59
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,897 New Zealand
Saint
OP
My life on the forum
|
OP
My life on the forum
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,897
New Zealand
|
Took the cam covers off today to do an inspection - are these alright - they look a bit worn on the surface but not compared to the wear indicators I say that because at the peak of the lobe they are deffinately marked and there are circles (like the inside of a tree when you cut it down) but they don't seem worn compared to the indicators - it has done 110km's so they won't be prefect The number 1 lobes have about 5-6 circles(tree trunk type) which are the worst I could see but I didn't turn the motor over with the cam cover off. I'm not sure as they still seem to be fine looking at the indictors begbie metioned. Is there wear here and is it enough to explain my low BHP issues i'll try and get some better pics if these are too hard to tell trying to show tree rings tree rings again wear indictors look o.k though? best of the bunch scuffed or wear on sides of lobes
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR, less torque **cam lobes pic added
[Re: Saint]
#451052
07/10/2007 13:35
07/10/2007 13:35
|
Vas
Unregistered
|
Vas
Unregistered
|
so, doesn't look like cams wear then Paul... which unfortunately leaves us with turbo probs. Unless someone comes up with a better idea
V.
|
|
|
Re: Another 16VT RR, less torque **cam lobes pic added
[Re: Saint]
#451141
07/10/2007 17:50
07/10/2007 17:50
|
Vas
Unregistered
|
Vas
Unregistered
|
I've heard of a grale doing around 400bhp (fly) with intercooler, T35 turbo, program et al (stock motor internals) so probably would be possible to get something more. But again it all depends on the accuracy of the RR! Maybe the one you're using is a "tight" one. The only true measure is going to the same RR so you compare your own results. Now how it fares compared to other cars, god knows (and we shouldn't really be that bothered tbh)
V.
|
|
|
|