At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Posts about anything do to with modifying your car such as fitting aftermarket parts, bodykit, or tuning the engine for more performance.

Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members

ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

Elmo Owen wrote:The mappers suggested a change in gear ratios to make best use of the rev range,which i found.. odd
But i have yet to find out why its producing these figures.
Having a bit of a dig around for info at the mo.


As Jim says, Tranny losses there are massive.


Owen, your turbo looks similar to the GT3076 I just sold. However we cant tell internal specs from pics.

Image

Image

Whats the a/r of the exhaust side?

Either way it should be coming on around 3400 ish. NOT 5k plus.

Owen, send me a pm and we'll chat mate.
ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

3S Service Centre wrote:Hi Chaps,

I havnt logged on especially to defend T.J they can do it well enough themselves, what i will say is horror stories run riot through forums and tuners/mappers at every turn often for personal gain.

The mapper made it perfectly clear why there is a distinct lack of power and this has not been made perfectly clear above, i feel i need clarifying that the mapping session didnt cost £1400 because this does not do justice to the good work carried out over 4/5 days.

Owens car has stacks stacks more to offer once the mappers comments have been addressed, and i really look forward to seeing it do well.

If it turns out T.J are wrong and i have recommend a bad company i will come to a arrangement with Owen on a tweak tune.

James


And tehse comment were? Change the gearing???? come on lol. Anything else?


Still James, if people have heard and seen 1st hand the bad side of a company it's only fair to comment on it.

Anyway, hope it gets sorted soon.
3S Service Centre
Posts: 3493
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: www.toyotagt.co.uk
Contact:

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by 3S Service Centre »

Your right Enis im the first to complain about bad service, if i thought T.J were wrong with their summary i would have told them so. But i genuinely believe they have a point.

They say:

The exhaust housing is huuuuuge and it is yet known of the real size.
The location,size, efficiency of the cooler is creating silly intake temps.

So during the mapping they tweeked the cams for better spool, it wasnt boosting until 6K at the start.

The power comes on between 5.5k and 8.2 k when it comes is it rips through the revs like a real animal.

Because of the silly intake temps and high revs, the ignition and fueling has been held back from where it needs to be for safety and untill the turbo and cooling has been sorted.

It was said that more power could be achieved but would be risky for little gain due to the above issues, levels of knock were well in check, the engine did rev to 8.5 comfortably.

It was clocked at 158 on a private road when the mapper backed off because things were getting hairy, the mapping is of course very dangerous when it runs off the gauge rapidly and your doing 158.

The silly comments about the rev range/gear ratio were mostly in jest i beleive, but as said before im not defending T.J, if they have goosed up im all ears.

My own opinion is that Owen has a cracking car taking shape, and there will be loads more power when the turbo and intercooler are sorted.
call James on 01256 883386 or 07786073755
jimGTS
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: North Kent

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by jimGTS »

are cars ment to be mapped for top speeds!? :shock:
tonigmr2
IMOC Committee
Posts: 18054
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Here

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by tonigmr2 »

158 is pretty much the limit of the standard gearing, so I can see why he'd make a comment like that in jest. :)

My GT35R is coming in around 4K revs though, 5.5K is far too high for this turbo, so something ain't working right. :-k I also wonder if an IC is sufficient, even if boot mounted, though I know a lot of the jap cars have done this with serious power quite successfully...maybe they put dry ice on before a run though!!
T
ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

3S Service Centre wrote:Your right man im the first to complain about bad service, if i thought T.J were wrong with their summary i would have told them so. But i genuinely believe they have a point.

They say:

The exhaust housing is huuuuuge and it is yet known of the real size.
The location,size, efficiency of the cooler is creating silly intake temps.

So during the mapping they tweeked the cams for better spool, it wasnt boosting until 6K at the start.

The power comes on between 5.5k and 8.2 k when it comes is it rips through the revs like a real animal.

Because of the silly intake temps and high revs, the ignition and fueling has been held back from where it needs to be for safety and untill the turbo and cooling has been sorted.

It was said that more power could be achieved but would be risky for little gain due to the above issues, levels of knock were well in check, the engine did rev to 8.5 comfortably.

It was clocked at 158 on a private road when the mapper backed off because things were getting hairy, the mapping is of course very dangerous when it runs off the gauge rapidly and your doing 158.

The silly comments about the rev range/gear ratio were mostly in jest i beleive, but as said before im not defending T.J, if they have goosed up im all ears.

My own opinion is that Owen has a cracking car taking shape, and there will be loads more power when the turbo and intercooler are sorted.


The exhaust housing should have the a/r printed/stamped on it. Mine was .82. An d should still be coming on strong around 3400.

Owen I think if you dont know the a/r size then you'll need to take off the turbo and see what it says. Even so you will also need to know the internal specs also.

So that IC design is a bad one? I've seen similar designs work well. Maybe stick some puller fans on the back of the IC rather then where they are.
Gordy
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:26 pm

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by Gordy »

158 is pretty much the limit of the standard gearing


... but only if you are limited to standard revs Toni. This fella is reving to 8000 + . I don't know the exact final gearing figures of a standard car (because I have the wrong profile tyre :oops: ) but (and guessing...) if it's around 25mph / 1000 rpm then 8000 rpm is going to be 200 mph. I know tyre drag and aerodynamic drag are going to become the limiting factor before getting to 200, but it should still theoretically be able to exceed 158 surely?
Gordy
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:26 pm

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by Gordy »

puller fans on the back of the IC rather then where they are.


Pusher or puller... it's not so important, but flow rate and sealing them to the IC with a shroud is important.
tonigmr2
IMOC Committee
Posts: 18054
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Here

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by tonigmr2 »

Think you'll find you pretty much run out around 160 or so.

The TRD revs to the same range and ran out of gearing around that mark.

T
Gordy
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:26 pm

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by Gordy »

The TRD revs to the same range and ran out of gearing around that mark


Must be the aerodynamics then.

Ooops - a tad off topic...
tonigmr2
IMOC Committee
Posts: 18054
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Here

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by tonigmr2 »

Definitely the gearing....with miles of space you might squeeze another 5mph or so out of it but that's it. If you don't believe me ask around. :wink:

T
3S Service Centre
Posts: 3493
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: www.toyotagt.co.uk
Contact:

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by 3S Service Centre »

Enis your pesimistic view in people kills me! because its said the ic isnt efficient why would you assume its our design thats no good.

2 Things

1 - Owen purchased the ic form a guy who removed it from his car because it wasnt producing the goods.

2 - Owen was consulted on the design and aggreed it was the best approach.



I love the lynch mod approach and gentle sarcasm that goes through these threads ](*,)


Lets soppose for a second that this is the 100ml version of the turbo, and the intercooler from hell bought second hand thats at fault, then the diagnosis is bang on, power goals that we all dream of very often dont come at the first attempt.

so quick to judge!

I mot'ed the 2.2 today, if after the first dyno tune i dont hit my power goals im not gonna look for solice in mapping (experts) accross the forums who will tell me it was the mappers fault, i will look for the weaknesses in the setup and improve on them, then try again, its just logic.

How many people on this forum had their engine built ready for 500, rolled onto the rollers, and hit their power goals first time????

Anyways im sure all will be revealed in the goodness of time.
call James on 01256 883386 or 07786073755
ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

Gordy wrote:
puller fans on the back of the IC rather then where they are.


Pusher or puller... it's not so important, but flow rate and sealing them to the IC with a shroud is important.


Surely it's better to have fans pulling through the IC rather then just into the boot in general?
ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

3S Service Centre wrote:man your pesimistic view in people kills me! because its said the ic isnt efficient why would you assume its our design thats no good.

2 Things

1 - Owen purchased the ic form a guy who removed it from his car because it wasnt producing the goods.

2 - Owen was consulted on the design and aggreed it was the best approach.



I love the lynch mod approach and gentle sarcasm that goes through these threads ](*,)


Lets soppose for a second that this is the 100ml version of the turbo, and the intercooler from hell bought second hand thats at fault, then the diagnosis is bang on, power goals that we all dream of very often dont come at the first attempt.

so quick to judge!

I mot'ed the 2.2 today, if after the first dyno tune i dont hit my power goals im not gonna look for solice in mapping (experts) accross the forums who will tell me it was the mappers fault, i will look for the weaknesses in the setup and improve on them, then try again, its just logic.

How many people on this forum had their engine built ready for 500, rolled onto the rollers, and hit their power goals first time????

Anyways im sure all will be revealed in the goodness of time.




Myself wrote:So that IC design is a bad one? I've seen similar designs work well.


James, I was asking and stating I have seen it work. Not judging your setup!
Gordy
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:26 pm

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by Gordy »

Surely it's better to have fans pulling through the IC rather then just into the boot in general?


Yes, of course you are right. My point though was that the fan needs to be shrouded to the cooler not just close to it. In the past I had professional involvement with a fan / radiator development task and shrouding the fan to the cooler makes a huge difference. It can be suck-through or blow- through, but either way it needs to be shrouded. The installation in this thread has pusher fans in the boot floor as I understand. That is OK, as long as a shroud seals and connects the periphery of the fans seamlessly to the core. In other words, once the air is through the fan it has absolutely no option but to flow through the core, as the shroud prevents any other course of flow.

Having said all of that, my guess is that intercooler cooling is not the root cause of the problems here, but every little helps...
ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

Gordy wrote:
Surely it's better to have fans pulling through the IC rather then just into the boot in general?


Yes, of course you are right. My point though was that the fan needs to be shrouded to the cooler not just close to it. In the past I had professional involvement with a fan / radiator development task and shrouding the fan to the cooler makes a huge difference. It can be suck-through or blow- through, but either way it needs to be shrouded. The installation in this thread has pusher fans in the boot floor as I understand. That is OK, as long as a shroud seals and connects the periphery of the fans seamlessly to the core. In other words, once the air is through the fan it has absolutely no option but to flow through the core, as the shroud prevents any other course of flow.

Having said all of that, my guess is that intercooler cooling is not the root cause of the problems here, but every little helps...


I see what you are sayin now. I agree.
Owen @ Kent Car Craft
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:43 am
Location: Ramsgate, Kent
Contact:

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by Owen @ Kent Car Craft »

True James,
I thought i had mentioned that the mapping was not the total cost of the £1400 of the bill.Labour was £700.
If this was unclear anywhere in the thread,i have made a mistake as this was not the case.
So,
the factors that i definately know about that will be affecting the tuning potential are as follows,please comment either way:
1 Ignition timing is set to very safe due to rev range.
2 Fueling is set with a good margin for the same reason.
3 The exhaust housing of the turbo is bucket size.
4 The charge temps are too high due to size, location, efficiency of cooler
JD :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
ENSMR2
Posts: 12008
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:35 am

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by ENSMR2 »

Elmo Owen wrote:True James,
I thought i had mentioned that the mapping was not the total cost of the £1400 of the bill.Labour was £700.
If this was unclear anywhere in the thread,i have made a mistake as this was not the case.
So,
the factors that i definately know about that will be affecting the tuning potential are as follows,please comment either way:
1 Ignition timing is set to very safe due to rev range.
2 Fueling is set with a good margin for the same reason.
3 The exhaust housing of the turbo is bucket size.
4 The charge temps are too high due to size, location, efficiency of cooler
JD :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Find out the size of the exhaust housing mate. If it is large like a 1.06 then not much you can do other then making the IC more efficient. Shroud it off completely so air has no where else to go other then into/through the core.

Also maybe change the turbo?
greeny
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: Cleethorpes, N.E.Lincs.

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by greeny »

It would have to be a monster of a turbo to only be startin to spool at 5k+ tho surely?

Either that or the comp and exh housing are not matched very well at all causing very late spool??
Andy Conroy

Re: At last,3 years on... 393hp@8200rpms' is this a little low?!

Post by Andy Conroy »

I'd be very interested in seeing the Timing Curves for this set-up and as tim rightly said and AFR Reading at WOT.

Do you have an EGT if so what are the readings at WOT?

What gas are you using Optimax?

Does your ecu have a wideband input for logging purposes... Have you any idea of your timing readings for your cams? who dialed them in?

For a gt 30 to only start boosting at 5.5 k there is something not quite right there...

With my turbo a GT35R it will hit 15 psi around 4,200rpm a gt 30 should be well before that.

I believe andy f on here has a gt 30 on his motor.

With an 8,500 rpm rev limit you should well exceed the 160 mph barrier in top...
Post Reply

Return to “Modifications”