67 replies to this topic

[PaulCP]

Just can't help thiniking that fitting to a 2" Miltek system will be a waste of time though.

Decisions decisions, full system or stay with the current set up

you will be better off fitting a 2.5" or 3" to your sc beast

but that is a slippery slope to eagle rods and forged pistons, then Nick will show you his Harrop and .......

I know Nick is already trying to get me to open the wallet again

Could be another expensive annual service

[Winstar]

I guess a drain pipe, especially covered in a heat reflection material and reaching right to the vent, would be best.

I spoke to John at CS and he verified that the Piper manifold is very good and that I would definitely feel the difference on an NA.

However, he said that if I supercharge the car, the manifold is less critical and that I would not notice the difference.

So, I have decided to forget messing around with the induction (saving £50 or so), the exhaust manifold (saving about £500 when you include fitting), the 2.4 remap (saving £350) and put the £900 saved towards a supercharger. I see its 9.00am so I must stop typing - CS are open for (my) business

have to say I would expect there to be more to gain by fitting a bigger exhaust on the stg 1 conversion, as the stg 2 power is capped by the rod strength, on the stg 1 it's the inlet temps due too having no CC. Therefore I'd have thought the quicker you can get rid of the gasses the better and the more power you'd get.

Edited by Winstar, 03 April 2009 - 09:55 AM.

[Retset]

He didn't say the manifold made no difference but that with the shove of gases going through with a charger, the nice design of manifold was less critical and I would be unlikely to see where my £350 went

I have every intention of going Stage 1 SC and leaving it just that so don't want to spend unnecessarily. If I need a new rad at some point though, I might look into charge coolers etc.

Mind you, when I bought it 15 months ago my intentions were to replace the rusty fuel filler nuts and upgrade pads and fluid and then leave it alone. Looks like I failed miserabley . I haven't told SWMBO just how much I fancy a set of Randy Nitrons either

[Exmantaa]

With an SC you just have to get rid of all your exhaust gasses FAST. Therefore a (big) 4-1 is here better than a neat 4-2-1 design. The standard manifold will work OK (to a certain level...), as the bottleneck is in the small downpipe and backbox.

[Retset]

Therefore a (big) 4-1 is here better than a neat 4-2-1 design.

I remember John saying something like that as well!

For Stage 1, I reckon I will be very happy with what's there and it is a great £/bhp option. I imagine as you get more and more power the costs sky rocket and include a whopping 3" full exhaust system!

[Exmantaa]

There will be always a next bottleneck which caps power... From backbox/downpipe/cat you move to exh. manifold. Then the exhaust ports will need attention, etc. etc.

[Retset]

Indeed, there is only one limit as to how powerful you can go .... your wallet!!!

Edit: Just realised what good value a VX is when it comes to tuning. Have you seen what it costs to bung a Honda engine into a K series Elise and gett 220bhp? Linky.

Edited by Retset, 03 April 2009 - 12:31 PM.

[techieboy]

Just realised what good value a VX is when it comes to tuning. Have you seen what it costs to bung a Honda engine into a K series Elise and gett 220bhp? Linky.

Keep up the good work. At this rate, I'll be able to justify my conversion to the missus before the start of next week.

[Retset]

I used the 'cheaper than an Exige S at £23K' argument

[Winstar]

Indeed, there is only one limit as to how powerful you can go .... your wallet!!!

Edit: Just realised what good value a VX is when it comes to tuning. Have you seen what it costs to bung a Honda engine into a K series Elise and gett 220bhp? Linky.

and they come with FA torque as std.

[NickB787]

Don't want to spoil things but this 2tublar system is amazing when I went out this morning at 3.00 yes 3 am the wife said it sounded quieter than the old Miltek 4-1 is the way for s/c thats it! Also there is a SERIOUS warning about being around a Harrop she is starting to loosen up and she goes like !O S....T" and I have not given been over 6000. Paul stay away from me it could be my turn to return a favour

Edited by NickB777, 03 April 2009 - 10:12 PM.

[Mike (Cliffie)]

Fitted my Piper manifold at the weekend to my current Milltek system and whilst I do not have a power run I can notice the difference in mid range torque. It feels like it has plugged a hole between 3500 and 4500 RPM. Great bit of kit for the money and a no hassle fit.

[TheHood]

Just got back from Courtenays after having my map tweaked after fitting the piper 4-1 an (re)fitting the 2.4 inlet.

Not sure what conclusions you can draw from my plots below because there's differences in the inlet as well as the outlet side.


Courtenay stage 5 with ITG, standard 2.2 inlet and Miltek exhaust.


Courtenay stage 5 with ITG, 2.4 inlet, 4-1 piper, Miltek exhaust and DIY ported throttle body.






In general regardless of inlet etc. the combination of the 2.4 inlet and piper 4-1 gives the best power delivery I've had. There's no flat spots anywhere and when it hits about 4750RPM it just hammers for the redline.

I do have a plot from Courtenays old Dyno where the only difference is the piper 4-1 and it shows similar peak power, but that has the 2.4 mani torque suck-out below about 3800RPM that's now gone.

(edit for spelling)

Edited by TheHood, 05 May 2009 - 06:35 PM.

[Winstar]

Just got back from Courtenays after having my map tweaked after fitting the piper 4-1 an (re)fitting the 2.4 inlet.

Not sure what conclusions you can draw from my plots below because there's differences in the inlet as well as the outlet side.


Courtenay stage 5 with ITG, standard 2.2 inlet and Miltek exhaust.


