Exhaust Upgrade, Decat, Air Filter & Tuning
Discussion
I decided to upgrade my 2013 V8 Vantage with a QS SuperSports Exhaust, QS secondary cat bypass pipes, VelocityAP air filters and tuning after seeing a video on YouTube of a modified Volcano Red 2013 V8 Vantage with the owner expecting a 40hp to 50hp gain from the modifications.
Prior to the modifications I had a dyno test carried out which provided the base data of the standard vehicle, the result was 361.1whp. The modifications were carried out and a 2nd dyno test showed a gain of ~8whp, I was a little disappointed with this result and therefore sceptical of achieving 40hp! I then contacted VelocityAP and purchased their tuning kit. I downloaded the original file, this was then sent away stating the modification which had been carried out. The file was then modified, sent back and I then uploaded the new file. The 3rd dyno test was carried out, the result was 400.2whp. The car certainly feels, performs and sounds much better than before and I am delighted with the results - see attached.
Prior to the modifications I had a dyno test carried out which provided the base data of the standard vehicle, the result was 361.1whp. The modifications were carried out and a 2nd dyno test showed a gain of ~8whp, I was a little disappointed with this result and therefore sceptical of achieving 40hp! I then contacted VelocityAP and purchased their tuning kit. I downloaded the original file, this was then sent away stating the modification which had been carried out. The file was then modified, sent back and I then uploaded the new file. The 3rd dyno test was carried out, the result was 400.2whp. The car certainly feels, performs and sounds much better than before and I am delighted with the results - see attached.
The ECU tune of Velocity AP is indeed very worthwhile, read also my review of the DBS tune they offer: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
So, with the primary cat still left in place, the ECU tune is optimised??
Knowing that Vantage S already has adaptive spark to advance ignition to borderline of detonation, meaning no gain can come from spark, the inlet cam timing is already fully retarded at peak power, the throttle is already wide open - the only logical gain left can come from ECU tune, can come from fuelling? Correct?? More power is achieved from fuelling by enleaning - taking fuel out to return the fuelling value closer to maximum power ratio of about 13.0:1. A concern when this is done when standard primary cat is fitted is that the cat could get too hot causing meltdown of cat matrix. I saw this last week on a race car which someone incorrectly fitted road car cats to. The enleaned air fuel ratio completely failed the cat, fortunately it was a downstream cat not close enough for the debris to be injested by the engine as would likely be the case with failure of primary cat. Being quite sure you have not got an error state of too lean mixture i find myself thinking one must try harder, because we have already discussed spark, fuel, air and cams - there clearly must be a parameter i dont know of which can be tweaked to give your gains? Quite clearly when the primary cat is deleted the ECU tune can be optimised safely, but with it still in place??
Knowing that Vantage S already has adaptive spark to advance ignition to borderline of detonation, meaning no gain can come from spark, the inlet cam timing is already fully retarded at peak power, the throttle is already wide open - the only logical gain left can come from ECU tune, can come from fuelling? Correct?? More power is achieved from fuelling by enleaning - taking fuel out to return the fuelling value closer to maximum power ratio of about 13.0:1. A concern when this is done when standard primary cat is fitted is that the cat could get too hot causing meltdown of cat matrix. I saw this last week on a race car which someone incorrectly fitted road car cats to. The enleaned air fuel ratio completely failed the cat, fortunately it was a downstream cat not close enough for the debris to be injested by the engine as would likely be the case with failure of primary cat. Being quite sure you have not got an error state of too lean mixture i find myself thinking one must try harder, because we have already discussed spark, fuel, air and cams - there clearly must be a parameter i dont know of which can be tweaked to give your gains? Quite clearly when the primary cat is deleted the ECU tune can be optimised safely, but with it still in place??
BamfordMike said:
So, with the primary cat still left in place, the ECU tune is optimised??
Knowing that Vantage S already has adaptive spark to advance ignition to borderline of detonation, meaning no gain can come from spark, the inlet cam timing is already fully retarded at peak power, the throttle is already wide open - the only logical gain left can come from ECU tune, can come from fuelling? Correct?? More power is achieved from fuelling by enleaning - taking fuel out to return the fuelling value closer to maximum power ratio of about 13.0:1. A concern when this is done when standard primary cat is fitted is that the cat could get too hot causing meltdown of cat matrix. I saw this last week on a race car which someone incorrectly fitted road car cats to. The enleaned air fuel ratio completely failed the cat, fortunately it was a downstream cat not close enough for the debris to be injested by the engine as would likely be the case with failure of primary cat. Being quite sure you have not got an error state of too lean mixture i find myself thinking one must try harder, because we have already discussed spark, fuel, air and cams - there clearly must be a parameter i dont know of which can be tweaked to give your gains? Quite clearly when the primary cat is deleted the ECU tune can be optimised safely, but with it still in place??
Although my knowledge on the subject is far less than yours, this is kind of what I thought when I saw the graph. A few years ago, I had my 996 turbo re-mapped and it's by a company that also logs and provides a table of AFRs to prove that the extra power was not at the expense of running too lean.Knowing that Vantage S already has adaptive spark to advance ignition to borderline of detonation, meaning no gain can come from spark, the inlet cam timing is already fully retarded at peak power, the throttle is already wide open - the only logical gain left can come from ECU tune, can come from fuelling? Correct?? More power is achieved from fuelling by enleaning - taking fuel out to return the fuelling value closer to maximum power ratio of about 13.0:1. A concern when this is done when standard primary cat is fitted is that the cat could get too hot causing meltdown of cat matrix. I saw this last week on a race car which someone incorrectly fitted road car cats to. The enleaned air fuel ratio completely failed the cat, fortunately it was a downstream cat not close enough for the debris to be injested by the engine as would likely be the case with failure of primary cat. Being quite sure you have not got an error state of too lean mixture i find myself thinking one must try harder, because we have already discussed spark, fuel, air and cams - there clearly must be a parameter i dont know of which can be tweaked to give your gains? Quite clearly when the primary cat is deleted the ECU tune can be optimised safely, but with it still in place??
I don't think I'd want a tune on any of my cars unless I could see evidence that the mixture was not over lean.
davek_964 said:
Although my knowledge on the subject is far less than yours, this is kind of what I thought when I saw the graph. A few years ago, I had my 996 turbo re-mapped and it's by a company that also logs and provides a table of AFRs to prove that the extra power was not at the expense of running too lean.
I don't think I'd want a tune on any of my cars unless I could see evidence that the mixture was not over lean.
indeed / good point. If someone said on V8 Vantage with a primary cat fitted the lambda was 0.82 instead of the 0.77 that would be an OK dialing out of the safety the maker put in. I don't think I'd want a tune on any of my cars unless I could see evidence that the mixture was not over lean.
Any leaner would be very risky indeed. But most tuners only think the lambda at steady state is important, and if the temp limit was, say, 950 degrees they enlean fuel until that actual hard limit is reached. What's missed due to lack of knowledge is that the safety limit is by-and-largely there in first place for transient conditions. For example, hold 4000 rpm on load until the cat temps stabilise at 950 (because now is enleaned whereas with makers safety the temp would have been circa 900) then prod the accelerator pedal 5 consecutive times simulating on / off throttle driving on an A road. The excess of transient fuelling (HC) shoved into the cat because fuelling is partially burnt during transient sends cat into an exotherm super nova, and no safety present, all that will happen is melting / destruction of the cat.
Together with 11.33:1 compression ratio being no good for pressure charging, the message imho should be an ECU remap for power on standard hardware is a big no-no. In the case of a primary cat melting we are not just discussing a repairable error state, the debris sucked back in will fail the motor.
but in this case, if lambda was 0.85 / cams -15 deg / spark circa 27 / throttle 90 degrees - the difference in these numbers over the makers which had an element of safety, doesnt return +30bhp in the testing i have done, which is why i said note to self, must try harder!
BamfordMike said:
indeed / good point. If someone said on V8 Vantage with a primary cat fitted the lambda was 0.82 instead of the 0.77 that would be an OK dialing out of the safety the maker put in.
Any leaner would be very risky indeed. But most tuners only think the lambda at steady state is important, and if the temp limit was, say, 950 degrees they enlean fuel until that actual hard limit is reached. What's missed due to lack of knowledge is that the safety limit is by-and-largely there in first place for transient conditions. For example, hold 4000 rpm on load until the cat temps stabilise at 950 (because now is enleaned whereas with makers safety the temp would have been circa 900) then prod the accelerator pedal 5 consecutive times simulating on / off throttle driving on an A road. The excess of transient fuelling (HC) shoved into the cat because fuelling is partially burnt during transient sends cat into an exotherm super nova, and no safety present, all that will happen is melting / destruction of the cat.
Together with 11.33:1 compression ratio being no good for pressure charging, the message imho should be an ECU remap for power on standard hardware is a big no-no. In the case of a primary cat melting we are not just discussing a repairable error state, the debris sucked back in will fail the motor.
but in this case, if lambda was 0.85 / cams -15 deg / spark circa 27 / throttle 90 degrees - the difference in these numbers over the makers which had an element of safety, doesnt return +30bhp in the testing i have done, which is why i said note to self, must try harder!
Guys - thanks for the cautionary comments, it's appreciated. The intent was to improve the performance within acceptable limits. I do not want to carry out modifications with the risk of a catastrophic failure of the primary cats and engine. The next stage was to have the exhaust manifolds replaced and 200 cell race cats fitted and then finally a twin plated clutch. Maybe it's best not to go down the path of modifying the V8 just start saving up for a V12S.Any leaner would be very risky indeed. But most tuners only think the lambda at steady state is important, and if the temp limit was, say, 950 degrees they enlean fuel until that actual hard limit is reached. What's missed due to lack of knowledge is that the safety limit is by-and-largely there in first place for transient conditions. For example, hold 4000 rpm on load until the cat temps stabilise at 950 (because now is enleaned whereas with makers safety the temp would have been circa 900) then prod the accelerator pedal 5 consecutive times simulating on / off throttle driving on an A road. The excess of transient fuelling (HC) shoved into the cat because fuelling is partially burnt during transient sends cat into an exotherm super nova, and no safety present, all that will happen is melting / destruction of the cat.
Together with 11.33:1 compression ratio being no good for pressure charging, the message imho should be an ECU remap for power on standard hardware is a big no-no. In the case of a primary cat melting we are not just discussing a repairable error state, the debris sucked back in will fail the motor.
but in this case, if lambda was 0.85 / cams -15 deg / spark circa 27 / throttle 90 degrees - the difference in these numbers over the makers which had an element of safety, doesnt return +30bhp in the testing i have done, which is why i said note to self, must try harder!
Stuart Dickinson said:
What a surprise to see Bamford Mike writing dissertations on competing products... Lol
LOL, who's laughing? what an odd thing to say? The discussion is serious for owners concerning a topic which given my career history I'm arguably the most informed guy on the planet to make comment on. When I see claims on power gains put across by layman which to other layman appear great and might inform an uneducated decision, and I can see that perhaps not the right critical questions are being asked for sound reasons, the engineering element is the part of the discussion and input I naturally have, not least because who else would or could do that to the extent of my knowledge on here? The OP started the thread to commence a discussion which is what forums with free speech allow, I put my points across, and like just like similar threads it's actually no surprise to me to see no data in response!!
Spark @ std depending air temp and fuel grade = 24/26 degrees
Lambda @ std depending cat temp prediction = 0.77 lambda for a 900/925 cat brick temp, the catalyst melts at 1020 degrees.
Cams @ std = -15 degrees
Throttle @ std = 82 (which is electrical maximum open in bore position)
For this puzzle we need to get to +30BHP, as far as I see it, no other parameters than what I state above influence power??
Cams and throttle being already optimised we have only spark and lambda left at our disposal to tweak??
On race grade fuel, a std ambient air temp / manifold temp of 25 deg C, and a engine blueprinted - so all external influencing parameters at their very best allowing ECU optimisation, running an Aston Martin Racing calibration which is arguably the closest to the ragged edge?? has spark at 28 degrees and fuelling at 0.87 Lambda. The spark returns detonation on a top limit compression engine (so a fag paper away from lancing a hole in piston) and the 0.87 lambda is 975 to 1000 degree catalyst temps (a fag paper away from a molten cat) - hence why in race world its common to see heat nibbled cats leading to their failure if not swapped out prior, nibbled piston crowns from the detonation and exhaust valves badly heat damaged to extent seat surface is inefficient at dissipating heat - but this is all no issue in motorsport world because the engines have a service interval prior to these symptoms of the ECU tune pushing the engine too far to take effect.
Every engine reacts slightly differently, but call it 3BHP per 1 degree spark, and 1BHP per 0.01 lambda, means we can call the racing cal an additional BHP gain over road car of roughly 10BHP spark and 10BHP fuelling = 20BHP. AMR claim a new GT4 car is 440BHP, so 20BHP above road car, they get the 20BHP with GT4 air filters, the optimised cal and high flow cats, meaning this racing example is a reliable reality check for the puzzle we are trying to solve here, of how to get to +30BHP with a cal alone when a racing car with the stated kit is +20BHP??
However, a road car engine and catalyst running 0.87 Lambda will result in a molten cat because as in the OP's engine, he has a primary cat compared to downstream motorsport cat which will run hotter meaning 0.87 lambda is not possible?? I saw this first hand last week on a race car someone incorrectly built with a road car cat, the cat was destroyed.
Combined with the transient condition I explained in an earlier post, something like 0.82 lambda is as far as is sensible to push a car running road car hardware (like the OP, because he has his primary cat still present and unknown MAF meters which I would actually say the difference in MAF meters engine side to side from production is the biggest reason why the maker dialled in a safety factor to start with).
As I said earlier, I'm sure the OP doesn't have a product which would put his engine at risk, because what fool would release that scenario as a product? but on the other hand that means totaling the gain from spark and a sensible fuelling over the std road car (26/27 degrees spark for detonation and 0.82 for Lambda, which is the lambda needed for 950/975 cat temp) and the benefit from a remap with this data set in mind is about 15BHP at best in my book? which is basically the dialling out of the safety factors the maker put in for good reasons, hence my comments on std hardware an ECU reflash is, 'interesting', and on std hardware given the motorsport example of +20BHP, I cant solve the puzzle to walk up to +30BHP?? unless the product the OP has is even better than aston martin racing??
Fancy coming back with data and a dissertation of your own which we would love to read? If you needed help, throughout I have put ??? for useful prompts to save you time thinking about it. But like all well received essays, you need to answer all or nothing for it to make sense and get a good grade. For your essay its the AMR data I can see as a potential hurdle, who can argue their product and output? Meaning if it were me, I would sooner pick the essay on sport, on that subject my personal favourite is shooting fish in a bowl and / or discussing the relationship between trans losses and RWHP and flywheel power
sdseng said:
Guys - thanks for the cautionary comments, it's appreciated. The intent was to improve the performance within acceptable limits. I do not want to carry out modifications with the risk of a catastrophic failure of the primary cats and engine. The next stage was to have the exhaust manifolds replaced and 200 cell race cats fitted and then finally a twin plated clutch. Maybe it's best not to go down the path of modifying the V8 just start saving up for a V12S.
I understand your intent, but as a punter you can only be guided by what vendors peddle, but how in reality can you know what are acceptable limits and what are the risks and those limits unless brought out in an informed discussion like this one? Instead of posting after the fact, what research did you do prior? I think it is only pistonheads which thankfully allows frank discussions like this one, if you were to base your learning on forums where vendors are protected by rules which pretty much gets another poster banned if they even half question a claim being made is not the best place to acquire knowledge imho? The intent to pep up the V8 turning it into a proper drivers car is a completely different scenario to buying a V12? And if purchase price and planned modification price equated to all up cost of used V12V, hell yeah - go for the V12V or DBS!!
Mike, thanks for the frank response, points noted. I am reviewing the situation, hopefully, make the right decision going forward and get safely on the right track with this endeavour. The cars performance has been transformed, it always has been a joy to drive but now it's just that much better.
sdseng said:
Mike, thanks for the frank response, points noted. I am reviewing the situation, hopefully, make the right decision going forward and get safely on the right track with this endeavour. The cars performance has been transformed, it always has been a joy to drive but now it's just that much better.
I wouldn't overly worry, I'm sure that either with or without data you will be reassured most adequately.Either there is an answer which says in numbers how the 30BHP puzzle is delivered which outlines a revelation even this engineer is not capable of visioning, perhaps the dyno test was inaccurate? or perhaps fuelling being the only real calibrateable to achieve the power, exhaust temps are at comfortable 'high' levels - I dunno, but one of the outcomes being good places another outcome in compromise, this is the relationship that cannot be escaped.
I often find the cars turn a joy to drive the most when the relationship between pedal position and throttle blade position is made more aggressive, but that doesn't mean wheel horsepower is any different than it was.
BamfordMike said:
LOL, who's laughing? what an odd thing to say?
I'm laughing, I think it's hilarious. Not the car or the product, but the level of insecurity that has to be present to find it necessary to run us down any time you get the chance, and the amount of time you devote to it. You couch it as grave and genuine concern for the customer's P&J but it's pretty obvious to me that you're very threatened by any competition. Then again, maybe going bust a couple of times will do that do you...Actually, on second thought ("I'm arguably the most informed guy on the planet to make comment") I retract that. It's not insecurity, it's monumental arrogance. And I shouldn't laugh, because it must be a colossal burden to you having to carry around that massive chip on your shoulder all your life.
If all you guys adjust, or think there is to adjust is timing and fuel, you go ahead and charge people to adjust only those factors. If you think AMR's calibrations are maxed out, go ahead and run with them. Fact of the matter is, we've extracted much more power on race cars than the AMR calibrations on multiple vehicles that have gone on to win at a professional level. Not that I would advocate running those same settings on a road car unless you've got access to VP107 fuel every day.
I have zero intention of either posting our proprietary information online, or getting into a technical argument with you. I'm just the idiot who owns the company, I don't write calibrations. But my Dad always told me to hire people who were smarter than I was, so we have a fantastic individual working in house for VelocityAP who does phenomenal work and who knows Astons inside and out! He's 'Arguably the most informetn guy on the planet to write calibrations for Aston engines.'
And guess what... I can't weld either, but that doesn't stop us from making a great product - we're proud to supply AMR with a number of products like our V8 headers. I'd be happy to supply these to you too Mike, you'd probably find they are great quality and you can make more profit margin and provide to your customers at a lower price point. That would be a win-win for everyone. Drop me a line if you're interested
Edited by Stuart Dickinson on Thursday 7th April 16:59
Stuart Dickinson said:
I'm laughing, I think it's hilarious. Not the car or the product, but the level of insecurity that has to be present to find it necessary to run us down any time you get the chance, and the amount of time you devote to it. You couch it as grave and genuine concern for the customer's P&J but it's pretty obvious to me that you're very threatened by any competition. Then again, maybe going bust a couple of times will do that do you...
Actually, on second thought ("I'm arguably the most informed guy on the planet to make comment") I retract that. It's not insecurity, it's monumental arrogance. And I shouldn't laugh, because it must be a colossal burden to you having to carry around that massive chip on your shoulder all your life.
If all you guys adjust, or think there is to adjust is timing and fuel, you go ahead and charge people to adjust only those factors. If you think AMR's calibrations are maxed out, go ahead and run with them. Fact of the matter is, we've extracted much more power on race cars than the AMR calibrations on multiple vehicles that have gone on to win at a professional level. Not that I would advocate running those same settings on a road car unless you've got access to VP107 fuel every day.
I have zero intention of either posting our proprietary information online, or getting into a technical argument with you. I'm just the idiot who owns the company, I don't write calibrations. But my Dad always told me to hire people who were smarter than I was, so we have a fantastic individual working in house for VelocityAP who does phenomenal work and who knows Astons inside and out! He's 'Arguably the most informetn guy on the planet to write calibrations for Aston engines.'
And guess what... I can't weld either, but that doesn't stop us from making a great product - we're proud to supply AMR with a number of products like our V8 headers. I'd be happy to supply these to you too Mike, you'd probably find they are great quality and you can make more profit margin and provide to your customers at a lower price point. That would be a win-win for everyone. Drop me a line if you're interested
Great, no data, telling??!!Actually, on second thought ("I'm arguably the most informed guy on the planet to make comment") I retract that. It's not insecurity, it's monumental arrogance. And I shouldn't laugh, because it must be a colossal burden to you having to carry around that massive chip on your shoulder all your life.
If all you guys adjust, or think there is to adjust is timing and fuel, you go ahead and charge people to adjust only those factors. If you think AMR's calibrations are maxed out, go ahead and run with them. Fact of the matter is, we've extracted much more power on race cars than the AMR calibrations on multiple vehicles that have gone on to win at a professional level. Not that I would advocate running those same settings on a road car unless you've got access to VP107 fuel every day.
I have zero intention of either posting our proprietary information online, or getting into a technical argument with you. I'm just the idiot who owns the company, I don't write calibrations. But my Dad always told me to hire people who were smarter than I was, so we have a fantastic individual working in house for VelocityAP who does phenomenal work and who knows Astons inside and out! He's 'Arguably the most informetn guy on the planet to write calibrations for Aston engines.'
And guess what... I can't weld either, but that doesn't stop us from making a great product - we're proud to supply AMR with a number of products like our V8 headers. I'd be happy to supply these to you too Mike, you'd probably find they are great quality and you can make more profit margin and provide to your customers at a lower price point. That would be a win-win for everyone. Drop me a line if you're interested
Edited by Stuart Dickinson on Thursday 7th April 16:59
I have no insecurities, I see something which I don't quite understand and I question it, the other side always has chance to come back but they, as you now, never do and hide behind the sort of post you just wrote, no real substance and all a bit wishy-washy!
Contrary, if I find something I like and it is robust I will champion it. I was once demo'd a full ZF auto classic vanquish done by another independent - I thought it was great and would recommend it to anyone, it was good engineering and that's what I like, because, and as you admit, where i'm not too sure what you term yourself? a project manager? I am an engineer which means to meticulously design and develop something into production. I'm far too busy to have insecurities! What is king above anything (on this forum at least, thankfully) is the info and discussion which informs others. That story being informed is what motivates me, folk come here looking for info and that info needs to be correct and balanced. I cant help it if the questions I ask, which are always reasonable and from sound foundation, irritate some of the forum readership. If it were me needing the research to decide what to do with a project, correct and balanced story is what I would want to read.
Only since you ask, I will explain.
I can say what I do and in the manner because of my engineering prowess, my CV is pretty much about the best out there for a role in any powertrain calibration department (save Aston, I don't think they would re employ me) across the globe. Unlike anyone else in the aftermarket game I have actually worked for many OEM's and delivered into production engines now made in millions, literally. It's OK, I get it, you were not in the engineering scene so you don't get the engineers thing of 'pecking order'. For this environment it goes something like; race engineer, toaster design engineer, kettle design engineer, invalid wagon design engineer, skip quite a few 'engineers' and on to the final - powertrain calibration engineer - well, I was / am the latter. I normally bag a role within the auto industry off my name and a chat over a coffee, and as far as V8 and V12 is concerned, nobody else delivered what I did into production and contrary to what you think, the best guys to write calibrations above anyone you state are actually about the 5 I used to work with, you know, the ones that did that job for the OEM. Isn't the true monumental arrogance stating that your company can deliver something better than the OEM or even Aston Martin Racing? where racing means no engineering safety factors? I would only go as far as saying they could be equalled but never bettered, but no, you better them and that's not arrogant seeing as you haven't been in the OEM scene??
All there is to adjust? you say?? there is 1)fuel there is 2)spark there is 3)throttle there is 4)cams - what the heck else gives power on a petrol engine? and, Yeah, right, you take those 4 things and set them better than even Aston Martin Racing. On that subject, I knew someone that bought a car and asked AMR he wanted it with more power, your headers you claim which are sold by them as an option were never mentioned to him? I also know a guy in British GT and GTcup who wouldn't dare run the non standard exhaust headers, they fear being thrown out at conformity scruitineering - yet you say you supply AMR - tell me more I don't get that?
As you ask, yes, thanks for the invite - I might drop you a line actually, I wondered what your engineering comments would be on these? I could write mine, but that might appear monumentally arrogant!! The pen marks are primary pipe length and the non welded sections of the collector are very debate instigating - what say you?
Stuart Dickinson said:
BamfordMike said:
LOL, who's laughing? what an odd thing to say?
I'm laughing, I think it's hilarious. Not the car or the product, but the level of insecurity that has to be present to find it necessary to run us down any time you get the chance, and the amount of time you devote to it. You couch it as grave and genuine concern for the customer's P&J but it's pretty obvious to me that you're very threatened by any competition. Then again, maybe going bust a couple of times will do that do you...Actually, on second thought ("I'm arguably the most informed guy on the planet to make comment") I retract that. It's not insecurity, it's monumental arrogance. And I shouldn't laugh, because it must be a colossal burden to you having to carry around that massive chip on your shoulder all your life.
If all you guys adjust, or think there is to adjust is timing and fuel, you go ahead and charge people to adjust only those factors. If you think AMR's calibrations are maxed out, go ahead and run with them. Fact of the matter is, we've extracted much more power on race cars than the AMR calibrations on multiple vehicles that have gone on to win at a professional level. Not that I would advocate running those same settings on a road car unless you've got access to VP107 fuel every day.
I have zero intention of either posting our proprietary information online, or getting into a technical argument with you. I'm just the idiot who owns the company, I don't write calibrations. But my Dad always told me to hire people who were smarter than I was, so we have a fantastic individual working in house for VelocityAP who does phenomenal work and who knows Astons inside and out! He's 'Arguably the most informetn guy on the planet to write calibrations for Aston engines.'
And guess what... I can't weld either, but that doesn't stop us from making a great product - we're proud to supply AMR with a number of products like our V8 headers. I'd be happy to supply these to you too Mike, you'd probably find they are great quality and you can make more profit margin and provide to your customers at a lower price point. That would be a win-win for everyone. Drop me a line if you're interested
Edited by Stuart Dickinson on Thursday 7th April 16:59
And this "Fact of the matter is, we've extracted much more power on race cars than the AMR calibrations on multiple vehicles that have gone on to win at a professional level. Not that I would advocate running those same settings on a road car unless you've got access to VP107 fuel every day."
Well - that's not really relevant is it? Since you are saying - we can get more power with fancy race fuel but those settings are not useable on the road with normal fuel.
Bamford Rose service my car and Mike is very approachable and clearly passionate about his chosen field of powertrain engineering. Maybe you should take a leaf out of his book rather than throwing cheap insults around?
BamfordMike said:
I'm far too busy to have insecurities!
You don't seem that busy to me, you must have written 5000 words on this thread LOL!BamfordMike said:
I can say what I do and in the manner because of my engineering prowess, my CV is pretty much about the best out there for a role in any powertrain calibration department
Well that explains why you're working in a management position at a top OEM, pulling down a healthy 6 figure salary.Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff