Directions needed please
Discussion
Chaps, from around the "big smoke", I'm coming up to Rainham, Essex tomorrow, just wondering which way to go. I was going to go A303 - M3 - M25, but my sat nav is saying M5 - M4 - M25 ???. It being a bank Hol and all that, what do we think. Off for a remap by YellowShed, the garage is just north of the Dartford bridge RM13 9EB
Cheers
Cheers
It's going to be busy whichever but more traffic will be going West.
The 303 is a nicer drive than the M5, and avoids the M4/Heathrow bits... but M3 and South of London leaves you vulnerable to a stuffed up Dartford crossing...
That doesn't help much... absolute best plan is to leave at stupid o'clock and get into Essex before everyone else hits the road, whichever way.
The 303 is a nicer drive than the M5, and avoids the M4/Heathrow bits... but M3 and South of London leaves you vulnerable to a stuffed up Dartford crossing...
That doesn't help much... absolute best plan is to leave at stupid o'clock and get into Essex before everyone else hits the road, whichever way.
wessexrfc said:
Chaps, from around the "big smoke", I'm coming up to Rainham, Essex tomorrow, just wondering which way to go. I was going to go A303 - M3 - M25, but my sat nav is saying M5 - M4 - M25 ???. It being a bank Hol and all that, what do we think. Off for a remap by YellowShed, the garage is just north of the Dartford bridge RM13 9EB
Cheers
The best way if no accidents is M5 M4 M25 DONT GO THROUGH DARTFORD TUNNEL go the other way round to Junction 27 then A127 around 4 hours Cheers
Well, it took me six and a half hous to get there, I've never been sat in such a traffic jam, it started around Swindon and only stopped once I had swung off the M25, nort of the Dartford Tunnel!!!! The map showed my actuators were a bit weak, so until those are fixed I’m not going to feel the full effects of Trevors handy work. Power is 356.5 bhp, looking back at my last rolling road done by Dyno Dynamics back in November last year, it recorded 356.8 bhp, before remap?????? Am a bit puzzled by this as I’ve done the valves, spring and intercooler since. Could this just be down to my actuators going a bit soft, or am I missing something, wish I had taken my old dyno readings with me. The car feels more responsive, but I don’t know now if that is more psychological or fact 
Trouble is mate every dyno is different !! Only way to get a acurate picture is to use the same dyno with the same weather conditions ect , don't loose the faith get turbos over to universal to get checked out and fit 0.7 bar actuators then try again !!! Trust me it's worth the hard work :-)
Don't just look at peak numbers - look at the entire curve. For instance, the mods you made may give you more midrange or low-end power, but may leave the peak numbers the same. Or, maybe the peak power is being made at a different rpm. Or, you may be making the same power with less boost. And so on. I've also seen dyno runs where the peak number came from a little tiny blip over a few hundred rpm - peak number looked great, but the car was much slower than another car, where the peak was lower but the powerband was much longer...
Peak numbers are more for bragging rights than anything else. The true picture is shown by the entire curve, and by the way the car drives.
Peak numbers are more for bragging rights than anything else. The true picture is shown by the entire curve, and by the way the car drives.
TuxMan said:
.... get turbos over to universal to get checked out and fit 0.7 bar actuators then try again !!! Trust me it's worth the hard work :-)
Noooooo..... No need for 0.7Bar actuators - the 3/3R turbos run out of flow for these engines way before you need 0.7Bar actuators. In fact, we've just recovered a car which had failed to be mapped by another "competent" mapper - who'd charged the customer needlessly for: a pair of 0.7Bar actuators; new injectors; and new plugs. Finally, customer was told that his ECU must be faulty. Needless to say, it wasn't and he went away a happy camper... Not having time to map the car ourselves, we left it at the 0.7Bar mechanical. And besides, a GTO-3 on a std 5-speed with open diff - 0.7Bar of boost is more than enough his hardware. I wouldn't be happy going any higher on such a setup.All 0.7Bar actuators do is rob you of ECU control of the boost below 0.7Bar. Please never fit 0.7Bar actuators to a 3/3R unless you want less control!!
YellowShed
YellowShed said:
TuxMan said:
.... get turbos over to universal to get checked out and fit 0.7 bar actuators then try again !!! Trust me it's worth the hard work :-)
Noooooo..... No need for 0.7Bar actuators - the 3/3R turbos run out of flow for these engines way before you need 0.7Bar actuators. In fact, we've just recovered a car which had failed to be mapped by another "competent" mapper - who'd charged the customer needlessly for: a pair of 0.7Bar actuators; new injectors; and new plugs. Finally, customer was told that his ECU must be faulty. Needless to say, it wasn't and he went away a happy camper... Not having time to map the car ourselves, we left it at the 0.7Bar mechanical. And besides, a GTO-3 on a std 5-speed with open diff - 0.7Bar of boost is more than enough his hardware. I wouldn't be happy going any higher on such a setup.All 0.7Bar actuators do is rob you of ECU control of the boost below 0.7Bar. Please never fit 0.7Bar actuators to a 3/3R unless you want less control!!
YellowShed
No question the car is more responsive, yes the curve is important and looking at it it looks better, the power delivery is much much better also. Iching to get new actuators fitted to see end results, next week with a bit of luck. But whatever the max bhp, (yes I got hooked up on max bhp etc etc) the cars mid range is so much punchier. Mr Yellow knows his Nobs, shame he's so far from my neck of the woods. 
Arr yes, a big thanks to the little
who chucked a lit cigarette at my car, lodging in the top grill section of my front clam and burning the body work. Just because you’re too stupid, lazy, idle and ignorant to get a job worthy of rewarding enough for you to purchase such a car, don’t take it out on me. Only wish I’d caught them throwing the fag, it would have been a very long slow trip of them, looking through puffy sore eyes, little scum bags :rantover:
Arr yes, a big thanks to the little
who chucked a lit cigarette at my car, lodging in the top grill section of my front clam and burning the body work. Just because you’re too stupid, lazy, idle and ignorant to get a job worthy of rewarding enough for you to purchase such a car, don’t take it out on me. Only wish I’d caught them throwing the fag, it would have been a very long slow trip of them, looking through puffy sore eyes, little scum bags :rantover:The devil said:
So, does this mean then that my uprated actuators and remap were a waste of time and money?
Not for me to say. I'm sure some people could justify the change, but it wouldn't have been my recommendation. You're the best judge as to whether it was a waste of time and money.YellowShed
Just to clarify here, and (hopefully) not to start an argument, What you're saying if I'm reading it right Trevor, is that there is NO need for 0.7 bar actuators and that they would be detrimental to performance gains, and that you've recovered a car which had (amongst other things) that particular modification?
Are you suggesting the recovery was necessitated by the use of those actuators, or was there another, unconnected issue?
Secondly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how (for example) Wessexrfc can have fitted them and report his car is "more responsive" with "much better power delivery" after fitting them?
Surely the overall dyno plot will show whether they bought about gains or not, (I have plots of both if it's any help) this should of course also reflect in the driving experience thereafter, which seems to support the use of stronger actuators, and (IMHO) quite rightly and understandably so?
Mike.
Are you suggesting the recovery was necessitated by the use of those actuators, or was there another, unconnected issue?
Secondly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how (for example) Wessexrfc can have fitted them and report his car is "more responsive" with "much better power delivery" after fitting them?
Surely the overall dyno plot will show whether they bought about gains or not, (I have plots of both if it's any help) this should of course also reflect in the driving experience thereafter, which seems to support the use of stronger actuators, and (IMHO) quite rightly and understandably so?
Mike.
Mike Tuckwood said:
Just to clarify here, and (hopefully) not to start an argument, What you're saying if I'm reading it right Trevor, is that there is NO need for 0.7 bar actuators and that they would be detrimental to performance gains, and that you've recovered a car which had (amongst other things) that particular modification?
Perhaps I was not clear enough, then. With the 0.7Bar actuators, you cannot control the boost below 0.7Bar through electronic means. With 0.3Bar actuators, you can control the boost electronically from 0.3Bar up to the limit (circa 0.9Bar at peak torque and 0.7Bar at peak power, assuming a low-loss exhaust system). The original 3/3R maps were mapped to 0.7Bar max which provided somewhere between 330-350lbft torque. Several open-diff'd 5-speed cars killed their diffs on those standard maps on and off track. So clearly that ought to be the limit for the 5-speed.
Putting 0.7Bar actuators on and allowing higher boost would put more torque through such hardware - not a choice I would make. Those actuators would give more power, as you could run over 1.5Bar of boost at peak torque and over 1.2Bar at peak power.
However, as you have discovered, the T25s can't flow enough airflow to run that level of boost at the top end, so there's no point. Further, with that level of boost at peak torque, you have also found that the standard clutch can't take that level of torque. So, I fail to see the need for 0.7Bar actuators as necessary on any T25 car, and it would be the last upgrade I would recommend for a T28 car after everything else has been sorted.
Mike Tuckwood said:
Are you suggesting the recovery was necessitated by the use of those actuators, or was there another, unconnected issue?
Another unconnected issue. We did not change anyone's actuators. The recovery was purely in the ECU.Mike Tuckwood said:
Secondly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how (for example) Wessexrfc can have fitted them and report his car is "more responsive" with "much better power delivery" after fitting them?
wessexrfc still has his original actuators which are a little softer than they should be. We have recommended he get them replaced with standard ones, and he has the boost map set for the new actuators. As such, his power was limited to the boost he could make on the day. When he gets the new actuators, his new map will give him another hike in power and torque. We left it that way so that there was no need for a repeat of his long journey after he fits new actuators - it'll already be set up in the map.Mike Tuckwood said:
Surely the overall dyno plot will show whether they bought about gains or not, (I have plots of both if it's any help) this should of course also reflect in the driving experience thereafter, which seems to support the use of stronger actuators, and (IMHO) quite rightly and understandably so?
Mike.
Not sure who you're referring to here. As said, wessexrfc's actuators are the standard, old and slightly soft. It was another customer who had 0.7Bar actuators, and we didn't have time to map his car. However, for safety's sake, we set the car to run pre-load only. As he will achieve nearly 0.7Bar at peak power, he would have had more power than standard for the 3/3R, whilst achieving about the standard torque levels, which is good for his open-diff'd 5-speeder.Mike.
Hope that clarifies.
YellowShed
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff