My 198.4bhp vt'R' yo! *engine works (on predator)* - Page 29 - Saxperience

VTSTomE · 6th October 2009, 12:00

Are you going to be running the pred full-time or just a check to see everything works and go for emerald again?!

Ryan^p · 6th October 2009, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTSTomE

Are you going to be running the pred full-time or just a check to see everything works and go for emerald again?!

Depends if my ecu is actually fried or not.

Ste · 6th October 2009, 15:23

If you need a tow bar, i have one to fit a saxo/106. It bolts into existing holes and if you dont wire up the electrics it takes about 15 mins to fit. Just taking up space in my garage.

benkelsall · 9th October 2010, 11:22

This working again yet?

Tufty · 23rd November 2010, 22:39

Ryan, what`s the deal with this mate? Still looking into the ECU issue? Track days booked?

Jason

Sophia_Bush · 23rd November 2010, 22:51

i know i know! sort of!

Tufty · 23rd November 2010, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophia_Bush

i know i know! sort of!

Please tell, like this car lots... Pissed off i cant watch those track videos anymore... for some reason they no longer work

tweeqd · 11th December 2010, 18:55

pull your finger out ryan and get it sorted

Dave_P · 6th March 2011, 19:06

Thats one "quote me happy" RR you used!

I'd say making up to 170bhp in the real world going by the 143.2bhp @ wheels figure and realistic tranny losses...

When will you be out in it again?

Ryan^p · 6th March 2011, 19:09

Dave it made 185 on early mapping at Dave walkers.

Same figures (tranny losses on the mahas) as one of sandys engines made (nick C) which made same power elsewhere. I always take figures with a pinch of salt which is why I looked into nicks results. That day a couple of cars made pretty much stock quoted figures, then a teg made high so you never know really.

Hopefully have it back out again soon tbh. Lifes taken over cars for the last two years and Ive only just started spending money on it again.

jpsaxo · 6th March 2011, 19:14

Just to add to that mine made 140 @ the wheels at gmc... hmmmm, anyway figures mean nothing, ive followed this car when AlexR had it and it was definitely quicker than mine...

Ryan^p · 6th March 2011, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsaxo

Just to add to that mine made 140 @ the wheels at gmc... hmmmm, anyway figures mean nothing, ive followed this car when AlexR had it and it was definitely quicker than mine...

Yes you would expect that the 803s would make more ATW than the 708s.

As we all say RRs pinch of salt.

I had the first graph somewhere saw it a few days ago and now cant find it ffs!

Ryan^p · 6th March 2011, 19:23

Obviously higher than the 170bhp quoted when first built and mapped on 50miles.

Just shows as we say about rolling roads.

AndySAXO^p · 6th March 2011, 19:31

Yer that is high tranny lose what did it make at dave's place atw?

Also Jp what was your car at NMS atw?

See my engine is about 140 atw @ TDF and was 137 atw @ NMS when it was mapped with 500 miles it was at TDF with about double that milage after a track day aswell and had a bit more, but torque was the same on both dyno's.

Are you using 809? Can't remember now? What spec are they? Just out of intrest that all.

Ryan^p · 6th March 2011, 19:38

Thats the only graph I have from daves as it wasnt my car then (was made by a guy named ian I know)

Steel H section conrods
ARP rod bolts
High compression kit car pistons
Enlarged inlet and exhaust valves
Head ported to suit bigger valves and match inlet & exhaust systems
Solid camshaft followers
Double Stronger Valve springs
Catcams 803 cams
Maxi(S1600) exhaust header
2.5" stainless exhaust system
Maxi individual direct to head throttle bodies
Long polished trumpets
Larger pico injectors

Like i say it was a funny result but im not bothered about it. Some cars made bang on their book figures others didnt either way as said by josh this is quicker than other saxos that made the same wheels figures elsewhere as the MAHAs gave here.. I was hoping to go back to daves before it went wrong for a map tweek as the map being on the fresh engine apparently was a touch coservative and potentially could have been better, but obviously the car going wrong scuppered my plans.

Dave_P · 6th March 2011, 19:50

Its the @wheels figure thats measured on a RR, as long as your happy with it Ryan?

Ryan^p · 6th March 2011, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_P

Its the @wheels figure thats measured on a RR, as long as your happy with it Ryan?

Yes but different algerythms are taken into account and the calculations then added. The MAHAs are meant to do a tranny loss on run down, but as with anything again its never going to be perfectly accurate.

It goes/or did before the issues with it.

Dave_P · 6th March 2011, 19:57

The norm is 15% losses on the MA box as far as i know.

Hope its up & running soon.

Harv · 6th March 2011, 23:14

I was at Brands once when Alex had it, and it was definitely very very quick!!!

Hope you get it sorted soon Ryan, this car deserves to be out abusing jap crap around a track!

Ryan^p · 8th March 2011, 19:32

Sorry for the late reply Dave been busy.

I know its strange but as I say a few cars made the exact (give or take 2-3bhp) spec figures at the fly but all the non 4WD cars seemed to be running low Wheel figures, seems a trait of the MAHAs going on reading.

This is the comparrison of my engine over James C's engine built by sandy which won 2010 castle combe saloon series (you may remember james roses car as it was in that)

James

Mine

Obviously you can see both have very odd figures but mine has run considerably more on other rollers than the 170 at best you quoted.

Before Nick/James engine was run on the MAHA's it made 192 elsewhere and 148lb of torque.

Its a good look personally for me at how different RR's seem to read and quote. Theres a good thread here where sandys building the engine and mine got discussed aswell.

http://www.106rallyeforum.com/forum2...ad.php?t=45613

All in all I know it goes ok, its just a shame I had to put the car on hold for so long before trying to get ti all working again, but as ive always said figures are always taken with a pinch of salt.