I.Mupferit Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Well he could never blame the engine builder could he ❗ Brent 2.3 DURATEC SV Reassuringly Expensive R 417.39 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterhamnut Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I was, of course, not referring to anyone in particular....... But that is a good point Brent!! 😬 www.mycaterham.com here Videos here 94,000 miles -1st 1.6k Supersport, '95 Motor Show car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 The reason I dont think EFA has said anything wrong is that I just dont believe power readings on any dyno or RR are particularly accurate. I remember watching my first high power Vx engine on a dyno. It was put through a few power runs and the results varied by over 10BHP. Just letting the thing cool for a minute and doing a power run gave 5BHP more. No doubt a change in ambient temperature or humidity would also make differences. There are so many variables that I personally struggle to attach real significance to the numbers. RR's are by definition even less accurate that dynos as there are even more variables. I have a dyno chart from Swindon showing 249.8BHP and my engine has done about 5 trackdays and very few road miles. It's pretty fresh. A similar (near identical engine to mine) struggled to make 200BHP on a very reputable RR, but both cars feel identical on power and on a long straight, there is nothing between them. The same RR has shown higher power results for cars that I know are alot slower than mine in a straight line. I also know my engine would show lower power on certain dyno's and RR's, and more on others. BHP's and lb/ft's are great for pub banter and a rough estimation of what the engine can do, but I think not much more than that. This does not detract from the great work some of the engine builders we use. It just makes it a bit harder to quantify the results. Edited by - Alex Wong on 1 Aug 2006 09:17:46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 EFA, those who lived by the the RR result shall die by the RR result! 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannylt Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Alex - the whole point about Track'n'Road's relatively advanced setup *IS* the repeatability. Runs don't vary by more than 1bhp, and it should correct for temp/pressure/tyre slip (a new one) accurately. As has been said, it's repeatable enough for to have OEM customers like Noble & Mosler. Though not good enough for Arnie for sure! An engine's power will vary over the course of the day since it can depend on oil/water temperature etc. Anyway, I think this thread has diverged somewhat. Most of us agree the important thing is how the car drives, and they seem to do a great job there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Never been to T&R and heard nothing but good about them (from EFA as well who didn't seem to be criticising from what I read). Where's Tony Martyr when you need him? Has he sold his Seven? I'd be interested in his views since he wrote the book on dyno's (literally). Edited by - Alex Wong on 1 Aug 2006 11:37:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Mupferit Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Surely the whole point about setting the car up on a rolling road is not so much the 'willy waving' Max Power figures but more, as Angus has just done, to end up with something that is good to drive under most if not all conditions the driver will experience on road and/or track. I have never seen the point of of putting a car on a RR simply to get the biggest power figure you possibly can yet it might not actually be pleasurable to drive under normal conditions or may not even get through an MOT. I know some people have done this (naming no names ) but what is the point if only to use it for boasting at the bar 🤔 Brent 2.3 DURATEC SV Reassuringly Expensive R 417.39 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannylt Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Well, getting a max power figure only takes a few runs (unless you're going mad fiddling with cams/induction etc.). The part throttle mapping can take as long as you have (OEM take months!) but you can get very decent results in a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobuy Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Maybe it's just that VX's are sensitive souls and are hard to get the best out of 😬 😬 Duratec SV, built in Dubai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 How dare you call me sensitive!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterhamnut Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I think Alex is right about what EFA was saying - he wasn't saying they were bad, just that their claims of repeatability were suspect, or perhaps mis-guided - nothing libilous - however, speaking to Steve he said that yes, on those particular days certain aspects to do with both car and rollers conspired against getting a 'proper' result. Although how one can question a RR and then base ones opinion on a drag strip result with all the variables that includes, is beyond me!! www.mycaterham.com here Videos here 94,000 miles -1st 1.6k Supersport, '95 Motor Show car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Hi Paulo Re the engine spec, I have an R300 spec engine and I am interested to know the exact spec of yours, 236bhp is nearer to R500 spec, I thought R300's were around 160bhp. If you get a chance to post the exact spec I would appreciate it. I have never put my car on a rolling road but we copied the R300 spec exactly. Rgds TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Paulo One more question, do you have the MBE ECU with the R300 map or something else with a custom map. Rgds TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 Tony, Jason langan (Hellier) built the engine,it has a reworked MS2 head with Jason's own cams,omega pistons, roller throttle bodies rebuilt by Minister, a Caterham 4-2-1 exhaust, lightweight flywheel and a MBE remapped by Steve Greenald. regards Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 the std R300 is indeed about 160 bhp. Paulo's engine is the same R300 base engine that has been modified to 236 bhp . here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 Sorry, if i wasn't clear, it used to be an R300 spec. The change is quite dramatic 😬 We could argue for hours about the power recorded, but who cares. It's much too fast enough........ which is the result I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyC Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Paulo OK thanks I misunderstood, sounds like it was well worth doing Rgds TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now