Saab 9-5 Aero - Hybrid Turbo and 9000 Bottom End - 350 bhp

[227bhp]

HybridAero said:

Torque will be pegged back to protect the gearbox.

I see, how exactly does that work then?

HybridAero said:

Also rev limit is 7k with this setup, 6k with mine so another 1k rpm to apply slightly higher torque to.

Ditto.

[gazmk2]

I really need to get mine on a dyno once I've had a remap done. I've got the downpipe and engine mounts done now so it's just a case of send the ecu off to Karl and fit the FPR while it's away!

[tdm34]

227bhp said:

HybridAero said:

Torque will be pegged back to protect the gearbox.

I see, how exactly does that work then?

Karl (Noob) can do very clever things with his maps, from what Mike has told me he's still running a map that assumes you've got a standard Aero clutch
which is good for 500nm so Karl has restricted TQ to take that into account, now Mike has since had an uprated clutch (Maptun I think) which can handle
680nm but he's not had the map adjusted yet.

[HybridAero]

tdm34 said:

Karl (Noob) can do very clever things with his maps, from what Mike has told me he's still running a map that assumes you've got a standard Aero clutch
which is good for 500nm so Karl has restricted TQ to take that into account, now Mike has since had an uprated clutch (Maptun I think) which can handle
680nm but he's not had the map adjusted yet.

The clutch may well take 700-odd NM but the gearbox would become a consumable with that much torque. Wish there was a more robust gearbox swap available for the 9-5.

Will have to check with Mike but I think it's the cams and head work that allow it to safely rev higher, in addition to the forged pistons.

[227bhp]

tdm34 said:

227bhp said:

HybridAero said:

Torque will be pegged back to protect the gearbox.

I see, how exactly does that work then?

Karl (Noob) can do very clever things with his maps, from what Mike has told me he's still running a map that assumes you've got a standard Aero clutch
which is good for 500nm so Karl has restricted TQ to take that into account, now Mike has since had an uprated clutch (Maptun I think) which can handle
680nm but he's not had the map adjusted yet.

You've probably got fairies at the bottom of the garden too.
Power, torque and rpm are rigidly tied together and dictated by the engine, environmental conditions, fuel etc, the only way to vary the ratio of one to another is with the mechanical specification.

Someone mapping a car cannot make it produce less torque and more power as he pleases, it's impossible.

[HybridAero]

227bhp said:

You've probably got fairies at the bottom of the garden too.
Power, torque and rpm are rigidly tied together and dictated by the engine, environmental conditions, fuel etc, the only way to vary the ratio of one to another is with the mechanical specification.

Someone mapping a car cannot make it produce less torque and more power as he pleases, it's impossible.

Wrong. If you can control the torque then you can control the bhp. Bhp is after all torque x rpm divided by 5252. So bhp is the rate at which an engine can apply torque.

[anonymous-user]

I would assume the way to limit torque is through (electronic) boost control and spark advance, certainly in the lower gears. Technically though, you are correct as BHP just measures the rate of torque so is ultimately dictated by your engine's torque curve.

[227bhp]

HybridAero said:

227bhp said:

You've probably got fairies at the bottom of the garden too.
Power, torque and rpm are rigidly tied together and dictated by the engine, environmental conditions, fuel etc, the only way to vary the ratio of one to another is with the mechanical specification.

Someone mapping a car cannot make it produce less torque and more power as he pleases, it's impossible.

Wrong. If you can control the torque then you can control the bhp. Bhp is after all torque x rpm divided by 5252. So bhp is the rate at which an engine can apply torque.

What I wrote is not wrong. You are implying that a mapper can somehow make the power go up and the torque stay the same, that is wrong.

Going back to my original point where I queried why there is a yawning gap between the tq and bhp figure, you stated that the mapper made it that way.
That is bks.

If you think it can be otherwise then explain it.

[227bhp]

wormus said:

I would assume the way to limit torque is through (electronic) boost control and spark advance, certainly in the lower gears. Technically though, you are correct as BHP just measures the rate of torque so is ultimately dictated by your engine's torque curve.

Yes that's correct, but when the tq figure comes down, so does the bhp. You can't have bhp going up and not tq with it!

[HybridAero]

227bhp said:

Yes that's correct, but when the tq figure comes down, so does the bhp. You can't have bhp going up and not tq with it!

Wrong again. Power is torque x rpm so if torque is dropping at a slower rate than rpm is rising then bhp will continue to increase.

[HybridAero]

HybridAero said:

Wrong again. Power is torque x rpm so if torque is dropping at a slower rate than rpm is rising then bhp will continue to increase.

[griffin dai]

I'd try a stronger actuator spring. We swapped from blue to red on my 9000 (forge) and it made 450bhp & 425ft/lbs vs 421bhp & 411ft/lbs, rod stayed the same length, same map just stronger spring.

Did the actuator come with extra springs?

[HybridAero]

griffin dai said:

I'd try a stronger actuator spring. We swapped from blue to red on my 9000 (forge) and it made 450bhp & 425ft/lbs vs 421bhp & 411ft/lbs, rod stayed the same length, same map just stronger spring.

Did the actuator come with extra springs?

I did try a 1.0 bar spring but it just overboosted and the ECU held it back at higher revs; It only produced 315 bhp but an impressive 388 lb ft / 527 NM.

Once I changed to a 0.8 bar spring (which it currently has) it helped control the turbo more - 342 bhp and 520 NM / 385 lb ft (back in the summer). Something has changed since. Based on the above I don't think it's the actuator spring.

Edited by HybridAero on Wednesday 7th December 14:01

[griffin dai]

If your happy with it I'd keep it like that, I don't think you'll get much more out of it unless you add faster cams and a tubular (£££). I'd get saving for the Quaife instead of a bigger turbo Expensive but 110% worth it. Stick some sticky tyres on there and it'll be.....

[HybridAero]

griffin dai said:

If your happy with it I'd keep it like that, I don't think you'll get much more out of it unless you add faster cams and a tubular (£££). I'd get saving for the Quaife instead of a bigger turbo Expensive but 110% worth it. Stick some sticky tyres on there and it'll be.....

I agree, would be a great fast road car with a diff.

Have you heard any feedback about the OBX diff?

It's half the price of the Quaife:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OBX-LSD-DIFFERENTIAL-SAA...

Which tyres would you recommend? Currently running Vredestein Ultrac Sessantas which seem good.

Also Mike and a few others mentioned the SAS ARBs are a bad idea on the 9-5 and make it cock a leg. Maybe it's a good mod for a 9000 and 9-3 (rescue kit etc.) but not for the 9-5?

[HybridAero]

griffin dai said:

If your happy with it I'd keep it like that, I don't think you'll get much more out of it unless you add faster cams and a tubular (£££). I'd get saving for the Quaife instead of a bigger turbo Expensive but 110% worth it. Stick some sticky tyres on there and it'll be.....

Tubular would enhance the noise I guess. I really want to go for a ride in a big turbo but to be fair I rarely use all the power this thing has so can't see how another 100 bhp would get used.

[griffin dai]

OBX have a pretty bad rep on saabcentral but that's mostly stuff like they're manifolds, personally I wouldn't scrimp here as its pretty expensive when you add in labour costs so I'd fit a good diff (it's done then) Worth taking a look at Wavetrac if they make them for the 9-5, kinda wish I'd gone this route now as its a more aggressive diff to quaife and a few of the VXR guys rate it, although no complaints here with the Quaife diff. Had a play with a new Focus RS the other day and the old Saab did well even with a fked fuel pump He pulled up and asked WTF have you done to that at the lights

VRK's really needed on the old 9-3 as the handlings crap standard and all over the place. Suprised to hear that about the SAS bars, but more used to the 9000. My mates 9000 felt a lot more planted with the sas bars than mine.

[griffin dai]

Tyres- I swapped my RS3's for Michelin Pilot Sport 4's a couple months ago......different league. Fantastic. Dry grips up there with my old Kumho V70A track tyres (tons & tons of grip) wet grips almost as good as the RS3's but they did let go the other day when it was freezing out.

Yeah you need to bag a ride in a gt30 car really, I'm glad I did it on the 9000 to try it, but the gt28rs was miles more fun and quicker day to day. Hardly any laggier than the td04 but just pinned you into the seat. The gt30 was very laggy (didn't really get going until 75 in 3rd) but a lot faster above 80 (warp speed here, just kept going & going) but your asking for a ban when your having fun with the bigger turbo. 70-100 was something silly like 2.7s!!

[anonymous-user]

HybridAero said:

griffin dai said:

I'd try a stronger actuator spring. We swapped from blue to red on my 9000 (forge) and it made 450bhp & 425ft/lbs vs 421bhp & 411ft/lbs, rod stayed the same length, same map just stronger spring.

Did the actuator come with extra springs?

I did try a 1.0 bar spring but it just overboosted and the ECU held it back at higher revs; It only produced 315 bhp but an impressive 388 lb ft / 527 NM.

Once I changed to a 0.8 bar spring (which it currently has) it helped control the turbo more - 342 bhp and 520 NM / 385 lb ft (back in the summer). Something has changed since. Based on the above I don't think it's the actuator spring.

Edited by HybridAero on Wednesday 7th December 14:01

In that case I'd suggest the issue is with your tune, not the spring. Only reason I can think that an ECU would hold it back is ignition retard as it leaned out due to the additional boost. Add more fuel and I would have thought you'd be there. Unless of course the T7 has an upper boost control limit which cannot be fudged or exceeded, if it's the latter, can you not simply add a manual boost control valve?

[227bhp]

HybridAero said:

227bhp said:

Yes that's correct, but when the tq figure comes down, so does the bhp. You can't have bhp going up and not tq with it!

Wrong again. Power is torque x rpm so if torque is dropping at a slower rate than rpm is rising then bhp will continue to increase.

Instead of gormlessly trotting out the same formula you found on the 'net and probably don't understand (which is why you can't explain it) below is the answer. The problem has been we don't have all the vital facts or a graph.

As peak torque (say 4k rpm) is approaching the wastegate is opened (controlled electronically) to bleed off the exhaust so boost pressure drops, ultimate torque is never reached and neither is bhp at that point in the RPM range, they both drop or level off together.
Further up the rev range (lets say 6500rpm) peak power (BHP) occurs, of course peak torque doesn't occur here so the wastegate is closed and the turbo delivers full boost to keep the bhp figure high, the torque is also as high as it can be at this point (as it is linked of course), but nowhere near what it could have been at 4k rpm.

Now hopefully we can see and understand how it has been manipulated.