Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1
3 4 ... 70 71
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Luckyluciano

2,398 posts

100 months

[news] 
Monday 28th March 2011 quote quote all
Hi Mike,

Thank you for you very detailed response.
Do you sell the 4-1 manifold and air intake systems you speak of?

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Monday 28th March 2011 quote quote all
Luckyluciano said:
Hi Mike,

Thank you for you very detailed response.
Do you sell the 4-1 manifold and air intake systems you speak of?
Sports air filters yes, the exhaust system is collaboration between Bamford Rose and Quicksilver and is nearing point of release....

http://www.quicksilverexhausts.com/story/QuickSilv...


Luckyluciano

2,398 posts

100 months

[news] 
Monday 28th March 2011 quote quote all
BamfordMike said:
Luckyluciano said:
Hi Mike,

Thank you for you very detailed response.
Do you sell the 4-1 manifold and air intake systems you speak of?
Sports air filters yes, the exhaust system is collaboration between Bamford Rose and Quicksilver and is nearing point of release....

http://www.quicksilverexhausts.com/story/QuickSilv...
Thanks for the response again Mike.

Do you have any prices/est for the exhaust headers and filters?

mikey k

9,122 posts

99 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th March 2011 quote quote all
Excellent technical descriptions.
Very interesting that you are confidently claiming 459 BHP from a tweaked 4.7.
Two questions then
1) I presume a remap is necessary if you add all stages to ensure the ECU "uses" them optimally.
2) No mention of forced induction? What are your thoughts? I know RSC & ESX have a system but no real UK presence and support frown

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th March 2011 quote quote all
mikey k said:
Excellent technical descriptions.
Very interesting that you are confidently claiming 459 BHP from a tweaked 4.7.
Two questions then
1) I presume a remap is necessary if you add all stages to ensure the ECU "uses" them optimally.
2) No mention of forced induction? What are your thoughts? I know RSC & ESX have a system but no real UK presence and support frown
Thanks..
Confidence in figures stems from...past life...and my motorsport customers who power test a similar spec on dyno
The kit will be "used" correctly....
Solace can be taken from the fact the knock control system will adapt / deal with spark, and that fuel can be taken out reliably by other means than a re-flash ECU. However, part of the sign-off / release into production phase we conduct, together with Quicksilver, will ensure this position together with ensuring that the kit will come fully warranted regards error state MIL lamp illumination and the like...

I will take some time to write a considered reply / tell you my thoughts about the equipment offered by both the suppliers you mention. I have a related question for you... what is your, and anybody else for that matter, thoughts regarding pressure charging in general.. I would be very interested to know..!

Is the desire for pressure charging just because 4.3L doesn't have enough torque / power across entire speed range?

If a ~500BHP naturally aspirated Vantage were possible would the desire for pressure charged go away?

Is it because (up until Bamford Rose..!) there are no credible or substantial performance upgrade options available?

Do owners prefer the feel / driveability of pressure charged Vs naturally aspirated screamers?

What are thoughts / feelings of 4.7L owners? Do you guys want performance upgrade or is the cars standard performance sufficient? Or are you guys waiting for warranty to expire?

The pressure charged modification requires serious investment, are these sorts of figures (£15k) palatable?

Any other ideas or comments regards pressure charging?

Mike...



Edited by BamfordMike on Tuesday 29th March 14:41

Advertisement

mikey k

9,122 posts

99 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th March 2011 quote quote all
BamfordMike said:
I will take some time to write a considered reply / tell you my thoughts about the equipment offered by both the suppliers you mention. I have a related question for you... what is your, and anybody else for that matter, thoughts regarding pressure charging in general.. I would be very interested to know..!

Is the desire for pressure charging just because 4.3L doesn't have enough torque / power across entire speed range?

If a ~500BHP naturally aspirated Vantage were possible would the desire for pressure charged go away?

Is it because (up until Bamford Rose..!) there are no credible or substantial performance upgrade options available?

Do owners prefer the feel / driveability of pressure charged Vs naturally aspirated screamers?

What are thoughts / feelings of 4.7L owners? Do you guys want performance upgrade or is the cars standard performance sufficient? Or are you guys waiting for warranty to expire?

The pressure charged modification requires serious investment, are these sorts of figures (£15k) palatable?

Any other ideas or comments regards pressure charging?

Feel free to email your feeling on ESX & RSC.
There are very few UK owners that would consider FI which is one of the reasons RSC, Paramount and ESX never really got anywhere.
I'm probably the expection having fitted it myself to other cars I'm more than comfortable with the in's and out's. My last was a 9k rpm 2.0 so yes I like the high reving engines wink I'm a 4.7 owner and would like a roadster with outputs closer to the V12, that would be my dream Aston!. I spent ~ £15k on the last one and would spend it again providing it was reliable and complete (clutch wink )
BTW I'd be more than happy to be a "test bed" for an FI system that can be supported in the UK.

EpsomJames

471 posts

129 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th March 2011 quote quote all
Hi Mike

Can you give us more details about this:

BamfordMike said:
5- Upgrade displacement to 4.7L = 40BHP at peak power speed / 50Nm up to 5000 rpm
Regards
James

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th March 2011 quote quote all
EpsomJames said:
Hi Mike

Can you give us more details about this:

BamfordMike said:
5- Upgrade displacement to 4.7L = 40BHP at peak power speed / 50Nm up to 5000 rpm
Regards
James
Hi James.

I will discuss the specific question you raise in detail, but firstly, let’s make clear the differentiation between the options available, as this makes clear the reason for choosing a particular direction.

For standard 4.3L Vantage there is what I call an option of ‘non-intrusive’ upgrade.
This means no major parts are removed from the car and the extent of the modification is relatively quick and simple (drive-in / drive-out).
The non-intrusive upgrade is the new configuration exhaust manifold, catalyst and silencer system, together with new Sports air intake and returns +39BHP. Although this is a big performance upgrade and will significantly improve the performance (acceleration times) and feel (drivers perception of performance increase) of the car, it will give no significant torque increase, and will only improve acceleration times when the engine is revved above ~5000 rpm (re my earlier discussion about why increasing torque is key to overcoming lacklustre acceleration). The price for this system is being finalised, the goal is supplied and fitted for circa £5k, which incidentally, beats other exhaust system manufactures currently on the market who supply and do not fit, just the catalysts and silencer (no manifold) for circa £3300. Not to mention the integrity of my declared performance gain versus what ‘others’ claim, which can only be described as the ‘emperors clothes’.

For those who want the next step onward from non-intrusive, there is the 4.3L to 4.7L displacement change, which I term the ‘intrusive’ upgrade. This is because the engine requires removal from the car, and the comprehensive re-work activity takes much longer than non-intrusive (~2.5weeks). The benefit of this upgrade addresses the route-cause of the lacklustre acceleration problem by delivering what the car needs, more torque. Forum members have asked me to discuss the difference between factory, Prodrive and Bamford Rose performance modifications, and it is this modification from Bamford Rose, which in my opinion, blows the others totally out of the water. This is because the benefit of the extra displacement provided by Bamford Rose cures lacklustre acceleration in the same way as the factory did by superseding 4.3L with 4.7L. The 4.7L increases power by 40 BHP (11% to 420BHP), low speed torque is increased by up to 15%, whilst 470Nm at peak torque speed is achieved at 5000rpm.

The ‘non-intrusive’ exhaust system package can be offered to existing 4.7L owners to give 480Nm / 459BHP, and can be applied at the same time as a 4.3L to 4.7L conversion to return the same additional performance. This means that by taking all of the modifications, it is possible to drive in at 420Nm / 380 BHP (4.3L) and drive out at 480Nm / 459 BHP.

The 4.3L to 4.7L debate:
Boring bit first, for those worried about insurance, Bamford Rose has entered into collaboration with specialist insurance provider Adrian Flux. Each of Bamford Rose modifications are understood by Flux, meaning the headache of making certain your car is correctly covered has been taken away. The details of this collaboration will shortly appear on my website.

Apart from a few interior knob and button revisions, seat design and paint colour options, the only significant aspects which make a 4.3L Vantage on the marketplace distinct from 4.7L production car released by the factory is the crankshaft, pistons, bore and front pulley. That’s it..! drivetrain, wheel bearings, cooling pack, clutch, gearbox and differential – it’s all the same. We either supply OE engine parts, or fit our own billet crank, forged pistons and heavily uprated connecting rods. If the OE parts are used the engine is 100% identical to 4.7L production engine from the factory, if my uprated parts are used the engine represents something of significantly better quality. Either way, durability / warranty are aspects of no concern to me, and I warrant any work undertaken by Bamford Rose (save driver induced faults), for parts and labour, for as long as the owner owns the car. No quibble, no exceptions.

The cost; clearly this represents a substantial investment, but each individual justifies decision through different thought processes. Mine would be that to upgrade to a Vantage model that doesn’t have lacklustre acceleration, in reality, means a minimum outlay of 30k. The main issue here, lacklustre acceleration aside, is that perhaps regarding colour and interior trim, you might have no problem whatsoever with your current car. Combine this fact with trading up inevitably resulting in further depreciation within two years, the associated cost of trading up could be as much as, say, 50k after two years.
This remains to be seen, but perhaps the depreciated price of early 4.3L Vantages have now reached a level which they will not drop below (£30/35k), combine the reality of trade-up cost with the investment of the intrusive upgrade being in the region of £10k, this now represents an altogether more intelligent move to overcome lacklustre acceleration. Just my analysis of the market and engine performance facts and figures aside, the economics is for sure, a very interesting debate..!

Does this answer your question in enough detail James? – I assume you didn’t want me to talk about how we measure bearing, tappet shim and piston grade tolerances… only joking..! For Bamford Rose, this really is a tried and tested operation. We have completed this process many times over and the fact the rest of the car copes in production, not just with 420 BHP, but close to 470BHP at V12 Vantage, means the 4.3L to 4.7L conversion comes with no risk I can identify….

I know a number of my racing partners who have had the 4.3L to 4.7L conversion read this thread, perhaps you guys might want to chip in with your thoughts / comments regarding your experience of the conversion with Bamford Rose??

Mike.

With these feet

4,304 posts

98 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th March 2011 quote quote all
Late last year I took a couple of 4.3ltr "paperweights" to BR to turn them into useful race engines again. The introduction of the 4.7ltr immediately meant the older 4.3's would be at a disadvantage once any performance equalization was removed. No-one else offered this type of upgrade, in doing so it has given us a new engine - no longer is it a 4.3 ltr paperweight sitting under a bench gathering dust!

We have one that is a standard 4.7, no modifications other than balancing.
It uses all the original oil coolers, pipework etc so no additional outlay is required there.
On initial fire-up, the first thing you notice is how smooth it is, along with the way it freely revs. No hesitation, stuttering or vibration. If it was not for the fact the plenum is domed and the coin tries to roll, a 50p stands up on it at idle.
I don't drive the cars so cannot comment on the difference first hand, only relay what the owner of this particular car remarked when coming in after the first 30mins of running.
Bearing in mind the original 4.3's were already a little special (Bruce having built the original AML units) the 4.7 still made an enormous difference. The torque increase made the car easier to drive and in most corners enabled a higher gear to be selected.

The Second engine is still waiting to be fitted, though will certainly be out earning its upgrade in a 24hr race later this year...

As testament to Bruce's engine building, we have totalled circa 20k of track kms with the original 4.3's with only a faulty oil pressure switch on one car (Not his fault!).


EpsomJames

471 posts

129 months

[news] 
Thursday 31st March 2011 quote quote all
Mike, perfect thanks.

The 4.3 to 4.7 conversion does look like an attractive proposition. Presumably in the event of an engine rebuild through failure (not that I've ever heard of 4.3's going pop) an option to rebuild to 4.7 is possible?

millsjq

141 posts

44 months

[news] 
Thursday 31st March 2011 quote quote all
Off topic of performance improvment discussion rently. Bramford Rose, My 09 SportsShift Vantage is not due for service until this Dec, but the car is over 2 years old and I think I should flush the brake fluid as it is hydroscopic and was asorbing moisture while the car sat at the dealer for almost a year. The closest dealer is 2+ hours away, and I was thinking of bleeding the brakes myself with my pressure bleeder, but I am concerned that I am not capable to cycle the ABS while flushing. How much does the inability to cycle the ABS while flushing significant?


BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Thursday 31st March 2011 quote quote all
EpsomJames said:
Mike, perfect thanks.

The 4.3 to 4.7 conversion does look like an attractive proposition. Presumably in the event of an engine rebuild through failure (not that I've ever heard of 4.3's going pop) an option to rebuild to 4.7 is possible?
Hi James.
There are a few types of failure that would mean the engine is beyond re-work. That said, you are right, the Aston V8 is extremely durable, and seeing engines beyond re-work is a rare event.
The reason all current Aston engines are so durable, to the point where even additional performance does not compromise reliability. Is down to the fact that when Aston was part of the Ford empire, the durability sign-off procedures Ford imposed on Aston were extremely harsh.

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Friday 1st April 2011 quote quote all
millsjq said:
Off topic of performance improvment discussion rently. Bramford Rose, My 09 SportsShift Vantage is not due for service until this Dec, but the car is over 2 years old and I think I should flush the brake fluid as it is hydroscopic and was asorbing moisture while the car sat at the dealer for almost a year. The closest dealer is 2+ hours away, and I was thinking of bleeding the brakes myself with my pressure bleeder, but I am concerned that I am not capable to cycle the ABS while flushing. How much does the inability to cycle the ABS while flushing significant?
Hi.
Not a problem to divert off topic – a general discussion is the point of this forum.

Without the correct diagnostic equipment, a proper ABS valve block bleed is not possible, as you correctly state. However, there is a way to bleed the brakes yourself, but only if you are confident to undertake the task.

The pressure bleed equipment you need to use must be of the ‘reservoir type’, which self-replenishes with fresh fluid, which operates at less than 1.0bar.

If your kit does not have a reservoir which contains fresh fluid, and is simply of the ‘screw-on cap’ type, with connection to some form of air pressure supply– then forget about undertaking the job yourself with this level of equipment. Take the car to the dealer, as, one lapse in concentration which results in air being introduced into the system will mean a two hour drive to a dealer turns into a recovery wagon trip to the dealer.

A dedicated ABS valve block bleed is not required should you only flush through new fluid without introducing air into the system. So, don’t bleed down the system, but bleed the brakes on all four corners in a diagonal fashion, by replenishing the system with the pressure bleeder before fluid in the reservoir drops below minimum.

By doing it this way, you are flushing the ABS valve block through with fresh fluid, without air. The diagnostic equipment performs an ABS valve block bleed if air has been introduced into the system. The diagnostic equipment forces the pump to run, and pumps fluid through whatever line is being bled to evacuate / force out air – But, if you haven’t drained down in a manner which introduces air into the system, you don’t need to perform the diagnostic forced ABS valve block brake bleed.

The very important care point here, is that you do not introduce air into the ABS valve block, if you do there is no alternative but to recover the car to the dealership to perform the forced ABS valve block bleed.

Hope this info. helps you to choose which direction you take.

Mike.

millsjq

141 posts

44 months

[news] 
Friday 1st April 2011 quote quote all
Thanks, I have the "powermotion" bleeder with reservoir. I was planning on putting 2 liters in it and flush the system. I will not be introducing air unless I really screw up. I was most concerned about not getting fresh fluid in the ABS system, you have removed my concern, Thanks. Now I need to find the proper Castrol fluid which is not readily available in the States. The speced Castrol fluid is much more expesive here than other DOT4 fluids but has a higher boiling point and other specs so I assume I should continue to use it?

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Friday 1st April 2011 quote quote all
millsjq said:
Thanks, I have the "powermotion" bleeder with reservoir. I was planning on putting 2 liters in it and flush the system. I will not be introducing air unless I really screw up. I was most concerned about not getting fresh fluid in the ABS system, you have removed my concern, Thanks. Now I need to find the proper Castrol fluid which is not readily available in the States. The speced Castrol fluid is much more expesive here than other DOT4 fluids but has a higher boiling point and other specs so I assume I should continue to use it?
Ok, good luck…
Cost aside when compared to other brands of same spec, make sure you use the recommended Castrol Response fluid and not the higher grade Castrol SRF racing fluid, as this is not suitable for road cars.

rmrmd1956

44 posts

76 months

[news] 
Friday 1st April 2011 quote quote all
Great info. Here are my requests:
I have been successfully running FI on my AMV8 for over 2 years. I need to use a piggyback ECU to accomplish this. I would love to have software that would allow me to access and modify the AM PCU to,
1)Recalibrate slope and volume for bigger injectors.
2)Change the MAF sensor Calbration Table - I'm now maxed at 5 Volts at 7K RPM and need bigger MAF tubes.
3)Change the expected torque vs load/RPM in the Equizzer and watchdog chip for my FI airflows.
4)Adjust index ratio threshold for Cat efficiency testing (Purely for off road application)
5)Modify the base fuel and ignition maps to reflect FI, eg somewhat richer Lambda in midrange required.

There is nothing available at present on the open market, I'm sure there are many people who would like that functionality.
Aditional questions:
6)Flowrate of stock injectors?
7)Max ignition retard per RPM from Knock sensors?
8)Knock sensor freq sample - what does PCM look for exactly?

millsjq

141 posts

44 months

[news] 
Saturday 2nd April 2011 quote quote all
Mike, One last question. You said "but bleed the brakes on all four corners in a diagonal fashion" I am not aquainted with this method, I was allways taught to bleed the farthest from the master cyl first, for a LHD car, in order of RR, LR, RF, LF. Is this the proper method

vince1972

123 posts

40 months

[news] 
Saturday 2nd April 2011 quote quote all
Hi Mike,

I come to you for an intractable problem for several months on my Aston, ie far too much wealth from 4,000 rpm.
Synopsis:
when crossing the tsc on the bench, it was found that a lot of power missing. After another test on another bench later, the problem remains the same, namely, from 4,000 rpm, wealth surged to dangerous proportions in the engine.

This morning, I remade the test Aston Riviera (see values ​​for control of pollution). There should be constant over a wide speed range (1,000 to 6,000 kinds of revolutions per minute) between 0 and 0.5. From 1000 to 3'0000 and some rpm, everything is perfect, from 4,000 rpm, the values ​​start to panic and the 6.5 to 7.5, more than 10 times the correct value. In summary, the engine is too rich from the famous 4,000 rpm.
For information manager, we tested the two exhausts separately.

Were tested:
ECU, intake, exhaust, cylinder compression, spark plugs, injectors, ignition coils.
It is the lambda sensors, but there is no error code in the suitcase and the cataliseurs (which are 200 cells instead of the 600 original cells).

the car is passed to dyno and it only comes out 330 hp.

Any idea, I'm all ears!

Thank you!

Vincent

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Sunday 3rd April 2011 quote quote all
millsjq said:
Mike, One last question. You said "but bleed the brakes on all four corners in a diagonal fashion" I am not aquainted with this method, I was allways taught to bleed the farthest from the master cyl first, for a LHD car, in order of RR, LR, RF, LF. Is this the proper method
Hi.

As the system is dual line split diagonally, its probably better to bleed diagonally.

Mike

BamfordMike

541 posts

40 months

[news] 
Sunday 3rd April 2011 quote quote all
rmrmd1956 said:
Great info. Here are my requests:
I have been successfully running FI on my AMV8 for over 2 years. I need to use a piggyback ECU to accomplish this. I would love to have software that would allow me to access and modify the AM PCU to,
1)Recalibrate slope and volume for bigger injectors.
2)Change the MAF sensor Calbration Table - I'm now maxed at 5 Volts at 7K RPM and need bigger MAF tubes.
3)Change the expected torque vs load/RPM in the Equizzer and watchdog chip for my FI airflows.
4)Adjust index ratio threshold for Cat efficiency testing (Purely for off road application)
5)Modify the base fuel and ignition maps to reflect FI, eg somewhat richer Lambda in midrange required.

There is nothing available at present on the open market, I'm sure there are many people who would like that functionality.
Aditional questions:
6)Flowrate of stock injectors?
7)Max ignition retard per RPM from Knock sensors?
8)Knock sensor freq sample - what does PCM look for exactly?
Hi.

Sounds like you have an interesting project.

In reality, finding the inner workings of the EMS is unlikely, so answers to questions 3,4,5, 7 and 8 are more-or-less irrelevant.
Re MAF - You could always try V12 MAF tubes as they are slightly larger in volume / diameter.
Re injectors - Search Jag parts bin for greater flow rate parts, DBS good for 500 ish BHP at 3.8 bar
Re the other calibration questions you have, if you have control of your jumper ECU, then you are free to calibrate parameters as you see fit? no?

However, I would have thought the supplier of your equipment would have conducted these activities prior to sale?

Good luck.
Mike.

1
3 4 ... 70 71
Reply to Topic