RE: On the Rollers
Discussion
Tis a stunning torque figure, corrected to 200lbs is mighty impressive ;clap:. 
HarryW said:
He'll need a couple of extra cylinders
Problem is whats after that ;confused:don't say a V10 viper
.
Harry
Would love a V8, but budget procludes it.. 
Difference? Yep... picks up so much quicker, and charges up hills without any issue. Biggest difference is that in certain gears at certain speeds, you sit around the torque and power... which in the recent weather has made for a few "brown trouser" moments, simply as the character of the car has changed so much...
Well done podie on the gains.. it shows you have got a decent engine under that bonnet. 
Can I throw a bit of caution to the debate though before everyone runs off and gets an ECU re-map.
Paul V got 180 BHP at the Flywheel on his S last May with just a 3 angle valve seat job and a Kent Cams mild road cam, using the standard ECU setup.
Johno got 178BHP and 192lbft of torque without any mods.. just polising the ports up and ensuring everything was mating together properly.
I would humbly suggest that it might be worth people actually checking up on the general state of their engines, and making simple adjustments and tweaks (like mating the manifolds to the inlet and exhaust ports for example), before running off to get the whole thing ECU mapped.. £2-300 spent on sorting the heads out first would lead to more gains in the longer term after a Re-Map, and would mean that you would only need it doing once instead of twice (as it would ideally need-remapping after the heads had come off if you were to want to do this later on)
All IMO 2P etc.
Cheers
Matt.
>> Edited by M@H on Thursday 6th November 10:06
Can I throw a bit of caution to the debate though before everyone runs off and gets an ECU re-map.
Paul V got 180 BHP at the Flywheel on his S last May with just a 3 angle valve seat job and a Kent Cams mild road cam, using the standard ECU setup.
Johno got 178BHP and 192lbft of torque without any mods.. just polising the ports up and ensuring everything was mating together properly.
I would humbly suggest that it might be worth people actually checking up on the general state of their engines, and making simple adjustments and tweaks (like mating the manifolds to the inlet and exhaust ports for example), before running off to get the whole thing ECU mapped.. £2-300 spent on sorting the heads out first would lead to more gains in the longer term after a Re-Map, and would mean that you would only need it doing once instead of twice (as it would ideally need-remapping after the heads had come off if you were to want to do this later on)
All IMO 2P etc.
Cheers
Matt.
>> Edited by M@H on Thursday 6th November 10:06
M@H said:
Well done podie on the gains.. it shows you have got a decent engine under that bonnet.
Can I throw a bit of caution to the debate though before everyone runs off and gets an ECU re-map.
Paul V got 180 BHP at the Flywheel on his S last May with just a 3 angle valve seat job and a Kent Cams mild road cam, using the standard ECU setup.
Johno got 178BHP and 192lbft of torque without any mods.. just polising the ports up and ensuring everything was mating together properly.
I would humbly suggest that it might be worth people actually checking up on the general state of their engines, and making simple adjustments and tweaks (like mating the manifolds to the inlet and exhaust ports for example), before running off to get the whole thing ECU mapped.. £2-300 spent on sorting the heads out first would lead to more gains in the longer term after a Re-Map, and would mean that you would only need it doing once instead of twice (as it would ideally need-remapping after the heads had come off if you were to want to do this later on)
All IMO 2P etc.
Cheers
Matt.
>> Edited by M@H on Thursday 6th November 10:06
Matt, good points well made chap. As we know all engines have different characteristics, even if they are built the same!
The engine in my S has been compression tested, and pretty well cared for, but overall was found to be running too lean... aside from a re-map to cure that, no one else has been able to give me any advice (or provide a service) on solving that issue... and I've probably thrown money away trying to sort it.
With regards to "another" re-map.. yes that would be required following any engine work, but Paul from Austec has pointed out that you are looking at 1 hour max (around £60) to make any adjustments as the hard work has already been done...
Rozza!!! said:
Just out of interest, how much power and torque is the old 2.9 capable of producing if you was to give it 'the works'. Without super/turbo charging.
Roy.
No idea. I imagine a blueprinted engine would produce a fair bit more grunt, but I have figures that I can lay my hands on.
Ford engine was rated at 145bhp...
Rozza!!! said:
Just out of interest, how much power and torque is the old 2.9 capable of producing if you was to give it 'the works'. Without super/turbo charging.
Roy.
Depends what "the works" is.. new crank, pistons, cam, race head, RE-Map etc etc.. you could tune it to the point that is was totally undriveable and probably get 250-300 bhp out of it I expect.. however you wouldn't want to own it when you'd finished.
Matt.
M@H said:
Just out of interest, how much power and torque is the old 2.9 capable of producing if you was to give it 'the works'. Without super/turbo charging.
Roy.
Depends what "the works" is.. new crank, pistons, cam, race head, RE-Map etc etc.. you could tune it to the point that is was totally undriveable and probably get 250-300 bhp out of it I expect.. however you wouldn't want to own it when you'd finished.
Matt.
true...Just Found this..
Matt.
the internet said:
Cosworth FBA
I believe it started life as a racing head design by Brian Hart Engines for the then new "Cologne" V6. When Brian Hart was bought by Cosworth, they acquired the design, and used it as the basis of the engine they were asked to produce for the top of the range Ford Granada Scorpio. This was intended to be a high tech modern refined engine to help the Scorpio compete against BMW and Mercedes. This meant that the resulting FBA design was a road going version of a racing engine!
A full race version of the engine, the FBE was also produced and used in the ProSport 3000 Sports racing cars, where it produced over 300 HP.
The aluminium 4 valve heads fitted onto a modified Cologne block with lifter bores blocked etc. but fundamentally little changed. The front of the engine is changed so the long chain drive for the 4 camshafts can be accommodated. The heads are typical Cosworth 4 valve pent roof design with central spark plug.
In my car the heads have been little modified, a little bit of valve pocket work but they are basically good to start with. The intake manifold has been retained so far but its probably got to go at some point as the new camshaft has more overlap and lift, and at small throttle openings at low speed there is some flow reversion which makes it run roughly, that's my current theory anyway.
On the rolling road it gave 286 bhp at the flywheel and 290 lbs.ft. torque.
Matt.
M@H said:
Just out of interest, how much power and torque is the old 2.9 capable of producing if you was to give it 'the works'. Without super/turbo charging.
Roy.
Depends what "the works" is.. new crank, pistons, cam, race head, RE-Map etc etc.. you could tune it to the point that is was totally undriveable and probably get 250-300 bhp out of it I expect.. however you wouldn't want to own it when you'd finished.
Matt.
Well, nobody in their right minds would go that far. I certainly wouldn't. Though I would like at some point in the future like to get above the magic '200'.
Roy.
Rozza!!! said:
Rozza!!! said:
Just out of interest, how much power and torque is the old 2.9 capable of producing if you was to give it 'the works'. Without super/turbo charging.
Roy.
Depends what "the works" is.. new crank, pistons, cam, race head, RE-Map etc etc.. you could tune it to the point that is was totally undriveable and probably get 250-300 bhp out of it I expect.. however you wouldn't want to own it when you'd finished.
Matt.
Well, nobody in their right minds would go that far. I certainly wouldn't. Though I would like at some point in the future like to get above the magic '200'.
Roy.
Hmm.. magic "200" would be nice... but it's a real case of where do you stop?
I need to get the manifolds sorted, and if one of the bolts snaps in the head (all too common) then I'll have it polished / ported / cammed etc...
... half of me WANTS a bolt to snap... but the wallet doesn't...!
Podie said:
Hmm.. magic "200" would be nice... but it's a real case of where do you stop?
I need to get the manifolds sorted, and if one of the bolts snaps in the head (all too common) then I'll have it polished / ported / cammed etc...
... half of me WANTS a bolt to snap... but the wallet doesn't...!
I know what you mean, I recently took my manifolds off and said to myself that I would have the same done if any bolts snapped, but they all came out without too much persuasion. Speaking of manifolds..... I`d better start a new thread on this....
Roy.
M@H said:
Well done podie on the gains.. it shows you have got a decent engine under that bonnet.
Can I throw a bit of caution to the debate though before everyone runs off and gets an ECU re-map.
Paul V got 180 BHP at the Flywheel on his S last May with just a 3 angle valve seat job and a Kent Cams mild road cam, using the standard ECU setup.
Johno got 178BHP and 192lbft of torque without any mods.. just polising the ports up and ensuring everything was mating together properly.
I would humbly suggest that it might be worth people actually checking up on the general state of their engines, and making simple adjustments and tweaks (like mating the manifolds to the inlet and exhaust ports for example), before running off to get the whole thing ECU mapped.. £2-300 spent on sorting the heads out first would lead to more gains in the longer term after a Re-Map, and would mean that you would only need it doing once instead of twice (as it would ideally need-remapping after the heads had come off if you were to want to do this later on)
All IMO 2P etc.
Cheers
Matt.
>> Edited by M@H on Thursday 6th November 10:06
Just to clarify .....
Paul's gains were after having ....
3 angle valve seats
Heads skimmed to raise compression
That's it ! No new cam .... a good cam would have pushed that figure higher.
Mine ....
Heads taken off and properly cleaned.
Plenum taken off and cleaned.
Valve seats re-ground.
Fuel pressure regulator would up a little (you do not need to buy a variable rate ragulator as you can adjust the existing one - not as scientific, granted)
and a rolling road session at Power engineering ....
There's is a conservative road ...
The V6 lump with a few minor cleans, polishes and attention will give 180+ bhp without a problem ..... Torque increases are more to do with getting the fuelling right, hence the rolling road.
Many of the S's out there are not even timed correctly and owners are starting from a position which compromises the basis of any set up.
There is a huge amount of scope for 'home mods' and work that will produce considerable figures.
I did all the work to my car myself, except for the rolling road and fuel pressue adjustment.... that did & would save a lot of money.
My engine was very clean internally as was Paul's when we took them apart. Both car's were used a great deal and given the opportunity to be 'cleaned through' by this. There are a number of car's which are not getting enough use to keep their engines in the condition ours were in ...
Consider this ....
The figures for power output on my car were after the engine had done 87,000 miles ....
Paul's were after 47,000ish I seem to remember ....
What should you be getting from a car with less than 40,000 miles on it with minor mods such as the above ....
Without going mad I believe I could have got 200bhp from my old engine by ....
1 - skim the heads
2 - 3 angle valve seats
3 - new cam
4 - higher fuel pressure (adjustable regulator)
5 - polished ports
6 - paired mainfolds to outlet ports ...
7 - Better air filter/filters
8 - cold air intake
This little lot would not cost a great deal and the assembly etc is wuite easy for the V6 ....
PS - Good result Podie !!
>> Edited by johno on Thursday 6th November 17:18
johno said:
Just to clarify .....
Paul's gains were after having ....
3 angle valve seats
Heads skimmed to raise compression
That's it ! No new cam .... a good cam would have pushed that figure higher.
Mine ....
Heads taken off and properly cleaned.
Plenum taken off and cleaned.
Valve seats re-ground.
Fuel pressure regulator would up a little (you do not need to buy a variable rate ragulator as you can adjust the existing one - not as scientific, granted)
and a rolling road session at Power engineering ....
There's is a conservative road ...
The V6 lump with a few minor cleans, polishes and attention will give 180+ bhp without a problem ..... Torque increases are more to do with getting the fuelling right, hence the rolling road.
Many of the S's out there are not even timed correctly and owners are starting from a position which compromises the basis of any set up.
There is a huge amount of scope for 'home mods' and work that will produce considerable figures.
I did all the work to my car myself, except for the rolling road and fuel pressue adjustment.... that did & would save a lot of money.
My engine was very clean internally as was Paul's when we took them apart. Both car's were used a great deal and given the opportunity to be 'cleaned through' by this. There are a number of car's which are not getting enough use to keep their engines in the condition ours were in ...
Consider this ....
The figures for power output on my car were after the engine had done 87,000 miles ....
Paul's were after 47,000ish I seem to remember ....
What should you be getting from a car with less than 40,000 miles on it with minor mods such as the above ....
Without going mad I believe I could have got 200bhp from my old engine by ....
1 - skim the heads
2 - 3 angle valve seats
3 - new cam
4 - higher fuel pressure (adjustable regulator)
5 - polished ports
6 - paired mainfolds to outlet ports ...
7 - Better air filter/filters
8 - cold air intake
This little lot would not cost a great deal and the assembly etc is wuite easy for the V6 ....
PS - Good result Podie !!
>> Edited by johno on Thursday 6th November 17:18
Whilst I agree with most of that Johno, I'm not so sure you'd get 200bhp with those engine mods alone, perhaps with an ECU remap as well you might exceed it a bit, but on their own I doubt you'd match it IMHO.
What Torque figures did you and paul get in the end
as the kick in the seat is the torque, podie has 200 at present which is very very good in my book for a 2.9 
. Harry
Mine was at 192lbsft ..... I do not think Paul's was quite as high ... The mods I did improved the engine by 10bhp against standard and 20 lbsft of torque ... they were mild mods ....
I still reckon (with a good base engine) 200 bhp is achievable ... with mechanical upgrades followed by tuning ... not necessary for a remap ...
Alhtough by Podie's results, you'd have it done anyway
>> Edited by johno on Thursday 6th November 18:33
I still reckon (with a good base engine) 200 bhp is achievable ... with mechanical upgrades followed by tuning ... not necessary for a remap ...
Alhtough by Podie's results, you'd have it done anyway
>> Edited by johno on Thursday 6th November 18:33
johno said:
Just to clarify .....
Paul's gains were after having ....
3 angle valve seats
Heads skimmed to raise compression
That's it ! No new cam .... a good cam would have pushed that figure higher.
Yep.. you are right.. I was thinking of steve b.. he got 186 BHP at 5386rpm and 219 lbft torque at 3350rpm using a Kent cam and no ECU re-map.
My mistake.
Cheers,
Matt.
>> Edited by M@H on Friday 7th November 10:49
Gassing Station | S Series | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff