ST220 Rolling Road Results

[GaryST220]

I took the 220 to Dreamscience yesterday to part take in a Focus ST OC rolling road day. Excellent day as expected and there were some nice cars to gander at.

After fourteen Focus ST’s, Kazuyadog and I ran our 220’s for comparison (96,000 and 93,000 miles respectively).



Kazuyadog is running the Dreamscience Race 97 Induction map with a Blueflame exhaust, PiperX induction kit and Shell V Power. His car returned 248bhp @ 6,500rpm, 213ft/lb @ 5,250rpm, and completed the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds.

Kazyuyadog's Run

Mine is standard and was using regular Tesco unleaded at the time; it returned 235bhp @ 6,500rpm, 207ft/lb @ 5,000rpm and completed the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds.

My run

If you look at this shifty comparison between the two runs, you will be able to determine the differences in power. The massive gain in low down torque is down to the Dreamscience remap.



For further contrast, there was also two standard Focus ST’s that completed a dyno session. Their results were 250bhp, 258ft/lb with a the quarter mile time of 15 seconds. The second returned 238bhp, 247ft/lb and completed the quarter mile in 15.2 seconds.



After doing a dozen Focus ST’s, the operator said he was very surprised at how quick the ST220’s revved, so much so that he thought the clutch had gone.

At the end of the day and 300 miles later, my car was in a bit of a state.



Cheers for reading.

/discuss

[neiljohnson]

Every st220 ive ever seen rr graphs for has made over stock power & they are always higher with a few miles on them as it takes a while for them to fully run in normally 50k +

Surprised at the stock Focus St though i would think that had a map of some sort weather the owner knows or not

Dont understand how you get a 1/4 mile time from a dyno though???

[GaryST220]

I did argue that the Focus ST had a remap, but apparently if it did then the torque would be significantly higher.

I'd assume the dyno is weight to the scale of the car.

[neiljohnson]

GaryST220 said:

I did argue that the Focus ST had a remap, but apparently if it did then the torque would be significantly higher.

I'd assume the dyno is weight to the scale of the car.

They do tend to make 300lb + of torque when mapped but 250 bhp still sounds high as most struggle to make stock power

To compare at 265 bhp 280lb torques i ran a 13.6 1/4 in my mk1 Rs Focus so the 1/4 mile times seem a bit strange????

[GaryST220]

The 1/4 mile times are never going to be accurate compared to a real timed run, its just a bit of fun between other cars on the dyno at the same time.

[neiljohnson]

GaryST220 said:

The 1/4 mile times are never going to be accurate compared to a real timed run, its just a bit of fun between other cars on the dyno at the same time.

Now i get it

[a_bread]

I wonder why ford didn't claim these high outputs for the st220 if a standard car delivers so much.

Edited by a_bread on Tuesday 2nd November 09:04

[ultrafastboy]

a_bread said:

I wonder why ford didn't claim these high outputs for the st220 if a standard car delivers so much.

Edited by a_bread on Tuesday 2nd November 09:04

Maybe Ford's numbers are based on standard unleaded? Some makers do, some don't.

[neiljohnson]

A lot (not all) of Fords are underated as stock i think Ford has the habit of stating a minimum Bhp rather than an optimistic figure.

[k15tox]

good run mate!

what was the whp?

flywheel figures are pointless

[jon_80]

a_bread said:

I wonder why ford didn't claim these high outputs for the st220 if a standard car delivers so much.

Edited by a_bread on Tuesday 2nd November 09:04

I've seen it at dyno days, ST220's putting out sometimes 10 more than they should or even more, when some other cars put out as expected or below expected on the same day. I guess they use the same kind of factors to adjust other fwd cars wheel power to a flywheel power estimate.

Edited by jon_80 on Wednesday 3rd November 18:58

[a_bread]

I'm not doubting the figures.
In fact it would explain why my friend's ST220 surprised me as it actually felt a little bit quicker (at least above 4000rpm) than my 330ci. Although a different ST I tried 2 years ago didn't.
My car was RR'd at 229bhp and I think weighs slightly more than the ford but is more torquey. I have lots of respect for the ST.

[GaryST220]

k15tox said:

good run mate!

what was the whp?

flywheel figures are pointless

Dreamsciences dyno doesn't measure WHP, but I'd guesstimate about 176whp.

[White Lightning]

neiljohnson said:

A lot (not all) of Fords are underated as stock i think Ford has the habit of stating a minimum Bhp rather than an optimistic figure.

I once read that when a car maker releases the horsepower figures for their cars its based on running 93 octane fuel and at 1 bar pressure of air at 20 degrees Celsius.

So that could explain the discrepancy.....i.e on a cold day running 99 octane fuel you are likely to thump out higher horsepower figures.

For a torque comparison of a mapped ST im currently pushing 350 lb/ft

[a_bread]

In the E46 owners manual it says my car will produce its max power of 231PS with high octane. I think it says 221 with low octane but might be remembering that second bit wrongly

Edited by a_bread on Wednesday 3rd November 21:55

[k15tox]

GaryST220 said:

k15tox said:

good run mate!

what was the whp?

flywheel figures are pointless

Dreamsciences dyno doesn't measure WHP, but I'd guesstimate about 176whp.

id probably say its a little more than that, fwd's dont suffer as much transmission lossers as other setups.

all dynos measure in wheelhorsepower ie at the rollers, then the machine 'calculates' the fly, hence why there pretty pointless.

seem to be strong engines in the st220??! well in!

[GaryST220]

k15tox said:

GaryST220 said:

k15tox said:

good run mate!

what was the whp?

flywheel figures are pointless

Dreamsciences dyno doesn't measure WHP, but I'd guesstimate about 176whp.

id probably say its a little more than that, fwd's dont suffer as much transmission lossers as other setups.

all dynos measure in wheelhorsepower ie at the rollers, then the machine 'calculates' the fly, hence why there pretty pointless.

seem to be strong engines in the st220??! well in!

I asked them for the WHP and they told me their machine doesn't provide it, you have to work it out manually.

[neiljohnson]

a_bread said:

In the E46 owners manual it says my car will produce its max power of 231PS with high octane. I think it says 221 with low octane but might be remembering that second bit wrongly

Edited by a_bread on Wednesday 3rd November 21:55

Bmw do quote higher & lower figures for fuel octane even more so on m cars but all there horsepower readings are in metric ps so the actual bhp figures are slightly lower which can upset Bmw owners when it comes to rr days

It is also something to point out that by just going with higher octane fuel for the rr is a farce as it will normally take 2-3 tanks of the stuff before the ecu fully 'learns' (on cars with knock sensors) that it can advance the timing further which it what gives the extra bhp.

[a_bread]

Youre right. I heard of one 330 owner getting 217 or something but not sure what the fuel was.

I always use vpower but I'm not really disappointed with 229bhp which is really 232ps. Would have been nice to get as much as or more than ST220s get though!

[neiljohnson]

a_bread said:

Youre right. I heard of one 330 owner getting 217 or something but not sure what the fuel was.

I always use vpower but I'm not really disappointed with 229bhp which is really 232ps. Would have been nice to get as much as or more than ST220s get though!

a good e46 m3 will make @ 330bhp as opposed to the 343bhp quoted