What did you do in the garage yesterday?
Discussion
Pupp said:
Changed front main seal... have been chasing a leak for ages so this is the last possible short of a cracked or porous block. Actually think it was the culprit as was a bit crispy when I eventually got the sod out... gave me chance to look closely at the turbo etc after 2 years use... clean as a whistle; pleased to see no cracks on the manifold so quick polish of the bright work and back in tomorrow
If the pulley shaft surface has a groove in it then you can set the oil seal slightly out to bear on a virgin section of the shaft, (Simons idea and used successfully me!).phazed 11.83 said:
If the pulley shaft surface has a groove in it then you can set the oil seal slightly out to bear on a virgin section of the shaft, (Simons idea and used successfully me!).
Different car but same issue many years ago the lipped seal had worn a significant groove. The correct seal was 12mm wide so I fitted two 6mm wide seals which worked nicely.Steve
Ok, so how long can it take to drop in a Y piece with a turbo hanging on the bottom? Answer is all day if you do the ratchet strap dance to spring the manifolds to mate but still end up having to back off one bank to get the bloody V-bands properly on and then realise after reconnecting coolant hoses and oil feed/drain etc that you forgot to put the bridged cross member back in first. Whover designed that did not have an eye on spanner clearance; muppet. Oops, that was me 
Anyways filled, bled (hopefully), next spring up in the wastegate (rude not to), running...
Anyways filled, bled (hopefully), next spring up in the wastegate (rude not to), running...
Faffed around trying to improve my air inlet.
I got better figures on the rolling road with it removed and after speaking to K&N they deduced that I needed a larger, better airflow filter.
I removed the old hose, cut back the carbon plenum to enlarge the opening from 80 mm to 95 mm.
I then formed an aluminium flange on the ACT plenum so the new hose had a decent surface to clamp to.
Using a die grinder I enlarged the aperture going through to the nose so I could fit the new 102 mm diameter hose.
I then fitted the new cone shaped air filter without any bends so there was less restriction.
All the above and including retarding the timing by 5° resulted in the following.
385BHP, 430 Torques
The blue line is today's run and the red line is my old 5.5 engine, exactly the same spec but with the old air filter and standard rockers.
Practically identical graphs, (a little more power in the mid range) but the talk is slightly less initially at 2000 rpm but then produces a fatter torque curve inbetween 2.5-4K .
No real logic I guess but my current engine has only done about 1500 miles, as Simon said, plenty of time for it to loosen up a bit.
I got better figures on the rolling road with it removed and after speaking to K&N they deduced that I needed a larger, better airflow filter.
I removed the old hose, cut back the carbon plenum to enlarge the opening from 80 mm to 95 mm.
I then formed an aluminium flange on the ACT plenum so the new hose had a decent surface to clamp to.
Using a die grinder I enlarged the aperture going through to the nose so I could fit the new 102 mm diameter hose.
I then fitted the new cone shaped air filter without any bends so there was less restriction.
All the above and including retarding the timing by 5° resulted in the following.
385BHP, 430 Torques
The blue line is today's run and the red line is my old 5.5 engine, exactly the same spec but with the old air filter and standard rockers.
Practically identical graphs, (a little more power in the mid range) but the talk is slightly less initially at 2000 rpm but then produces a fatter torque curve inbetween 2.5-4K .
No real logic I guess but my current engine has only done about 1500 miles, as Simon said, plenty of time for it to loosen up a bit.
QBee said:
That's worrying me too 
.....but looking forward to the first track day of the season. 
.....but looking forward to the first track day of the season. 
Re map on the cards
As mine seems pretty consistent with its power output I should go to Joolz for a quick power run some time. Unless we all use the same Dyno ( and I'd rather use Powers
) but I'd really like to know if these various Dyno's are accurate with eachother or all these graphs are subjective surely. I'm not casting aspersions and I know personally how fast Peters car is, I'd like to know what mine comes out at on a different dyno so I can be more sure of my cars average performance.
Seeing as Joolz and Dom are so important in the Tvr world I'd just like to know how closely these dynos run so we can all make sense of our graphs!
The more I know cars mapped on both these dyno's the more I believe the figures they produce are actually very similar but until someone's used both we just don't know. As we know different days produce diff numbers but we must be able to get a mean average
Edited by Classic Chim on Tuesday 6th June 07:49
Mine was done at Joolz yesterday.
I believe he is is pretty accurate as does he. By comparison after I retarded the camshaft but before I had any map tweaking or fitted the big inlet I took the car to Surrey Rolling Road to get an idea if my timing adjustments had worked. It recorded 391 bhp there!
Yesterday, Jules smoothed out the map adding more ignition advance, introducing fuel in places and cutting in others. The result was as the graph which feels super smooth on the road and extremely powerful in all areas.
When we did Shakespeare eight few weeks ago it was only running about 350 BHP and power peeking at 5K. This was with the camshaft timing at 109°.
Again, by comparison it is running more powerfully now then when I ran my 11.83 last September so it should run 11s on road tyres without too much of a problem!
All I have to do now is improve my gearchange as ever since my gearbox rebuild earlier this year, the gearchange is slower and heavier in feel.
I believe he is is pretty accurate as does he. By comparison after I retarded the camshaft but before I had any map tweaking or fitted the big inlet I took the car to Surrey Rolling Road to get an idea if my timing adjustments had worked. It recorded 391 bhp there!
Yesterday, Jules smoothed out the map adding more ignition advance, introducing fuel in places and cutting in others. The result was as the graph which feels super smooth on the road and extremely powerful in all areas.
When we did Shakespeare eight few weeks ago it was only running about 350 BHP and power peeking at 5K. This was with the camshaft timing at 109°.
Again, by comparison it is running more powerfully now then when I ran my 11.83 last September so it should run 11s on road tyres without too much of a problem!
All I have to do now is improve my gearchange as ever since my gearbox rebuild earlier this year, the gearchange is slower and heavier in feel.
Edited by phazed 11.83 on Tuesday 6th June 08:50
QBee said:
Shirley shome mishtake?
Even Alun gets more then 291bhp at the flies..
Even Alun gets more then 291bhp at the flies..
Only just
. But it does seem reliable which for a bloke in my circumstances is a very good thing although I'm feeling like I need my map tweaking at tad, struggling to pull off at 900 revs at the mo Mines an example of what's possible on standard engine innards and induction,,, namely not a lot but it's still fast enough for my run to the shops.
What's always important to note is what I wanted from the engine when refreshing it which was torque, 345/350 on my engine is seriously good in my eyes.
It yanked me to a 12.60 with Derek's tyre's trying to cut me a new wheel arch !!! f
k it was faster than that jeez, better have another go,,, after I get my house in order. To many other things I have to deal with. And that's when I really like my Tvr, it works as it should and that's more important right now!
Anyway mr Qbee that's fighting talk, get down the strip big boy
QBee said:
Classic Chim said:
Truelly awesome 
385 and there's no FI in sight. That's serious st 
That's worrying me too 385 and there's no FI in sight. That's serious st .....but looking forward to the first track day of the season. Anthony, lots of time to get your engine run in then you can tweak your map and show that southerner that FI is the way forward.
Southerner, very impressive figures there. That's 30bhp more than me now
But still 51 torques less 
N7GTX said:
Southerner, very impressive figures there. That's 30bhp more than me now But still 51 torques less
It was 460 torque but I lost 30 when I retarded the cam to push BHP up and further up the scale. But still 51 torques less Just be aware of all your torque coming in in one big shove!
You need the best tyres and suspension set up that you can achieve.
Mine is set up nicely and with a very broad torque curve drives like a big pussycat, (famous last words!).
N7GTX said:
QBee said:
Classic Chim said:
Truelly awesome 385 and there's no FI in sight. That's serious st
That's worrying me too 385 and there's no FI in sight. That's serious st .....but looking forward to the first track day of the season. Anthony, lots of time to get your engine run in then you can tweak your map and show that southerner that FI is the way forward.
Southerner, very impressive figures there. That's 30bhp more than me now
But still 51 torques less I have, on my track day map, about the same BHP as Phazed, but at 5000 rpm, and it drops off a cliff after that.
My torque in theory is greater, at max 525 ft lbs, but it is much peakier, with the 525 only being achieved at around 3500 rpm.
So I think our two cars could be fairly equally matched.
On the map I use for the road I only have 315 bhp and 395 ft lbs, but as that is only at 2.5 psi, the torque curve is nice and flat.
My maps are all finalised for now, and are at 2.5, 6.0 and 7.5 psi, as i am more interested in protecting the engine and drive train, and my wallet, than in airing my privates.
Graphs below - the left hand scale is BHP, as are the higher graphs, because the right hand scale is doubled and if torque. So 600 ft lbs is at the same level as 300 bhp, IYSWIM.
QBee said:
I am going to be very interested to see how my car now performs compared to the NA Phazed-mobile.
I have, on my track day map, about the same BHP as Phazed, but at 5000 rpm, and it drops off a cliff after that.
My torque in theory is greater, at max 525 ft lbs, but it is much peakier, with the 525 only being achieved at around 3500 rpm.
So I think our two cars could be fairly equally matched.
On the map I use for the road I only have 315 bhp and 395 ft lbs, but as that is only at 2.5 psi, the torque curve is nice and flat.
My maps are all finalised for now, and are at 2.5, 6.0 and 7.5 psi, as i am more interested in protecting the engine and drive train, and my wallet, than in airing my privates.
Graphs below - the left hand scale is BHP, as are the higher graphs, because the right hand scale is doubled and if torque. So 600 ft lbs is at the same level as 300 bhp, IYSWIM.
And if you added an off map I might just keep up with you. Clever that graph or what. I have, on my track day map, about the same BHP as Phazed, but at 5000 rpm, and it drops off a cliff after that.
My torque in theory is greater, at max 525 ft lbs, but it is much peakier, with the 525 only being achieved at around 3500 rpm.
So I think our two cars could be fairly equally matched.
On the map I use for the road I only have 315 bhp and 395 ft lbs, but as that is only at 2.5 psi, the torque curve is nice and flat.
My maps are all finalised for now, and are at 2.5, 6.0 and 7.5 psi, as i am more interested in protecting the engine and drive train, and my wallet, than in airing my privates.
Graphs below - the left hand scale is BHP, as are the higher graphs, because the right hand scale is doubled and if torque. So 600 ft lbs is at the same level as 300 bhp, IYSWIM.
he has like three engines Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff