Post your dyno curve here
Discussion
Kokkolanpoika said:
I will use std Eales manifold. Need slight modification.. Centre bolt holes need re drilling and manifold ends need replacement.
New ends.
Fitted with std ends.
New ends in place
Fully weldet.
Need some milling after welding. Not bad. 0.8mm out of tolerance. Like banana.. Weldings are slightly above mounting face.. Know it is machined.
Inlet port location over 20mm above as std rover casting.
Need some porting only.. hope it will run 2019 season.. 418hp with std heads is not enought for 5.2l..
Looking very good. I will be very interested to see what figures you get from your 5.2 engine and wildcat heads. New ends.
Fitted with std ends.
New ends in place
Fully weldet.
Need some milling after welding. Not bad. 0.8mm out of tolerance. Like banana.. Weldings are slightly above mounting face.. Know it is machined.
Inlet port location over 20mm above as std rover casting.
Need some porting only.. hope it will run 2019 season.. 418hp with std heads is not enought for 5.2l..
I like the idea of using the JE manifolds with jenvey throttle bodies.
Not dyno curve..
1/4mile test with rover SD1.
60ft 2.6s
330ft 6.46s/131km/h (4.6 engine 35km/h less and 0.1s slower)
660ft 9.41s/155km/h (near same as my old stage 3 4.6 with 1/4mile 158km/h/9.8s)
1/4mile 13.8s/178km/h. Old 4.6 14.7/158km/h.
Old gt radial tyres wont give good grip anynore..
I think it has got potential under 13s with good tyres.. still running std rv8 heads.. maybe wild cats give extra 10km/h top speed
1/4mile test with rover SD1.
60ft 2.6s
330ft 6.46s/131km/h (4.6 engine 35km/h less and 0.1s slower)
660ft 9.41s/155km/h (near same as my old stage 3 4.6 with 1/4mile 158km/h/9.8s)
1/4mile 13.8s/178km/h. Old 4.6 14.7/158km/h.
Old gt radial tyres wont give good grip anynore..
I think it has got potential under 13s with good tyres.. still running std rv8 heads.. maybe wild cats give extra 10km/h top speed
Kokkolanpoika said:
Not dyno curve..
1/4mile test with rover SD1.
60ft 2.6s
330ft 6.46s/131km/h (4.6 engine 35km/h less and 0.1s slower)
660ft 9.41s/155km/h (near same as my old stage 3 4.6 with 1/4mile 158km/h/9.8s)
1/4mile 13.8s/178km/h. Old 4.6 14.7/158km/h.
Old gt radial tyres wont give good grip anynore..
I think it has got potential under 13s with good tyres.. still running std rv8 heads.. maybe wild cats give extra 10km/h top speed
You could knock a whole 0.5 second off your 60 foot with drag radials. 178 kph = 110 mph which is good for 12's and very quick for an SD1.1/4mile test with rover SD1.
60ft 2.6s
330ft 6.46s/131km/h (4.6 engine 35km/h less and 0.1s slower)
660ft 9.41s/155km/h (near same as my old stage 3 4.6 with 1/4mile 158km/h/9.8s)
1/4mile 13.8s/178km/h. Old 4.6 14.7/158km/h.
Old gt radial tyres wont give good grip anynore..
I think it has got potential under 13s with good tyres.. still running std rv8 heads.. maybe wild cats give extra 10km/h top speed
Maybe look at the option of adding ladder bars to the rear axle may help too.
Belle427 said:
My efforts all carried out by myself, interesting if your considering similar mods.
V8D Warrior heads, Mc1 cam, 3 stage induction package and running green tune modified steve sprint/mark blitz chip.
No mapping carried out.
The torque / bhp cross over seems to be lower than usual?V8D Warrior heads, Mc1 cam, 3 stage induction package and running green tune modified steve sprint/mark blitz chip.
No mapping carried out.
No reason why torque and HP should be on the same scale, they are different units after all. With the high torque produced by these engines, using the same scale as Hp shows a fairly shallow curve on a graph when a more suitable scale gives better 'magnification'. It does make it more difficult to compare at a glance however with the more typical same scale graphs.
Because it they don't cross over at 5252 rpm, most people will shout foul. Or think it's been possible 'manipulated.'
There's no reason to NOT have the scales the same unless there's a huge difference in numbers and for aid of display. With peaks of about 260 and 280 here, there's not.
There's no reason to NOT have the scales the same unless there's a huge difference in numbers and for aid of display. With peaks of about 260 and 280 here, there's not.
After almost a year away - a lot of time-wasting by an incompetent garage, followed by some competent work by a good one - chasing some elusive faults and updating the set-up, I have the new rolling road plot.
I have yet to pick the car up, and so don't have the details, but the changes combined with considerable remapping mean that while I've lost some top end, the revs and bhp have been traded for more torque - the rpm's that peak torque and peak BHP occur at are reduced by about ~600, but the peak torque value is higher and the torque curve considerably flatter.
The car used to be very revvy, with peak power @ ~6000rpm, feeling like it came "on cam" around 3500rpm - but the downside was that it felt a bit flat below 3000rpm, and needed revving to stop it "bogging down" from idle. In 90% of everyday driving, when combined with a sleeved exhaust, this has been a touch wearing and less fulfilling than the 10% driving when I can really wind it up and it comes alive...
It turns out that the previous map was also pinking towards the top, so I am hoping that this should be a better day-to-day drive, and also safer for the engine - how the revvy character has been affected is still to be experienced, once the final on-the-road mapping is finished and I get the car back.
The basics of the spec:
- 4.6l RV8 rebuilt by Dom @ Powers Performance, fly-cut pistons, etc
- BV heads fully worked by Pete Burgess
- TVR885 cam, current cam timing unknown
- 71mm plenum with aluminium spacer
- matched 45mm inlet manifold with aluminium trumpets and SC Power heat-resistant gasket
- ACT exhaust manifolds with reducer cones instead of precats
- ACT catted Y-piece, freshly re-catted with new 100cell matrix
- Semi-sleeved exhaust
- Emerald K3 running latest firmware
Running standard CR, main cat, and mapped on 95RON petrol.
Previous power graph - yes, the scales for torque & BHP are different! Torque was much more "peaky", seeing variation of at least ~30ftlb torque values (below peak) at lower revs, but in reality probably more as the graph starts at 2400rpm. This was mapped at 500miles run-in, so peak values may have risen once loosened-up. It was also mapped up to 7000rpm before the limiter was put in at 6500!...:
New power graph - red line before mapping the changes, green line after. Graph starts at only about 15ftlb less than peak value, so torque much flatter and wider, with 15ftlb less-than-peak-value maintained from ~2150rpm to ~4850rpm...:
I could get probably 20+ extra ftlbs & ponies by decatting and mapping on 97/8RON, but I just can't be bothered with the MOT hassle and fuel expense TBH...
Will know more in the next week or two once I get the car back...
Dom
I have yet to pick the car up, and so don't have the details, but the changes combined with considerable remapping mean that while I've lost some top end, the revs and bhp have been traded for more torque - the rpm's that peak torque and peak BHP occur at are reduced by about ~600, but the peak torque value is higher and the torque curve considerably flatter.
The car used to be very revvy, with peak power @ ~6000rpm, feeling like it came "on cam" around 3500rpm - but the downside was that it felt a bit flat below 3000rpm, and needed revving to stop it "bogging down" from idle. In 90% of everyday driving, when combined with a sleeved exhaust, this has been a touch wearing and less fulfilling than the 10% driving when I can really wind it up and it comes alive...
It turns out that the previous map was also pinking towards the top, so I am hoping that this should be a better day-to-day drive, and also safer for the engine - how the revvy character has been affected is still to be experienced, once the final on-the-road mapping is finished and I get the car back.
The basics of the spec:
- 4.6l RV8 rebuilt by Dom @ Powers Performance, fly-cut pistons, etc
- BV heads fully worked by Pete Burgess
- TVR885 cam, current cam timing unknown
- 71mm plenum with aluminium spacer
- matched 45mm inlet manifold with aluminium trumpets and SC Power heat-resistant gasket
- ACT exhaust manifolds with reducer cones instead of precats
- ACT catted Y-piece, freshly re-catted with new 100cell matrix
- Semi-sleeved exhaust
- Emerald K3 running latest firmware
Running standard CR, main cat, and mapped on 95RON petrol.
Previous power graph - yes, the scales for torque & BHP are different! Torque was much more "peaky", seeing variation of at least ~30ftlb torque values (below peak) at lower revs, but in reality probably more as the graph starts at 2400rpm. This was mapped at 500miles run-in, so peak values may have risen once loosened-up. It was also mapped up to 7000rpm before the limiter was put in at 6500!...:
New power graph - red line before mapping the changes, green line after. Graph starts at only about 15ftlb less than peak value, so torque much flatter and wider, with 15ftlb less-than-peak-value maintained from ~2150rpm to ~4850rpm...:
I could get probably 20+ extra ftlbs & ponies by decatting and mapping on 97/8RON, but I just can't be bothered with the MOT hassle and fuel expense TBH...
Will know more in the next week or two once I get the car back...
Dom
Edited by Dominic TVRetto on Tuesday 4th December 01:33
Edited by Dominic TVRetto on Tuesday 4th December 01:48
Those look like excellent torque figures to me! Chap with a rolling road near me says he often sends out cars with less 'peak' bhp than they came in with. The owners grumble until they've driven them.
Smoother power delivery low down is what's needed. How often does anyone have a car at the revs for peak power? It's just bragging numbers, peak bhp. Having a flat smooth torque delivery like that will be a fabulous drive I'd have thought.
Smoother power delivery low down is what's needed. How often does anyone have a car at the revs for peak power? It's just bragging numbers, peak bhp. Having a flat smooth torque delivery like that will be a fabulous drive I'd have thought.
Those look like excellent torque figures to me! Chap with a rolling road near me says he often sends out cars with less 'peak' bhp than they came in with. The owners grumble until they've driven them.
Smoother power delivery low down is what's needed. How often does anyone have a car at the revs for peak power? It's just bragging numbers, peak bhp. Having a flat smooth torque delivery like that will be a fabulous drive I'd have thought.
Smoother power delivery low down is what's needed. How often does anyone have a car at the revs for peak power? It's just bragging numbers, peak bhp. Having a flat smooth torque delivery like that will be a fabulous drive I'd have thought.
Hi,
When i looked at all these dyno sheets and i see the little improvment for cars with many mods,
I forgot the idea to tune my engine.
But there is a very rare car that poped up on the swiss market. The car have a dyno sheet with 360bhp and is tube by eggimann performance (one of the few swiss tvr specialist). The car have a splitted carbon plenum but i cant get the list of the modifications done on the car... the car is not strocked (still a 5l) and the cats seems to be in place...is it for you possible that car have so much hp??
If somebody know anything about the eggimann tune please tell me!
When i looked at all these dyno sheets and i see the little improvment for cars with many mods,
I forgot the idea to tune my engine.
But there is a very rare car that poped up on the swiss market. The car have a dyno sheet with 360bhp and is tube by eggimann performance (one of the few swiss tvr specialist). The car have a splitted carbon plenum but i cant get the list of the modifications done on the car... the car is not strocked (still a 5l) and the cats seems to be in place...is it for you possible that car have so much hp??
If somebody know anything about the eggimann tune please tell me!
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff