RE: BBR Super 200 MX-5 upgrades
Discussion
does trying to make an engine rev that fast (ie f1 engine) limit the torque compared to a road car though? I imagine its harder to fill a piston with air in 0.003 seconds compared to 0.01 seconds, and that might limit the specific torque (as might the friction losses of twice as many cylinders?)
5lab said:
does trying to make an engine rev that fast (ie f1 engine) limit the torque compared to a road car though? I imagine its harder to fill a piston with air in 0.003 seconds compared to 0.01 seconds, and that might limit the specific torque (as might the friction losses of twice as many cylinders?)
It seems to make little difference in practice because whilst you need higher intake speeds to fill the cylinders fast enough, you also have higher exhaust gas speeds to scavenge from. Certainly racing engines pretty much universally have the highest volumetric efficiency, usually by some margin.I suspect a naturally aspirated F1 engine has considerably less internal friction than a mass produced road-going four pot because whilst the friction surfaces are greater in area, the manufacturing tolerances are orders of magnitude lower; the oils are far higher quality and are maintained more accurately within their optimal operating range; etc.
Honeywell said:
SkyActive G technology is not your bog standard four cylinder petrol engine by any means:
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11/the-skys-t...
Interesting that the article quotes the standard cars manifold as the reason the technology can work on the Skyactive engines, yet it's also what BBR get rid of to increase their numbers.http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11/the-skys-t...
Long tube 4-2-1 manifolds are usually a best of both worlds combo in terms of low down torque and power and top end power. However, a 4-1 manifold like what BBR offers sacrifices low down torque/power for optimal power at the top end of the range.
Anyway, I don't think the power figures that BBR are quoting are that hard to believe but perhaps people in this thread have a good point when talking about the torque.
Anyway, I don't think the power figures that BBR are quoting are that hard to believe but perhaps people in this thread have a good point when talking about the torque.
Doffing the engineers hard hat and donning the lawyers wig for a moment, surely it's unlikely that BBR would sell a specific product on the basis of achieving a specific measurable change to your engine IF in fact it did not? You'd be able to sue them for your money back using a wide variety of legal redress.
As soon as one person set the precedent the class action lawyers would circle. BBR could end up having done millions of pounds worth of work and having to hand the money back plus pay the lawyers. I doubt they're risking their long trading firm on a demonstrable lie.
As soon as one person set the precedent the class action lawyers would circle. BBR could end up having done millions of pounds worth of work and having to hand the money back plus pay the lawyers. I doubt they're risking their long trading firm on a demonstrable lie.
Edited by Honeywell on Friday 2nd September 09:19
Edited by Honeywell on Friday 2nd September 09:20
Honeywell said:
Doffing the engineers hard hat and donning the lawyers wig for a moment, surely it's unlikely that BBR would sell a specific product on the basis of achieving a specific measurable change to your engine IF in fact it did not? You'd be able to sue them for your money back using a wide variety of legal redress.
I suspect there's something in the small print saying "actual figures may vary due to environmental conditions" or something. I'm sure the torque figures are viable in a compression chamber. 
Honeywell said:
Doffing the engineers hard hat and donning the lawyers wig for a moment, surely it's unlikely that BBR would sell a specific product on the basis of achieving a specific measurable change to your engine IF in fact it did not? You'd be able to sue them for your money back using a wide variety of legal redress.
As soon as one person set the precedent the class action lawyers would circle. BBR could end up having done millions of pounds worth of work and having to hand the money back plus pay the lawyers. I doubt they're risking their long trading firm on a demonstrable lie.
If car manufacturers can sell engines that never seem to make the quoted power without any problems...As soon as one person set the precedent the class action lawyers would circle. BBR could end up having done millions of pounds worth of work and having to hand the money back plus pay the lawyers. I doubt they're risking their long trading firm on a demonstrable lie.
Edited by Honeywell on Friday 2nd September 09:19
Edited by Honeywell on Friday 2nd September 09:20
Which car manufacturers overstate the output if their engines?
It was my understanding that it is fairly commonplace for many cars to make more power than claimed...
I can't help think that some of these comments are defamatory. It's true that dynometers vary and that lab test conditions are impossible to achieve in testing.
It was my understanding that it is fairly commonplace for many cars to make more power than claimed...
I can't help think that some of these comments are defamatory. It's true that dynometers vary and that lab test conditions are impossible to achieve in testing.
Honeywell said:
Doffing the engineers hard hat and donning the lawyers wig for a moment, surely it's unlikely that BBR would sell a specific product on the basis of achieving a specific measurable change to your engine IF in fact it did not? You'd be able to sue them for your money back using a wide variety of legal redress.
As soon as one person set the precedent the class action lawyers would circle. BBR could end up having done millions of pounds worth of work and having to hand the money back plus pay the lawyers. I doubt they're risking their long trading firm on a demonstrable lie.
Setting aside the wig and hard hat, and donning a stetson (am I doing this right?) perhaps they see the perceived risk as actually quite small?As soon as one person set the precedent the class action lawyers would circle. BBR could end up having done millions of pounds worth of work and having to hand the money back plus pay the lawyers. I doubt they're risking their long trading firm on a demonstrable lie.
Edited by Honeywell on Friday 2nd September 09:19
Edited by Honeywell on Friday 2nd September 09:20
I mean, we all know chassis dynos as good as make up flywheel numbers and wouldn't stand up in court.
So in order to be taken to court, you'd need someone who:
a) Knows of BBR and this remap, and thinks that torque figure is a little suspect
b) Owns a new MX-5 or is willing to buy one / lend one because they want to sue BBR
c) Suspects their claims are false and is angry about it / just really doesn't like them
d) Would be willing to take the engine out of the car, put it on an engine dyno (at their own cost) running to approved industry standards (as in, proper car industry, not tuning industry standards) before having any work done to get an acceptable before figure
e) Would pay BBR for the work
f) Repeat d) to get an acceptable after figure
g) Be annoyed enough by the results and feel they are far enough outside of the small print boundaries defined by BBR's terms to commence legal proceedings
Perhaps they just don't see that as very likely.
Nothing could be simpler than taking it to a dynometer of your preference, printing out the test results and then lodging a claim in the small claims court fir a refund of your BBR bill if they were lying about the results of their modifications.
One such victory would destroy their reputational brand value. So I don't think they are bulls
tting.
Modern engines are always pushing boundaries.
One such victory would destroy their reputational brand value. So I don't think they are bulls
tting. Modern engines are always pushing boundaries.
Honeywell said:
Nothing could be simpler than taking it to a dynometer of your preference, printing out the test results and then lodging a claim in the small claims court fir a refund of your BBR bill if they were lying about the results of their modifications.
One such victory would destroy their reputational brand value. So I don't think they are bullstting.
Modern engines are always pushing boundaries.
How would you validate that the dyno was giving accurate numbers?One such victory would destroy their reputational brand value. So I don't think they are bulls
tting. Modern engines are always pushing boundaries.
Honeywell said:
It would be up to BBR to prove their dyno was accurate, which is what is alleged to be the issue in this debate.
In my experience the most accurate is the Rototest, but that gives a hub power output rather than estimated flywheel. I guess the best thing may be to take rotottest after/rototest before and then compare that to BBR/manufacturer. There is a load of utter arse hoop here on this thread.
BBR have been in business for decades. They have a long established record of customer satisfaction. They have openly allowed journalists to view how they have prepared for tuning the MX5. The results of their efforts are printed and published in engineering detail.
They are unlikely to have lied.
BBR have been in business for decades. They have a long established record of customer satisfaction. They have openly allowed journalists to view how they have prepared for tuning the MX5. The results of their efforts are printed and published in engineering detail.
They are unlikely to have lied.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff