Lee P Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Thor's dyno figures are flywheel figures which it clearly states at the top of the printout if you check it. They always claim its at the hubs but it never is. At the risk of upsetting Paul again, IIRC his 510rwhp is actually at the hubs on Thor's dyno. Unless you've had it measured elsewhere since ths last came up, Paul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Thor's dyno figures are flywheel figures which it clearly states at the top of the printout if you check it. They always claim its at the hubs but it never is. You know that, I know that . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul mac Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Don't be like that Paul, I'm trying to keep it friendly - it's true though that the 510 RWHP you mention is actually at the hubs rather than the wheels, isn't it? yes it is, and your right that will give a higher reading, i used Thor because of their reputation and the fact that Pete was the only guy who could be arsed to speak to me when i wanted the car set up, the power figure to me was really of little interest what i wanted was the car setting up after my single install, the point i am trying to make though is regardless of who dynos or sets the car up you do not need a whizzbang top of the range standalone ecu to control a T61, and if anyone is up my way and wants a test drive in a single that i have made produce boost as low as possible they are more than welcome, i realise that at my next upgrade i will need more than 550's and an SAFC, i will however be making a round trip of 400 miles to Thor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee P Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Wez Im talking from experience with this, I have built a car on a single with 264 cams stock ecu & injectors FMIC and a walbro pump and it made 405bhp at .85bar of boost. And still had loads of fuel left. This setup would be fine if you didnt want big power but you wanted to change the way the stock car drives, I didnt think it would work very well till I tried it and I was very suprised at how the car performed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul mac Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Thor's dyno figures are flywheel figures which it clearly states at the top of the printout if you check it. They always claim its at the hubs but it never is. :rlol: i think that makes us equal as i see yours was mapped by the "legendary" Dan Turner :rlol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee P Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Good point lol, but I did get mine checked at SRR and it made 649bhp at 1.5 bar but more at the wheels. Dans maha seems to give very high transmission losses. The SRR dyno is spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul mac Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Good point lol, but I did get mine checked at SRR and it made 649bhp at 1.5 bar but more at the wheels. Dans maha seems to give very high transmission losses. The SRR dyno is spot on. fair enough, only taking the P, nice car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee P Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Anyway Paul your car must be seriously quick because mine is 551rwhp and it goes quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprafan72 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Anyway Paul your car must be seriously quick because mine is 551rwhp and it goes quite well. Mine just dyno slips at SRR Bloody Turbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee P Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Mine just dyno slips at SRR Bloody Turbo Thats because your car is an animal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprafan72 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Thats because your car is an animal! I blame Ryan G For tuning my car right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee P Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I blame Ryan G For tuning my car right... Its a shame your so far away, would love to go for a spin in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprafan72 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 and id like to in yours mate.. at a meet sometime deffo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 Have you considered one the Link G3 ECUs? Ryan says they're pretty much equal to a MoTeC but are like half the price. Ah, right. Good stuff. I had for some reason thought that Motec map-locking was commonplace. I had heard it was for HKS and thought it was the same for Motec. Cool. Link is something I'm interested in, yep. Found their website before but didn't get too far into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 It's on my list for when I single my grey Supe next year - which is also auto and will have a similar spec to the one you're planning: Cast manifold, small single, 650 PE high/side injectors, stock rail, single Walbro, stock FPD, stock FPR, SMIC. No BS, no bling, all go - no show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 It's on my list for when I single my grey Supe next year - which is also auto and will have a similar spec to the one you're planning: Cast manifold, small single, 650 PE high/side injectors, stock rail, single Walbro, stock FPD, stock FPR, SMIC. No BS, no bling, all go - no show. Sweet You'll probably get there first! I'm not planning it so much as a spend some money and get a fast car thing, I'm more interested in actually doing it, fitting the stuff etc. I'd like to be in a position where I'm driving a different car and can work on this one as time allows. Takes me about ten minutes to read your posts with that avatar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I'm probably repeating others but.... I am considering thinking about (thinking about considering?) going for a small single turbo at some point. Can somebody comment on the following questions? 1. My facelift Jap car already has a MAP sensor, so that should allow for the actual air mass to be calculated from the pressure/density(inverse of temp) for proper fuelling with a fuel controller, right? MAP based is easiest. Air mass is measured by the UK/VVTi/US spec MAF sensors, you don't have one of these and will be solely mapping via manifold pressure (MAP). 2. I want to go the piggyback route (autobox..), so should I look at a MAP2 ECU or an eManage ultimate? I already have a MAP sensor so my car doesn't exactly need converting from MAF to MAP like the yank/uk cars, so does that negate one of the MAP2's main usefulnesses? EMU is your best bet for a piggyback, though you can use a full standalone like a motec M600 or AEM to control JUST the fueling and ignition, leaving the std ecu to do the rest. The MAP ECU does not do timing adjustments and despite some answer you WILL need timing adjustments on a small single because it changes the midrange so much. Get a MAP ECU if you like det.... 3. I would want to retain the stock airbox and intercooler. Is this feasible or do some things just get in the way? My SMIC is very good so I don't want to be told an FMIC will work better, I just want to know if it is actually physically possible to do it. Stock SMIC is possible - I'd get a replacement, so it's new and fully capable, stock or CW. Utilising the stock airbox is possible...but you'll probably need to modify it a bit, think Ryan G did some work on his. Obviously I will need bigger injectors and whatever is required to make them work with the piggyback (rails or whatever.. I have no idea). I want to keep costs down and don't have big horsepower targets or anything. I just want to remove the artificial 4,000rpm lag and have a little extra power. I'd go for a Walbro pump, 650cc High Imp injectors and an aeromotive FPR. this will give you plenty of head room should your plans change after some time...the FPR will also allow you to fine tune the map. I want to use a cast manifold, so basically I am looking at something like the PHR Street kit, except I would use Arnout's manifold. I would expect the PHR or Arnout one's to be the ideal. Any ideas? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 Thanks Alex. My SMIC is a CW one I bought about six months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 That'll be upto the job - certainly is in Branners's T61. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan.G Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Although the motec has the shift Retard function as well as the Autronic. It seems there is no way to trigger it to tell the Ecu to pull the Timing. The only Motec i know of on a Auto does not use the shift retard but then it has a Built drag box which can take the strain on the Sprag. The Link G3's could also be used on Auto's now as found a way to do the shift retard but the problem i have come into is there is no way to trigger the ecu from either a falling or raising edge. I looked into this yesterday on Wes's N/A Auto and was very disappointed that i could not find a signal to trigger it. Not sure if the TT auto will be different in the way it controls the solenoid to tap into the feed to see a signal but its not looking good. I am still going to look into this more with another mapper who is very good with this kinda stuff though. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Wez Im talking from experience with this, I have built a car on a single with 264 cams stock ecu & injectors FMIC and a walbro pump and it made 405bhp at .85bar of boost. And still had loads of fuel left. This setup would be fine if you didnt want big power but you wanted to change the way the stock car drives, I didnt think it would work very well till I tried it and I was very suprised at how the car performed. I've had this post brought to my attention enough times to work up the energy to respond. Datalogs of a 6th gear WOT pull from 2000rpm please. Or a video of the AFR gauge. Anything to show the stock ECU somehow NOT running 14:1 afrs until 4000rpm at full boost. A detcan recording at that point to 4500 once it gets past the transition point that is notorious for causing det on small singles would be nice too. Until then I'm at a loss as to how you can say such things in good faith when the history on this forum of people coming along singing the cheapest, shonkiest single upgrades' praises has been such an expensive disaster. -Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muffleman Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Would definitely like to know more. I am still going to look into this more with another mapper who is very good with this kinda stuff though. Keep us informed dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tDR Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Good reading this thread with many valid points made, but just to add - MAP2 ECU would be absolutely fine. As it stands just now, MAP2 users over here are in the minority but IMO it would be a perfect piggyback to meet your requirements and a perfect ECU for this solution because you're running an autobox. Standalones just aren't proven on autos unfortunately and the cost is usually hugely more expensive by the time you factor in DLi's etc. etc. MAP2 converts your fuelling to run from it's internal 2+bar (boost) MAP sensor. This is it's real selling point (plus the extra features - launch control blah blah blah see their website) because other solutions require the purchase of an add on MAP sensor from an approved list to go beyond roughly 1.1bar boost - more £££'s. I agree the original MAP ECU is not the choice to make given it's timing limitations and my first hand experience of det on a BPU car.... Cheers, Brian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Standalones just aren't proven on autos unfortunately and the cost is usually hugely more expensive by the time you factor in DLi's etc. etc. There is a properly setup AEM running an auto on this board now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tDR Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 There is a properly setup AEM running an auto on this board now Issues with AEM that would put me personally off: 1. Cost 2. Reliability (of the ECU itself) 3. Hidden costs - dli's etc 4. Only one because it's been looked at by a decent mapper but has only been running a very short time and to me is unproven in that respect. Evidence of autobox line pressures vs. stock would be a good indication of whether the configuration will last Cheers, Brian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.