Discussion
Do you get a kick? My perception is that mine seems to just build power from about 2.5-3k fairly linearly. Must admit I haven't really studied the issue that carefully though so maybe I'm wrong.
Interested to know what mapping you guys in the US get? Presumably the people who built your engine do it?
>> Edited by DanH on Sunday 14th November 00:23
DanH said:
Do you get a kick? My perception is that mine seems to just build power from about 2.5-3k fairly linearly. Must admit I haven't really studied the issue that carefully though so maybe I'm wrong.
Interested to know what mapping you guys in the US get? Presumably the people who built your engine do it?
>> Edited by DanH on Sunday 14th November 00:23
That's cos you have the crappy 3.0L
The upgraded 2.5's give you a proper kick in the back around 3k (seems to coincide with the 1.1 bar on the boost guage)
Nice striped BTW Dan
>> Edited by stuh on Sunday 14th November 11:24
Is it generating the same level of boost that it used to? It doesn't sound quite right to me.
Who does the mapping for US cars? Is it still using an MBE ecu? The map is going to be a pretty crucial consideration. I dunno what spec your engines will be even given that Noble have been pretty tight lipped about whats done to the engines in the UK. Have they shared the info with US builders?
Stuh, I don't need a kick in the back, I'm more than capable of stuffing it in a hedge without extra help!
>> Edited by DanH on Sunday 14th November 21:23
I agree. Our Noble kicks in and then watch out. Back end breaks loose. A little disconcerting whe you aren't ready and in third gear (cold tires). Also, it seems to be kicking in later but the overall acceleration is stronger from the very beginning. We now have 3K miles and it seems to be running much more smoothly. Tim
V6GTO said:What a load of twaddle.... The 3.0l map, on the bhp, is somewhat "interesting".
2.5 with upgade = 325bhp jumping to 340 at the kick.
3.0 = 352bhp all the way!
The reason it "feels" so flat is the torque curve is so flat!
The 2.5l had a "wandering" torque curve which provided the "kick", the 3.0l is as flat as a pancake.
Rember bhp is just the "rate of work" - torque is all you need to really worry about.....
J
joust said:
V6GTO said:
2.5 with upgade = 325bhp jumping to 340 at the kick.
3.0 = 352bhp all the way!
What a load of twaddle.... The 3.0l map, on the bhp, is somewhat "interesting".
The reason it "feels" so flat is the torque curve is so flat!
The 2.5l had a "wandering" torque curve which provided the "kick", the 3.0l is as flat as a pancake.
Rember bhp is just the "rate of work" - torque is all you need to really worry about.....
J
what a load of twaddle.
the rate of work *is* the important thing .. torque is good if you can reproduce that torque many times in a given space of time. if you can hold torque at high revs (more hp) you can usefully gear a car down to increase it's torque (and therefore hp since they're mathematically linked) at the wheels .. so you win twice
hp = (torque times revs) / 5250
if you can't hold onto torque at high revs then you can't use gearing to your advantage.
Also don't be fooled into thinking a flat torque curve is best, the fastest car will be the one producing the most torque it possibly can at every part of the rev rnge .. you can make any torque curve flat by knocking the high spots off on the mapping, but you're only making the car go slower if you do. It may be that the 3l produced so much more than the 2.5 that they could afford to do that and still have a much faster car, but the *wandering* 2.5l curve might just be because they optimised the mapping and that's how it came out. I'll ask Darren on thursday when I see him ...
>> Edited by joospeed on Sunday 14th November 23:18
I presumed it was flat for drive-ability reasons and to preserve the engine/drive train. Clearly you can get more from the engine (see m400), and given that the 2.5 can make similar power to the 3 it does seem that its been muzzled a tad.
I'm more than happy with it though
If people want to get any extra potential all they need do is buy a new ecu which isn't locked and get busy. Probably pretty quicky to map a turbo car well though 
DanH said:
I presumed it was flat for drive-ability reasons and to preserve the engine/drive train. Clearly you can get more from the engine (see m400), and given that the 2.5 can make similar power to the 3 it does seem that its been muzzled a tad.
I'm more than happy with it though
Could well be. I've been playing quite a bit with Nobles recently but without the MBE ecu - learnt a lot of stuff with the Cerbies about changing for other units. Trouble is our current engine mods aren't very backwards compatible with the old mapping in the MBE and the cars returned for service with non std ECUs are looked upon very dimly (they won't touch them! lol) .. enjoying the playing though
they're beautiful cars and certainly in the suspension we're finding it difficult to make significant improvements .. for a turbo car it's wonderfully balanced.Probably not real practical for those of you in the UK, but here is a web site that shows some of the potential of the Noble with different mapping and exhaust. When he refers to "piping" he is talking about metal turbo piping in place of the silcone rubber tubing (no expansion under pressure)and a "blow-off" valve. I had these put on mine along with the bigger intercooler. Dean T
Sorry guys, I forgot to put in the link.
www.horsepowerhouse.com/noble/nmain.htm
Caught the mistake before you all woke up.
www.horsepowerhouse.com/noble/nmain.htm
Caught the mistake before you all woke up.
The piping is known here, although I've not seen the drop in boost from it collapsing so not bothered changing it. BoV is to protect turbos and stop the turbos stalling on chage up right? Roush were going to offer it here but have never got back to me. Not a hard mod I'm sure
Something odd going on though with your maps if its feeling laggy unless the torque has been optimised more than in uk cars or something?
joospeed said:
hp = (torque times revs) / 5250
Precisely.
joospeed said:
Also don't be fooled into thinking a flat torque curve is best, the fastest car will be the one producing the most torque it possibly can at every part of the rev rnge
Funny that. So, why when I said that all you need to worry about is torque did you say that's twaddle, but then go and write exactly the same thing?
All you need to worry about is the torque, you can't do "anything" about BHP apart from changing the tiorque at a certain RPM.
People that say they are "tuning for HP" are, of course, talking out of the perverbial - what they really mean is that they are turning for high torque at high RPM which then just happens to lead to high BHP.
Prehaps you should read what people write before firing off your sarcastic posts....
J
>> Edited by joust on Monday 15th November 10:27
joospeed said:
what a load of twaddle.
There are loads of people at my local pub who I'm sure you would get on great with.
They love a good horsepower vs. torque debate. One claims big horsepower is better, whilst another will claim to be older and wiser, and therefore go for a big torque figure.
Both are relatively stupid, and I normally run away from these kinds of debates because I get frustrated at the naivety of those who claim to be experts.
You correctly say that the car that makes a large amount of torque across a large rev-band is going to be fastest, but then you gun-down others for saying that a flat torque curve is the best way.
You are in fact talking about the same thing. joospeed said:
if you can't hold onto torque at high revs then you can't use gearing to your advantage.
How does this work then?
Torque always drops off way before peak power arives. The idea is to rev to peak power, and then change gear. By doing this you are reving to the point at which the engine does the most amount of work for a given time period. Now when you change gear you should fall back to around the point of maximum torque, which will shoot you back up the revs again.
Engines produce torque, and power is just a bi-product to quantify it. Right, I'm off down the pub to sort out some 'experts' LOL
>> Edited by LaurenceFrost on Monday 15th November 11:31
Joust.
If you link torque to revs you get hp, if you hold torque well at high revs you get high hp .. we agree on that ..
if you have an engine that produces one half the torque of another engine, but the low torque engine goes on to hold that low torque at twice the engine revs it'll produce the same hp figure. However because you have twice the revs to play with you can gear that car down and increase the available hp at the wheels, you can't do that unless it's a high revver. So yes both engines produce the same nominal crank hp, but the high revving engine produces more hp at the wheels (you've increased the torque at the wheels and kept the revs the same).
For sure torque and hp are inextricably linked, but if you're on about the best way to describe the real world perfornce possibilities of the package then HP is the better units to use, it shows your engine produces both torque and revs well too, which then allows you to exploit other things like torque mulitiplication of the drivetrain.
You can keep on saying *torque at high revs* but writing *high hp* is easier and if you're talking about engines which produce roughly the same torque figures shows that the high HP engine also revs well ..
in short, an engine which has a good torque over a wide rev range will be the faster car both on it's torque and the ability to exploit the gearing issue. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand!
If you link torque to revs you get hp, if you hold torque well at high revs you get high hp .. we agree on that ..
if you have an engine that produces one half the torque of another engine, but the low torque engine goes on to hold that low torque at twice the engine revs it'll produce the same hp figure. However because you have twice the revs to play with you can gear that car down and increase the available hp at the wheels, you can't do that unless it's a high revver. So yes both engines produce the same nominal crank hp, but the high revving engine produces more hp at the wheels (you've increased the torque at the wheels and kept the revs the same).
For sure torque and hp are inextricably linked, but if you're on about the best way to describe the real world perfornce possibilities of the package then HP is the better units to use, it shows your engine produces both torque and revs well too, which then allows you to exploit other things like torque mulitiplication of the drivetrain.
You can keep on saying *torque at high revs* but writing *high hp* is easier and if you're talking about engines which produce roughly the same torque figures shows that the high HP engine also revs well ..
in short, an engine which has a good torque over a wide rev range will be the faster car both on it's torque and the ability to exploit the gearing issue. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand!
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff