Topic: ROLLING ROAD............. (Read 6031 times)

MikeDundee · « **on:** 06 June 2009, 22:04:17 »

....put the car on the rolling road today at PVS.......

James Q · « **Reply #1 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:05:21 »

awsome result there bud! well done, bet u were very chuffed!?

MikeDundee · « **Reply #2 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:07:58 »

Very Pleased

AndyVXR300 · « **Reply #3 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:20:40 »

Very good for a 2.6 Mike

MikeDundee · « **Reply #4 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:23:53 »

Quote

Very good for a 2.6 Mike

Has 3 litre cams in it now, at least that's what Mark told me anyway

ally_cover_expert · « **Reply #5 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:29:29 »

Very smart looking motor that mate

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #6 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:33:34 »

Is that crank or rear wheels?

Before mine stuffed itself on Thursday I matched a 3.0 speed at a certain spot without really trying.

Hopefully it will run again tomorrow

A cam locating pin fell out

MikeDundee · « **Reply #7 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:35:50 »

Quote

Is that crank or rear wheels?

Before mine stuffed itself on Thursday I matched a 3.0 speed at a certain spot without really trying.

Hopefully it will run again tomorrow

A cam locating pin fell out

Assume it's the rear wheels

Darth Loo-knee · « **Reply #8 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:37:00 »

Should have let the handbrake off Countess

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #9 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:38:15 »

Quote

Quote
Is that crank or rear wheels?

Before mine stuffed itself on Thursday I matched a 3.0 speed at a certain spot without really trying.

Hopefully it will run again tomorrow

A cam locating pin fell out

Assume it's the rear wheels

If it is that would be better than a std 3.0

No wonder I matched an MV6 speed with mine on Wednesday! 8-)

MikeDundee · « **Reply #10 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:39:05 »

Quote

Should have let the handbrake off Countess

Knew there was something not quite right

....If I only had the power of the force

Darth Loo-knee · « **Reply #11 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:40:00 »

Quote

Quote
Should have let the handbrake off Countess

Knew there was something not quite right ....If I only had the power of the force

If you had released the force from the handbrake the power would have been there

ally_cover_expert · « **Reply #12 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:40:15 »

Quote

Is that crank or rear wheels?

Before mine stuffed itself on Thursday I matched a 3.0 speed at a certain spot without really trying.

Hopefully it will run again tomorrow
A cam locating pin fell out

It will run again tomorrow! have faith! it might run like a bag of sh*te but it will run..
no seriousley mate I really do hope youv'e got away with it! fingers crossed

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #13 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:40:35 »

Quote

Quote
Should have let the handbrake off Countess

Knew there was something not quite right ....If I only had the power of the force

You'll have to borrow LKs light sabre

MikeDundee · « **Reply #14 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:42:03 »

Quote

Quote
Quote
Should have let the handbrake off Countess

Knew there was something not quite right ....If I only had the power of the force

If you had released the force from the handbrake the power would have been there

Think I'll go and ask for a refund

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #15 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:43:40 »

Quote

Quote
Is that crank or rear wheels?

Before mine stuffed itself on Thursday I matched a 3.0 speed at a certain spot without really trying.

Hopefully it will run again tomorrow
A cam locating pin fell out
It will run again tomorrow! have faith! it might run like a bag of sh*te but it will run..
no seriousley mate I really do hope youv'e got away with it! fingers crossed

Thanks

I was amazed all the valves were OK, I was in the rain popping them out turning them around and seein gno runout.

Put petrol in the ports, didn't go down over 15 minutes.

At about 16:45 the light was too bad I was cold, tired and wet and cam belt was next job, so finished.

Just got to torque the pulleys, fit cam belt, cover, aux belt, bagpipes, plenum, bolt up exhaust, drop a little oil (rain got in), then hope for best

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #16 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:44:49 »

Great figures whatever Mike, I think the 2.6 is now pretty tunable - I am considering a remap if it survives to October.

ally_cover_expert · « **Reply #17 on:** 06 June 2009, 22:55:07 »

Quote

Quote
Quote
Is that crank or rear wheels?

Before mine stuffed itself on Thursday I matched a 3.0 speed at a certain spot without really trying.

Hopefully it will run again tomorrow
A cam locating pin fell out
It will run again tomorrow! have faith! it might run like a bag of sh*te but it will run..
no seriousley mate I really do hope youv'e got away with it! fingers crossed

Thanks

I was amazed all the valves were OK, I was in the rain popping them out turning them around and seein gno runout.

Put petrol in the ports, didn't go down over 15 minutes.

At about 16:45 the light was too bad I was cold, tired and wet and cam belt was next job, so finished.

Just got to torque the pulleys, fit cam belt, cover, aux belt, bagpipes, plenum, bolt up exhaust, drop a little oil (rain got in), then hope for best[/quote] This is what its all about, getting your hands dirty! we are the last of a dying breed.
The youth of today just can't be arsed with repairing anything!
God help us when we end up in nursing homes

Kevin Wood · « **Reply #18 on:** 06 June 2009, 23:03:13 »

That figure will be at the crank, I think. Still, very encouraging.

Couldn't they find a bigger fan to keep 'er cool, then?

Kevin

AndyVXR300 · « **Reply #19 on:** 06 June 2009, 23:04:59 »

Quote

Great figures whatever Mike, I think the 2.6 is now pretty tunable - I am considering a remap if it survives to October.

Remapping is the way forward Martin

feeutfo · « **Reply #20 on:** 07 June 2009, 01:46:17 »

crank would have thought, 3 3.2's at the oof abs rolling road day all put out 180 at the wheels and 230 ish calculated at the crank iirc. 50 lost in the drive train would suggest a manual box next mike....perhaps not.

abs light on?

Kevin Wood · « **Reply #21 on:** 07 June 2009, 02:24:10 »

Losses at a rolling road are misleading. Remember the wheels are strapped down onto two rollers - so 2 contact patches instead of one, and a good bit of extra weight on the wheels. If you were really losing 50 BHP in the drivetrain it would overheat very quickly.

The calibration of the drivetrain losses also doesn't normally work very well with an automatic gearbox.

Incidentally, I saw a similar rolling road at a kit car show recently. Car went on it with a bit of gravel in the tread. Gravel flew out like bullets, mercifully missed the spectators and shattered the driver's side window of the operator's van.

Kevin

Omegatoy · « **Reply #22 on:** 07 June 2009, 08:14:29 »

Quote

Losses at a rolling road are misleading. Remember the wheels are strapped down onto two rollers - so 2 contact patches instead of one, and a good bit of extra weight on the wheels. If you were really losing 50 BHP in the drivetrain it would overheat very quickly.

The calibration of the drivetrain losses also doesn't normally work very well with an automatic gearbox.

Incidentally, I saw a similar rolling road at a kit car show recently. Car went on it with a bit of gravel in the tread. Gravel flew out like bullets, mercifully missed the spectators and shattered the driver's side window of the operator's van.

Kevin

Agreed!!! auto,s are actually a variable torque multiplyer and no program written yet can extrapolate it correctly, rr operators usually lock in third, to minimise the impact, but its still a fact that auto,s consistently read higher than a manual , purely because of the variable drive, however not taking anything away form the result Mick,
thats damn good for a diesel

MikeDundee · « **Reply #23 on:** 07 June 2009, 08:21:22 »

Quote

crank would have thought, 3 3.2's at the oof abs rolling road day all put out 180 at the wheels and 230 ish calculated at the crank iirc. 50 lost in the drive train would suggest a manual box next mike....perhaps not.

abs light on?

Not sure whether ABS light on, and the car is already a manual, according to the printout looks like the car was in third gear. They also do remap's aswell at £250, was tempted but decided not too.

MikeDundee · « **Reply #24 on:** 07 June 2009, 08:22:47 »

Quote

Quote
Losses at a rolling road are misleading. Remember the wheels are strapped down onto two rollers - so 2 contact patches instead of one, and a good bit of extra weight on the wheels. If you were really losing 50 BHP in the drivetrain it would overheat very quickly.

The calibration of the drivetrain losses also doesn't normally work very well with an automatic gearbox.

Incidentally, I saw a similar rolling road at a kit car show recently. Car went on it with a bit of gravel in the tread. Gravel flew out like bullets, mercifully missed the spectators and shattered the driver's side window of the operator's van.

Kevin

Agreed!!! auto,s are actually a variable torque multiplyer and no program written yet can extrapolate it correctly, rr operators usually lock in third, to minimise the impact, but its still a fact that auto,s consistently read higher than a manual , purely because of the variable drive, however not taking anything away form the result Mick,
thats damn good for a diesel

That's what I thought

Marks DTM Calib · « **Reply #25 on:** 07 June 2009, 10:20:37 »

Quote

Quote
crank would have thought, 3 3.2's at the oof abs rolling road day all put out 180 at the wheels and 230 ish calculated at the crank iirc. 50 lost in the drive train would suggest a manual box next mike....perhaps not.

abs light on?

Not sure whether ABS light on, and the car is already a manual, according to the printout looks like the car was in third gear. They also do remap's aswell at £250, was tempted but decided not too.

Excellent, that confirms the work done has achieved its goals

You might get a bit more with exhaust changes on yours to as I am sure the centre sections are original.

And (excluding repairs), all for less than the cost of a chip!

MikeDundee · « **Reply #26 on:** 07 June 2009, 10:29:01 »

Quote

Quote
Quote
crank would have thought, 3 3.2's at the oof abs rolling road day all put out 180 at the wheels and 230 ish calculated at the crank iirc. 50 lost in the drive train would suggest a manual box next mike....perhaps not.

abs light on?

Not sure whether ABS light on, and the car is already a manual, according to the printout looks like the car was in third gear. They also do remap's aswell at £250, was tempted but decided not too.

Excellent, that confirms the work done has achieved its goals

You might get a bit more with exhaust changes on yours to as I am sure the centre sections are original.

And (excluding repairs), all for less than the cost of a chip!

Nothing has been done to the exhaust since I have had it, only the back box......would replacement sections be same as existing or something else, stainless?

MikeDundee · « **Reply #27 on:** 07 June 2009, 10:32:45 »

If the standard was 176 bhp before the work done then an increase of 18.9bhp so yes excellent indeed

steverubberduck · « **Reply #28 on:** 07 June 2009, 15:31:48 »

whats the differance between clutch and pedal hp?
My printout says 215 bhp at the clutch, and 241 max torque.
I know that's a little better than the 2.6, but looks a good difference.
It's also nice to show the results together

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #29 on:** 07 June 2009, 16:13:37 »

We need to see the graph Mike.

They are fun these tweaked 2.6s aren't they

MikeDundee · « **Reply #30 on:** 07 June 2009, 16:32:55 »

Here's a pic of the printout: not sure about the bits in green at the bottom eg BP, RH, CK etc if someone could explain, as all the bloke done was give me the bit of papaer and keys and pissed off basically, never explained anything, then again I never asked, pretty good for £45

Kevin Wood · « **Reply #31 on:** 07 June 2009, 17:26:53 »

BP= Barometric Pressure
RH= Relative Humidity
AT= Air Temperature

All entered / measured to compensate for weather conditions so, in theory, the same engine always gives the same result.

Not sure about the rest. :-/

Kevin

MikeDundee · « **Reply #32 on:** 07 June 2009, 17:29:35 »

Quote

BP= Barometric Pressure
RH= Relative Humidity
AT= Air Temperature

All entered / measured to compensate for weather conditions so, in theory, the same engine always gives the same result.

Not sure about the rest. :-/

Kevin

Interesting 8-)

Kevin Wood · « **Reply #33 on:** 07 June 2009, 17:48:21 »

Interesting to compare the graph with standard:

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1166809967

Peak torque is exactly the same at 250 Nm. We expect this since it's broadly proportional to engine capacity, which hasn't changed.

We can see that the torque used to peak at around 3,000 RPM with a smaller peak at 5,000. We have lost a little around 3,000 RPM if the OEM graphs are to be believed but the peak around 5,000 is more pronounced and since power = torque x RPM this gives better peak power.

The ripples you can see are contributions from resonance in the exhaust and induction system. At some engine speeds they contribute torque. At others they strangle it slightly.

The shape of the graph looks good. Fairly flat torque and building power up to 5200 RPM or so. The way the power flattens after that, but doesn't take a dive until the rev limiter makes me wonder if it's limited by breathing rather than cam profile - i.e. if you can get the exhaust and intake to flow freely enough there might be more to come. Might ultimately be limited by valve size or something - less easy to improve.

It's certainly a believeable plot. Real figures there rather than "bragging down the pub" figures.

Kevin

MikeDundee · « **Reply #34 on:** 07 June 2009, 18:01:53 »

Quote

Interesting to compare the graph with standard:

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1166809967

Peak torque is exactly the same at 250 Nm. We expect this since it's broadly proportional to engine capacity, which hasn't changed.

We can see that the torque used to peak at around 3,000 RPM with a smaller peak at 5,000. We have lost a little around 3,000 RPM if the OEM graphs are to be believed but the peak around 5,000 is more pronounced and since power = torque x RPM this gives better peak power.

The ripples you can see are contributions from resonance in the exhaust and induction system. At some engine speeds they contribute torque. At others they strangle it slightly.

The shape of the graph looks good. Fairly flat torque and building power up to 5200 RPM or so. The way the power flattens after that, but doesn't take a dive until the rev limiter makes me wonder if it's limited by breathing rather than cam profile - i.e. if you can get the exhaust and intake to flow freely enough there might be more to come. Might ultimately be limited by valve size or something - less easy to improve.

It's certainly a believeable plot. Real figures there rather than "bragging down the pub" figures.

Kevin

Even more interesting now you have explained in a bit more detail the reading on the graph

.....Should the torque be climbing similar to the BHP?......Maybe why Mark suggested some work on the exhaust, assuming he meant mid sections of the exhaust

steverubberduck · « **Reply #35 on:** 07 June 2009, 18:05:06 »

if you want to compare...

MikeDundee · « **Reply #36 on:** 07 June 2009, 18:23:29 »

Cheers for that nice to compare yes, would'nt been easier to compare with a similar readout on mine, appear mine fluctuates (ripples as kev said) as your readout looks more steady

Marks DTM Calib · « **Reply #37 on:** 07 June 2009, 20:15:15 »

Mick, I suspect your exhauts centre section baffles are collapsing (they rattle) and hence where I suspect the next limit is.

It is a nice power delivery.....good and smooth.

AndyVXR300 · « **Reply #38 on:** 07 June 2009, 20:55:49 »

Quote

Quote
Very good for a 2.6 Mike

Has 3 litre cams in it now, at least that's what Mark told me anyway

Trust my man trust..........

Marks DTM Calib · « **Reply #39 on:** 07 June 2009, 20:59:20 »

Quote

Cheers for that nice to compare yes, would'nt been easier to compare with a similar readout on mine, appear mine fluctuates (ripples as kev said) as your readout looks more steady

Your readout looks very real.....a smooth line generally is only seen on electric motors (perhaps it was a Prius)

AndyVXR300 · « **Reply #40 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:01:39 »

Quote

Quote
Cheers for that nice to compare yes, would'nt been easier to compare with a similar readout on mine, appear mine fluctuates (ripples as kev said) as your readout looks more steady

Your readout looks very real.....a smooth line generally is only seen on electric motors (perhaps it was a Prius)

Very good Mark

Elite Pete · « **Reply #41 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:18:03 »

Not bad Mike

pity its still not enough

AndyVXR300 · « **Reply #42 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:21:46 »

Quote

Not bad Mike

Come on Pete mention the MX-5

Elite Pete · « **Reply #43 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:27:06 »

Quote

Quote
Not bad Mike

Come on Pete mention the MX-5

As if I would

AndyVXR300 · « **Reply #44 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:30:55 »

You would though Pete and love it

Martin_1962 · « **Reply #45 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:34:53 »

Mike do you think that with a stainless sports exhaust and a remap it would have that MX5?

Del Boy · « **Reply #46 on:** 07 June 2009, 21:43:55 »

Good result mate, love you car too

MikeDundee · « **Reply #47 on:** 08 June 2009, 05:22:43 »

Quote

Mick, I suspect your exhauts centre section baffles are collapsing (they rattle) and hence where I suspect the next limit is.

It is a nice power delivery.....good and smooth.

Ok so reading all the other threads etc., looks like that's what I need to get sorted first, so just to clarify is the following the correct part numbers for the exhaust: 93181162 & 93181157 silencer and centre pipes.

MikeDundee · « **Reply #48 on:** 08 June 2009, 05:25:50 »

Quote

Not bad Mike
pity its not a hairdryer though

Too many of those around here already

News:

Author Topic: ROLLING ROAD............. (Read 6031 times)

ally_cover_expert

Martin_1962

Martin_1962

ally_cover_expert

Martin_1962

Martin_1962

Martin_1962

ally_cover_expert

feeutfo

Martin_1962

Martin_1962