72 replies to this topic

[Jon Fuller]

from 40 - 100 = 6s , this was a very long time ago, done on the Chobham test track

Quick!
What state of tune is that with. looking at my vid, I don't think mine's doing any better than 10 secs 40>100 as it is.

[Jon Fuller]

Wright stuff- just out of curiosity how come you went up then back to stage 1+ again? I still argue that from a standard car there is absolutely no better value for money power upgrade available than stage 1+

What he said!

[WrightStuff]

Wright stuff- just out of curiosity how come you went up then back to stage 1+ again? I still argue that from a standard car there is absolutely no better value for money power upgrade available than stage 1+

What he said!

Had a problem with the Milltek so had to swap it out. Not done on £ or performance grounds.

[Jon Fuller]

Wright stuff- just out of curiosity how come you went up then back to stage 1+ again? I still argue that from a standard car there is absolutely no better value for money power upgrade available than stage 1+

What he said!

Had a problem with the Milltek so had to swap it out. Not done on £ or performance grounds.

What kind of problem?

[Trevsked]

Jon, Have you tried Dynolicious on your iPhone. If not search the app store. Pretty accurate. Trevor.

[Jon Fuller]

UPDATE: After the CS2 remap, my rather loud VX220t showed 239hp @5000rpm on the RR with peak torque of 274ftlbs @ 4000rpm. I notice plenty of folk on here say stage 2 is 250+hp, and some even claim their's to be 260, but Courtenay said it would be circa 240, and it was. My test: before the remap, and doing the acceleration test solely in 4th gear, 50 to 120 took 14.4 seconds, post remap it takes 11.7 seconds, so a definite improvement, though again, not as quick as many seem to report. 50 to 100 was 7.2 seconds and 50 to 80 was 4.2 seconds, all done in 4th gear. might try the 50 to 80, and 50 to 100 in 3rd gear and see what I get. Thoughts??? JF

Edited by Jon Fuller, 11 August 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[spuk87]

Agreed not very powerful for stage 2, I've got more with standard cat and back box, and very nearly as much torque. Also peak power at 5k revs is lower than it should be, there's still 1.5k to the red line at that point.

[Jon Fuller]

Agreed not very powerful for stage 2, I've got more with standard cat and back box, and very nearly as much torque. Also peak power at 5k revs is lower than it should be, there's still 1.5k to the red line at that point.

Out of interest, how were your figures measured?

[spuk87]

On-Road dyno so admittedly not a straight or totally fair comparison. Either way tho I think you can expect more than you've got there, IMO.

[CHILL Gone DUTCH]

Agreed not very powerful for stage 2, I've got more with standard cat and back box, and very nearly as much torque. Also peak power at 5k revs is lower than it should be, there's still 1.5k to the red line at that point.

Are you running stage 2???

[Jon Fuller]

Agreed not very powerful for stage 2, I've got more with standard cat and back box, and very nearly as much torque. Also peak power at 5k revs is lower than it should be, there's still 1.5k to the red line at that point.

Are you running stage 2???

According to his profile, MMG stage 1.5

Edited by Jon Fuller, 11 August 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[Jon Fuller]

Either way tho I think you can expect more than you've got there, IMO.

That's a difficult one, because after reading many posts on here, I was under the impression I could expect 250+hp by going to stage 2, but when I actually spoke to Courtenay Sport, they said from the outset, stage 2 with a Milltek (as apposed to their 3" system) will produce about 240hp if all's well with the motor etc, with their 3" exhaust, 245....

So to get pretty much spot on the 240hp they said it would be, it's kind'a hard to complain. I think my expectations were set artificially high by reading posts on here.

This is kind of why I would like to see more people do the test as I've laid out above, because as long as you've checked the accuracy of your speedo first, the stopwatch will give a very 'true' and accurate comparison from car to car, with no grey area that differing dyno's, and methods of measuring (or guessing) the power introduces.
videoing the speedo and timing it later with the stopwatch. and, doing the tests in one gear only, eliminates all the "you need to subtract XX seconds for my gear change" etc. and you can do the stopwatch thing a few time with the same video clip to get an accurate average. a pull from 40>120 in 4th is not unlike a dyno pull.

Edited by Jon Fuller, 11 August 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[dw1]

I like where you're coming from Jon, it will take out the speculation and help give everyone a guide to what to realistically expect from state of tune. Mine is a TMS stage 2 and gave 227bhp on the dyno, which is low by the sounds of what other people report. There are a few variables that might count for small discrepancies; the video of speedo and stopwatch will only be vaguely accurate as people might place the video in slightly different places so the view of when 60 is hit could translate to a good half a second out. A more accurate way would be smart phone data loggers; dynolicious for example or a cheap/free one that's good enough or a PerformanceBox. Have you tried using on of those? Everyone has a smartphone so it should be possible. To get really accurate you'd also need to take into account; tyre type, gradient, road surface condition, wind, air temperature (a cool evening will make a difference). Like you, I think the real world road test is a good one as it takes out the discrepancies of different dynos.

Edited by dw1, 12 August 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Jon Fuller]

To be honest, with the needle pretty much touching the speedo face, I think parallax error will be minimal unless you shoot the video from a crazy angle, but I take your point. I have dynolicious on my iPhone, but haven't really tried it in anger, as I don't fancy trying to fry my clutch on launches (one of the reasons I like the 50 > 100 type test) and am more than slightly apprehensive about the accuracy of a mobile phone accelerometer/gps etc. I honestly think that if you check your 'dial' speedo against a proper gps, and video it sensibly, you can get some reasonably accurate figures, certainly as good as the eye/finger can capture when timing, but of course you can do 10, and take the average if you want to be sure you're as close as can be. Even if the speedo was out by a few percent, the timing of the change in speed from X to X will be good enough, even if X1=47mph and X2= 97mph, it's still measuring the rate of change through 50mph in the range required. My personal opinion is starting to lean towards thinking that most people want to believe the best spurious number they can get and cast it in stone as fact, however hopelessly optimistic they might be. We see this a lot in powerboating, where most will quote the top speed of their boat, as the highest ever seen gps reading. As gps measures ground speed, and a boat travelling at 80mph on a body of water thats moving in the same direction (with tidal flow) at 6mph will be travelling at a ground speed of 86mph, you can see where human nature / optimism ends up with a boater who 'swears' his boat runs 86. of course, if he were to turn 180 degrees and run back, his gps would read 74mph, but you rarely hear people repeat the 'low' numbers. I ran on Southampton water yesterday, with a gps indication of 72mph one way, and 68mph the other. I make that 70mph. Anyway, agreed, a long, straight, flat (off highway runway) is needed, and if we could, 20 degrees C and constant humidity would be nice as a repeatable yardstick. it was a hot day when they remaped and dyno'd my vx, with an indicated inlet temp of 70 degrees, so one hopes on a cooler day it 'might' make a slightly higher number, but who knows. I also remember many years ago discussing with a friend about the development of a small aero engine, at the time I think lotus were doing one, Richard Noble company was doing one, and my friends brother was doing one (Hewland engineering, my friend being John Hewland (now dead), brother of Michael Hewland, founder of the big gearbox & kart engine builder). Michael had come to the conclusion that the various dyno's used by the companies all gave massively differing readings. Things may have moved on, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the various current dyno's, and other forms of 'measurement', vary A LOT. An old sceptic.

[Jon Fuller]

Oh, and we all need to weigh the same too, so I'd better go on a diet.

[dw1]

To be honest, with the needle pretty much touching the speedo face, I think parallax error will be minimal unless you shoot the video from a crazy angle, but I take your point.

Good point, that way is probably a good enough starting point AND you used the word parallax, which trumps me

Like you, I always have the feeling mine is 'under' the norm as everyone else's stage 2 is at least 240. I think I have the lowest stg 2 out there.

[Jon Fuller]

I think I have the lowest stg 2 out there.

Get out there with ya iphone gaffer'd to the steering wheel, and do the 40>120 thing. Lets get a database started. your's might be just as quick as the 'allegedly' more powerful ones! or quicker, who knows.

[Detta]

I think you're right Jon, but to some extent every setup is going to have it's own charactaristics; there are just so many variables!

I have some TMS Dyno printouts of the progress mine made on it's journey to S4.

Standard it was pretty much bang on factory expectations and clocked at 197.7.

At Stage 2 it only managed 235.8.

And finally at stage 4 it produced a torque'y 283.1, well under the 'easily obtained' 300+ most people tend to report.

If it's of any use to you let me know and I'll take a snap and post the readouts here for you.

[Jon Fuller]

I think you're right Jon, but to some extent every setup is going to have it's own charactaristics; there are just so many variables!

I have some TMS Dyno printouts of the progress mine made on it's journey to S4.

Standard it was pretty much bang on factory expectations and clocked at 197.7.

At Stage 2 it only managed 235.8.

And finally at stage 4 it produced a torque'y 283.1, well under the 'easily obtained' 300+ most people tend to report.

If it's of any use to you let me know and I'll take a snap and post the readouts here for you.

That would be very useful / interesting, I'll scan the printout I have and post that also.

[Jon Fuller]

forgetting the clutch and other beef up parts for a moment, what further mods were done to get your motor to 280+hp? I know the intercooler is the next big handbrake after exhaust, but did that require pistons, rods etc to help it stay in one bit?