Courtenay stage 5 with ITG, 2.4 inlet, 4-1 piper, Miltek exhaust and DIY ported throttle body.


In general regardless of inlet etc. the combination of the 2.4 inlet and piper 4-1 gives the best power delivery I've had. There's no flat spots anywhere and when it hits about 4750RPM it just hammers for the redline.

I do have a plot from Courtenays old Dyno where the only difference is the piper 4-1 and it shows similar peak power, but that has the 2.4 mani torque suck-out below about 3800RPM that's now gone.

(edit for spelling)

slightly off topic

Nice torque curve with the 2.4 mani and piper 4-1.

The CM stg5 has the shrick cams and double valve springs so how come the red line is set at 7k when the power curve is still climbing?

[oakmere]

Nice torque curve with the 2.4 mani and piper 4-1. Probably the flattest I have seen for the 2.2. It is just a shame the torque values are so low for a 2.2. The graphs are much better but TMS seemed to be getting 170 - 180 ft-lb of torque with a similar spec of engine on standard cams. It will be nice if we could see your map peaking at 175 ft-lb. Cheers Oakmere

[Winstar]

Nice torque curve with the 2.4 mani and piper 4-1.

Probably the flattest I have seen for the 2.2. It is just a shame the torque values are so low for a 2.2. The graphs are much better but TMS seemed to be getting 170 - 180 ft-lb of torque with a similar spec of engine on standard cams. It will be nice if we could see your map peaking at 175 ft-lb.

Cheers Oakmere

if you look at the graphs then the std cams made more torque but it tails off quickly where as the schrick cams don't lok like they'll hit peak power for another few hundered rpm, also the short runnered piper will be better then higher the rpm compared to the TMS Manifold. IIRC there's a TMS car with TB's and schrick cams (timmyp?) that has a very similar power curve but revs to 7500rpm which is what prompted my inital question.

Well, I was bored this evening so digitised my latest dyno chart at Dyno-Plot. Here's the chart along with the charts for the other 3 main stages in the evolution of my car.



Lowest lines represent the car in standard trim.
Next set is after the TMS Stage2+ package.
Next after the 2.4 inlet, TMS manifold and lots of remappery.
Finally, the highest numbers, after the SC conversion.

I've finally got rid of that hole in the torque curve that's bugged me since day 1 and has only been magnified and shifted slightly by all of the preceding tweakery. Whilst it didn't overly affect anything it (certainly after the 2.4 inlet changes) made the car feel a bit VTEC'like in that there'd almost be a hesitation in delivery before it gathered a second wind and took off again.

Edited by Winstar, 06 May 2009 - 09:22 AM.

[TheHood]

Nice torque curve with the 2.4 mani and piper 4-1.

Probably the flattest I have seen for the 2.2. It is just a shame the torque values are so low for a 2.2. The graphs are much better but TMS seemed to be getting 170 - 180 ft-lb of torque with a similar spec of engine on standard cams. It will be nice if we could see your map peaking at 175 ft-lb.

Cheers Oakmere

I'm not too concerned about the actual numbers. I have a power run from the TMS rollers for my car from way back when the engine was pretty much standard except for a 2.4 inlet that shows more torque than I have now. In reality I'm sure that's not the case - if I put my foot down in third gear at anything above 2000RPM the car feels like it pulls stronger than it did when measured by TMS. Different rollers, different day and they did the run in third gear rather than forth, which may effect the figures?

[TheHood]

Just got back from Courtenays after having my map tweaked after fitting the piper 4-1 an (re)fitting the 2.4 inlet.

Not sure what conclusions you can draw from my plots below because there's differences in the inlet as well as the outlet side.


Courtenay stage 5 with ITG, standard 2.2 inlet and Miltek exhaust.


Courtenay stage 5 with ITG, 2.4 inlet, 4-1 piper, Miltek exhaust and DIY ported throttle body.


In general regardless of inlet etc. the combination of the 2.4 inlet and piper 4-1 gives the best power delivery I've had. There's no flat spots anywhere and when it hits about 4750RPM it just hammers for the redline.

I do have a plot from Courtenays old Dyno where the only difference is the piper 4-1 and it shows similar peak power, but that has the 2.4 mani torque suck-out below about 3800RPM that's now gone.

(edit for spelling)

slightly off topic

Nice torque curve with the 2.4 mani and piper 4-1.

The CM stg5 has the shrick cams and double valve springs so how come the red line is set at 7k when the power curve is still climbing?

There wasn't much discussion about the rev limit. 7k is where it's set as standard for the CS5 and TBH I like the reassurance of a safety margin to protect the bottom end, oil pump gears etc. Also the rev limit puts a limit on my wallet - much higher and I'd be looking into options for pistons, rods, gearbox ratios.....

[oakmere]

I'm not too concerned about the actual numbers. I have a power run from the TMS rollers for my car from way back when the engine was pretty much standard except for a 2.4 inlet that shows more torque than I have now. In reality I'm sure that's not the case - if I put my foot down in third gear at anything above 2000RPM the car feels like it pulls stronger than it did when measured by TMS. Different rollers, different day and they did the run in third gear rather than forth, which may effect the figures? [/quote] I agree that the feel and drivability of the car are more important than dyno figures. Take it over to tms for a comparison go on you know you want to. Good to see some good results with the 2.4 manifold. I know everyone complains about loss of torque but I never really felt it when I fitted mine. Good results once again Cheers Oakmere

[vocky]

I agree about the higher the rpm the more the gear ratios need attention with a 7800rpm limiter I need another gearbox, but luckily have discovered the exact M32 gearbox I need - just need to find a donor car now