Discussion
spitfire4v8 said:
I can't see the plenum spacer making any difference, caveat : I've never done the exact test back to back, but have seen plenty of cars with them on and they just make the power you expect and the drivability you expect. It won't hurt anything but it's not going to set the performance world alight. Just watch bonnet clearance from the extra height of the plenum now.
The injectors would have been a nice fit, take some advantage of the better misting / mixture presentation. You have per-bank lambdas so you're probably running batch fired injection , so some of the benefit is lost from fuel standing in a stagnant port. I've never ever measured a power boost from fine mist injectors in the rover despite what you might read. But they often improve cold starting, and there *might* be some economy / smoothness benefit but again you're batch fired so some of those benefits are lost.
1100 pounds for mapping ? Even allowing for the tax man's cut that's 900 pounds for the mapper ... was that just mapping or was there other work also done? There's often more to these stories.
Slight topic swerve, have you tested blended trumpet bases back to back with other variations and seen any differences. I’ve read 10bhp at top versus standard trumpets for a 500, is there less versus one with V8D or ACT trumpets?The injectors would have been a nice fit, take some advantage of the better misting / mixture presentation. You have per-bank lambdas so you're probably running batch fired injection , so some of the benefit is lost from fuel standing in a stagnant port. I've never ever measured a power boost from fine mist injectors in the rover despite what you might read. But they often improve cold starting, and there *might* be some economy / smoothness benefit but again you're batch fired so some of those benefits are lost.
1100 pounds for mapping ? Even allowing for the tax man's cut that's 900 pounds for the mapper ... was that just mapping or was there other work also done? There's often more to these stories.
eliot said:
what ecu is it - if if has wideband lambdas you should be able to either log or get the live data of the afr - or take it to a RR
Mbe 9a8 ECU. Wide band lambdas in each exhaust manifold. Today I spoke to a company who can remap it. No time soon due to thousands spent on getting the car to where it is now.
I spoke to them and they have tuned a supercharged Griffith with the same ECU.
'can you fit the injectors and remap it'? I asked.
Absolutely no problem Sir. Was the answer.
Estimated 2-3 hours on the hub Dyno.
Still beyond livid I was told my car spent 2 days on the Dyno being mapped on stock injectors..
One day I'll tell the whole story about my experience with 'them'. A very long way from a good experience.
What caused the car to be in the dyno room for 2 days. 
289-290 at the wheels is 320-325 at the fly at a rough guess.
What mileage is on your 5.0 as those figures are very much in line with what is possible on a new standard engine using an 885 as it’s a compromise on power slightly for some drivability but if someone else can prove otherwise then just say so. I’d humbly suggest with the injectors in the car your getting max power from the engine spec and other injectors won’t change or better that.
The issue has always been a restriction at the heads with port and valve size even on the 500 so no amount of fuel can change that.
A more aggressive cam might make a bit more power but almost impossible to remove shunt which is why the 885 is known to be one of the best compromises.
Without understanding the reasons why the car spent so much time on the dyno it’s hard to know what to think.
All I do know is the spacer won’t add benefit so whoever advised you to get that was wide of the mark. I think it’s complete rubbish that takes no account of the effects on air and gas speeds bouncing off the top of the inside of the plenum. The valve port and valve size is the restriction area not really the plenum.
Look at ACT’s carbon type plenum. It’s almost exactly the same size as the standard one. If there was a benefit in a taller( larger) plenum they would have done it already.
Even using ACT twin throttle bodied plenum you get better response but it won’t effect overall power much. That’s all down to how well it sucks and thats determined by the valve lift which is relatively small and that’s assuming the engines got good compression which I’m sure it has based on the numbers… does it feel faster than before?
I think the mapper thinks the injectors won’t improve any of that which is why I’d have thought they advised you against it.
The car appears to have the power output it should have!
The answer to why your mapping was so expensive can only come from what issues the mapper had.
I presume you have an explanation as to what those problems were.
Really sorry to hear of your experience as others have had nothing but good results using Tvr experts.
289-290 at the wheels is 320-325 at the fly at a rough guess.
What mileage is on your 5.0 as those figures are very much in line with what is possible on a new standard engine using an 885 as it’s a compromise on power slightly for some drivability but if someone else can prove otherwise then just say so. I’d humbly suggest with the injectors in the car your getting max power from the engine spec and other injectors won’t change or better that.
The issue has always been a restriction at the heads with port and valve size even on the 500 so no amount of fuel can change that.
A more aggressive cam might make a bit more power but almost impossible to remove shunt which is why the 885 is known to be one of the best compromises.
Without understanding the reasons why the car spent so much time on the dyno it’s hard to know what to think.
All I do know is the spacer won’t add benefit so whoever advised you to get that was wide of the mark. I think it’s complete rubbish that takes no account of the effects on air and gas speeds bouncing off the top of the inside of the plenum. The valve port and valve size is the restriction area not really the plenum.
Look at ACT’s carbon type plenum. It’s almost exactly the same size as the standard one. If there was a benefit in a taller( larger) plenum they would have done it already.
Even using ACT twin throttle bodied plenum you get better response but it won’t effect overall power much. That’s all down to how well it sucks and thats determined by the valve lift which is relatively small and that’s assuming the engines got good compression which I’m sure it has based on the numbers… does it feel faster than before?
I think the mapper thinks the injectors won’t improve any of that which is why I’d have thought they advised you against it.
The car appears to have the power output it should have!
The answer to why your mapping was so expensive can only come from what issues the mapper had.
I presume you have an explanation as to what those problems were.
Really sorry to hear of your experience as others have had nothing but good results using Tvr experts.
The car has 101k miles. Engine was fully rebuilt. New everything inside other than the crank rods and pistons. New bearings and seals everywhere!!!
It's a Griffith 500hc.
Without any doubt, yes, the car is much faster than before it went in!! Drives MUCH smoother, much better response and for sure, more torque.
As for why was it on the Dyno for 2 days? No idea!! I asked why and got a bundle of excuses.
Seems the problem was whoever mapped it doesn't know what they were doing. Simple as that.
It's a Griffith 500hc.
Without any doubt, yes, the car is much faster than before it went in!! Drives MUCH smoother, much better response and for sure, more torque.
As for why was it on the Dyno for 2 days? No idea!! I asked why and got a bundle of excuses.
Seems the problem was whoever mapped it doesn't know what they were doing. Simple as that.
Edited by Harvy500 on Wednesday 21st February 23:57
Just enjoy it now, it is a piss boiler when you feel you have been taken for a ride but there isnt a lot you can do really.
300 Bhp is more than enough in these cars to enjoy really, some do behave a bit differently low down which is why you may be chasing smoother throttle response?
Maybe they had issues mapping it, how does it run on the road?
300 Bhp is more than enough in these cars to enjoy really, some do behave a bit differently low down which is why you may be chasing smoother throttle response?
Maybe they had issues mapping it, how does it run on the road?
Belle427 said:
Just enjoy it now, it is a piss boiler when you feel you have been taken for a ride but there isnt a lot you can do really.
300 Bhp is more than enough in these cars to enjoy really, some do behave a bit differently low down which is why you may be chasing smoother throttle response?
Maybe they had issues mapping it, how does it run on the road?
I’m inclined to agree. You are at the tail end of mods where the cost increases for marginal gains that you can only enjoy for a few seconds at a time.300 Bhp is more than enough in these cars to enjoy really, some do behave a bit differently low down which is why you may be chasing smoother throttle response?
Maybe they had issues mapping it, how does it run on the road?
Harvy500 said:
The car has 101k miles. Engine was fully rebuilt. New everything inside other than the crank rods and pistons. New bearings and seals everywhere!!!
It's a Griffith 500hc.
Without any doubt, yes, the car is much faster than before it went in!! Drives MUCH smoother, much better response and for sure, more torque.
As for why was it on the Dyno for 2 days? No idea!! I asked why and got a bundle of excuses.
Seems the problem was whoever mapped it doesn't know what they were doing. Simple as that.
Harvy they must know how to map it as the figures achieved are exactly where they should be.It's a Griffith 500hc.
Without any doubt, yes, the car is much faster than before it went in!! Drives MUCH smoother, much better response and for sure, more torque.
As for why was it on the Dyno for 2 days? No idea!! I asked why and got a bundle of excuses.
Seems the problem was whoever mapped it doesn't know what they were doing. Simple as that.
Edited by Harvy500 on Wednesday 21st February 23:57
A bundle of excuses! That’s not very helpfull.
Spend some more money getting it re mapped if you wish but the power figures won’t change much.
When you talk of injectors working at 100% where exactly are they running at 100%, that’ll be at full throttle and max revs I presume?
When exactly are you going to be driving the car at full chat unless your a track driver. And if you had your graph it’s likely to show stable AFR readings right to the limiter which shows it’s not running lean.
The power figures suggest it’s running very well.
Goodluck and I hope you enjoy the benefits of a later Ecu for many years to come.
Edited by Classic Chim on Thursday 22 February 16:04
Harvy500 said:
I got mine from here.....
https://www.speedingparts.co.uk/c/fuelsystem-an-fi...
Thanks again Harvy. https://www.speedingparts.co.uk/c/fuelsystem-an-fi...
Mines running the 2 hole Siemens injectors from ~12 years ago. Haven't had a dizzy, AFM etc for the same amount of time. I only run a single wideband, two would have been better perhaps.
Mine did 315 (fly) at Emeralds road years ago (K3 Emerald ECU) and is currently about to have an ACT twin plenum fitted (was a 72mm), purely for the throttle response, I'm not looking for any extra power. It's then off back to see Dave and the team at Watton to be remapped with the revised set up.
The injectors are off for a clean and service currently, as for a few years the car was stored whilst I was abroad and having recommissioned it with TVR101 (outstanding team) I'm getting round to a few jobs/mods I always wanted to get done before we went away.
Another option for injectors is worth considering, as tech moves on. However, as highlighted, whether there are gains in performance and what kind of performance gains they give is up for debate. Low speed throttle response, cold start etc or full throttle runs, the former two are interesting, the latter not so much.
I'd agree also, that once you get to where you are, more gains are big money for any significant steps. 300-320 (fly) suits the car I find if it's mapped well and the torque is accessible etc.
Edited by Johno on Thursday 22 February 10:44
Johno said:
Thanks again Harvy.
Mines running the 4 hole Siemens injectors from ~12 years ago. Haven't had a dizzy, AFM etc for the same amount of time. I only run a single wideband, two would have been better perhaps.
Mine did 315 (fly) at Emeralds road years ago (K3 Emerald ECU) and is currently about to have an ACT twin plenum fitted (was a 72mm), purely for the throttle response, I'm not looking for any extra power. It's then off back to see Dave and the team at Watton to be remapped with the revised set up.
The injectors are off for a clean and service currently, as for a few years the car was stored whilst I was abroad and having recommissioned it with TVR101 (outstanding team) I'm getting round to a few jobs/mods I always wanted to get done before we went away.
Another option for injectors is worth considering, as tech moves on. However, as highlighted, whether there are gains in performance and what kind of performance gains they give is up for debate. Low speed throttle response, cold start etc or full throttle runs, the former two are interesting, the latter not so much.
I'd agree also, that once you get to where you are, more gains are big money for any significant steps. 300-320 (fly) suits the car I find if it's mapped well and the torque is accessible etc.
Would your 72mm plenum be looking for a home? I'm wanting one. Mines running the 4 hole Siemens injectors from ~12 years ago. Haven't had a dizzy, AFM etc for the same amount of time. I only run a single wideband, two would have been better perhaps.
Mine did 315 (fly) at Emeralds road years ago (K3 Emerald ECU) and is currently about to have an ACT twin plenum fitted (was a 72mm), purely for the throttle response, I'm not looking for any extra power. It's then off back to see Dave and the team at Watton to be remapped with the revised set up.
The injectors are off for a clean and service currently, as for a few years the car was stored whilst I was abroad and having recommissioned it with TVR101 (outstanding team) I'm getting round to a few jobs/mods I always wanted to get done before we went away.
Another option for injectors is worth considering, as tech moves on. However, as highlighted, whether there are gains in performance and what kind of performance gains they give is up for debate. Low speed throttle response, cold start etc or full throttle runs, the former two are interesting, the latter not so much.
I'd agree also, that once you get to where you are, more gains are big money for any significant steps. 300-320 (fly) suits the car I find if it's mapped well and the torque is accessible etc.
Harvy500 said:
Would your 72mm plenum be looking for a home? I'm wanting one.
Not initially, but perhaps in a couple of months, after I'm sure I'm happy with the twin setup.... I'm sure I will be, but you never know until you've tried it.
It's powder coated black, which is easily removed/replaced.
Just looking back though your older posts .. looks like your engine rebuild and ecu fit are by the same company, in which case just check any warranty implications if you think about a third party remapper, just saying ...
I have some owners who want to come to me for mapping but are waiting until their warranty periods are up before going that route.
I have some owners who want to come to me for mapping but are waiting until their warranty periods are up before going that route.
spitfire4v8 said:
Just looking back though your older posts .. looks like your engine rebuild and ecu fit are by the same company, in which case just check any warranty implications if you think about a third party remapper, just saying ...
I have some owners who want to come to me for mapping but are waiting until their warranty periods are up before going that route.
Nice one I have some owners who want to come to me for mapping but are waiting until their warranty periods are up before going that route.
I’d be very interested in your results as I have the MBE Ecu. I can’t fault the power or drivability but always interested in other mappers ability to squeeze a bit more out of them.
My only caveat for any mapper would be I’d still want drivability which might compromise power output a little.
It’s good to see other experienced mappers prepared to tune the MBE.
Edited by Classic Chim on Thursday 22 February 16:06
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff