Mathew Rimmer Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Just back in Switzerland having had my 2000 Academy (EU3) spec car upgraded. First a trip to Ratrace to fit VHPD exhust with Cat (country requirement so no option) and big radiator then to Emerald for ecu cams verniers throttle bodies, all fitted and mapped by those guys as I wouldn't have a clue. You can imagine its not been a cheap week (the cat alone cost 500 !) Expectation was for 160+hp actual is 144hp. A useful increase of 29 driveable hp but not enough..... This was the first EU3 car that Emerald have done and the head scratching centred around whether the EU3 cars have smaller head ports (which they thought they had heard somewhere but weren't sure) or whether the exhuast wasn't good enough . The Cat on the exhaust effectively makes what should be a 4-2-1 into a 4-1 albeit with long primaries so it must be stacks better than the 4-1 short primary one I had earlier. Would the 4-2-1 bypass pipe really make 20hp difference and get me above 160 ? (No-nuts in answer to your question Karl connected the ECU directly by chopping off the old connector) Some one out there must know. Maybe Mr Andrews has come across EU3 heads ? Any help or advice greatly appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Howe Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Mathew, you have only mentioned bolt on upgrades.... did you have any port work done on the head? The standard head is shouting to be flowed and at which stage you could add larger valves. I'm sure that's where you missing bhp is hiding. JH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Rimmer Posted September 21, 2002 Author Share Posted September 21, 2002 No port work done its obviously a future option, but I've spent a fair bit of time looking at what people have written about this 'standard upgrade' as a bolt on. Indeed its now being advertised on Dave Andrews website as 160hp+ unless I'm mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Walker Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Mathew. AFAIK the EU3 head is the same as the EU2 appart from the HT coils being mounted on top of the cam cover necessitating a revised plastic HT cover, The injectors have also been changed to a lower capacity. I do not think that the cat is responsible as this works well on the VHPD , owners have only gained 2bhp by removeing it in favour of the bypass pipe/collector. You did not say what cams were fitted? If they were the piper 270 fast road cams then 144 bhp out of a stock 1.6 isn`t too bad. Time for a bit of porting ?????????????? Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red SLR Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 I have been reliably informed that the std head is only good for 150bhp. To get past this mark porting and new valves are needed. See X777CAT here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Rimmer Posted September 21, 2002 Author Share Posted September 21, 2002 Ok - if thats the case then things are not so bad BUT why is Dave Andrews website indicating 160hp+ (although I've never been in contact with Dave he appears to be the font of all K series knowledge) and Dave Walker and Karl at Emerald were pretty disappointed with the result comapred to what they have seen previously They also wondered whether it was production variability and I have a bad one, but results in a one make series would indicate otherwise Still confused........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby dooby doo Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 i agree - i don't think you can get more than 150ish from a std head. the 160 bhp kit on Dave's site includes some porting work. The cat will rob you of a few as well. HOOPY R706KGU See you at Cadwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 The 170(1800) and 160(1600) kit is based on the experiences and RR plots of the 633 cams, TBs and ECU as fitted by Emerald. The output is also confirmed in an article in Walkers workshop. The route I have *always* followed up till now has been to do the head first but I have been inundated with requests for information about the Emerald kit since it is just a bolt on and many people do not like the thought of lifting their heads. The 160/155 and 175/170 kits both include head porting, the latter with big valves. Some of the missing BHP may be down to the cam timing, I'm not sure that the Emerald kit includes verniers. The later head used on the EU3 engines *is* a different casting and has marginally different inlet port alignment, I wouldnt have thought that this materially affected power. Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Aha - Matthew - does this mean that there is now a version of the Emerald ECU which is plug compatible with the EU3 loom or did they have to hack the loom about - in other words, have you been left with a set up that would allow you to simply plug the old ECU back in or are you no longer "backwards compatible"? If there is now a genuine EU3 compatible version of the Emerald ECU then that's the best news I've had in a long while ❗ SV 52 CAT - the Mole is flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Rimmer Posted September 22, 2002 Author Share Posted September 22, 2002 Oily, thanks for the info, but just as a clarification which cams are the 633s ? are they the Piper fast road (which I think is what Emerald fitted) or something wilder ? They did fit verniers, and when I turned up where reinvestigating the cam timing in an attempt to find the 'missing' bhp but found everything in order. Mole, sorry to disappoint but no its not yet plug compatible ie I've gone the hacking route Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 I just finished a road test last night on a similar car which I finished converting last night Vhpd throttle bodies instead of Jenvies [ discarded by someone else so cheaper] Emerald M3D EU2 fitted to hacked EU3 loom std head 633s Verniers 80 Thou lift @tdc Exhaust 100 Thou @tdc Inlet. Car has long primary 4 to 1 [no cat] Rest of car Engine as it came from Rover[ not a Caterham engine self sourced for Classic] showes massive improvment in drivability bags of Torque and customer delighted Unfortunatly no RR figures [they are sort of scarse here in N.I.] But customer is delighted. Sometimes we can get blinded by stats.What actually counts is drivability and road manners. jj [DVAPower. N.I.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 The R300 Eater project resulted in sub 1:39 times at Cadwell with a passenger. Best time previously with no passenger and 250bhp was 1:37.8. (I guess the Nitron suspension was mostly responsible for the laptimes). Mapping was done by theory and with a bit more fuel bunged in to tidy up some hesitations. Overall map development time... 45 minutes. Should mention that the engine is a 1.6 Supersport with a mild DVA Power porting job and all the goodies from the big engine. Jenvey throttle bodies, 4-1 exhaust, lightweight flywheel and race clutch. The car is an absolute joy to drive with very crisp engine response. Closest approach to a top speed run was done on a slight uphill with a policeman ( ) as a passenger. The calibrated Stack readout reckoned 119.5mph and it was still climbing strongly. I reckon a 130mph top speed is on the cards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 That's amazing! Are you finding the (at a guess 170bhp?) car more easily driveable at the limit, Peter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 Cadwell is a circuit I know very well. The only time I had the big engine there was its second ever day on a circuit and I was generally keeping it to 8000rpm. That day gave rise to some pictures with the car ~9 inches in the air front and back over the mountain. The Nitron suspension is very very good and I think has to take the credit for taking off as much time as an extra 100 horsepower. I suspect it is less than 170bhp on Supersport cams, but it feels marvellous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 For throttle response and freedom to rev I 'd say the 1600 K is the sweetest hence me sticking to this capacity . Its a shame we never had the chance to have a session together Peter ☹️ dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 Dave, Good luck with the engine repairs. It was a shame, indeed. I fully expect you to be up and running for Llandow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 Oohh I do hope so Peter . The failier is not major , just a bit of top end fiddling - so far . But I'll take my time and check it all out whilst the tops off , but Llandow should be a goer ........... Dave Edited by - Dave J on 23 Sep 2002 13:04:52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 Gasket should arrive tomorrow Dave... oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 So should your cheque ...... 😬 Cheers My wife now firmly believes that the failier was due to my little 16 NOT having a steel bottom end , so we may be going where no man has gone before .......... 9500 rpm yeeeehhhhaaaaaaaaaa 😬 😬 😬 Should hold together for at least 3 laps of curborough ........ Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 9500 is *easy* on a reinforced 1.8, so should be easy-peasy on a 1.6, but it doesn't make the loads on the valvetrain any easier. Stroking the engine out to 1.8 makes the bottom end more marginal, but gives the valvetrain an easier time of it. 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