Looking at what rs tuning are doing with the 225's with there 'stage 2 re-map'. The results are pretty i think:
I think i'll need a stronger clutch:eek:
Printable View
Looking at what rs tuning are doing with the 225's with there 'stage 2 re-map'. The results are pretty i think:
I think i'll need a stronger clutch:eek:
don't worry about the clutch that will destroy your gearbox.
I see that and think too much boost, and too small a turbo. Be interesting to see what the boost curve looks like.
Torq :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Cooke
What would you suggest i di Andy to give the gear box a chance?? I Think that was at 1 bar boost. Standard is 10psi. That car is making 320 odd ft/ibs at 3000rpm!!! Bet its interesting to drive.
maybe, but making greater than 90% of peak torque over only 25% of the rev range is rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob@Backyardracing
those curves just reek of a tiny turbo being pushed too hard. with the right turbo and the same boost you could make less peak torque and a lot more power. do we know what boost that's running ? and what stock boost is ?
depends how long you want it to last, I'd try and keep it down around 200 lb/ft. I don't think you'll get 320lb/ft with only 1 bar in a 2L engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT C Ringworm Tuning
If what I've read is right the standard engine makes 184lb at 2K, so much as that graph, 221lb at 3K, and 184lb at 6K. If the standard engine has 10psi at 3k that engine has more like 21psi.
Aaiiiii, i was just smiling as its to torq happy as commented ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Cooke
Andy, yes, at 10psi the figuers you qute are about right. The standard turbo would im sure get daft hot at 21psi, but yes looking at it know i would agree. I've asked the question but they wont tell me. Agreed with Scoff, that torque curve is daft, peakier than mount everest. When it comes to beng mapped it will be interesting. Maybe its worth trying to move the 'on boost' time to further up the rev range? I know the standard set up has an electronic solenoid valve which possibly snaps shut just as that curve goes skyward?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Cooke
Had a mate with an R26 or 27 230 & had it rollered at 249bhp, i forget the torque but it went up as per normal & then was a dead flat line till the operator let off :D
Standard car though.
I think thats pretty much how they are Steve. Peak torque by 3000 rpm, then steadily drops off untill dying at 6500. Its going to be interesting in a gt weighing less than a fag packet! I'll just leave it at 10-14psi and see how that does. I could eventually look at a TD04 TS using a 16t wheel which may provide a more even spread of torque?Quote:
Originally Posted by 5teve L
Just dug this up as i have been digging into the max boost used by RS Tuning. The turbo is set up at 1.4 bar, standard map sensor and standard injectors (390cc) They change the intercooler and apparently have no charge temp issues. :scratch: The bigger injectors apparently sees over 300bhp:eek:
What on the standard turbo, bloddy hell that thing must be screaming its guts offQuote:
Originally Posted by MATT C Ringworm Tuning
Yeah, standard turbo!! I aint stripped one down so can't comment on its innards, but it seems a tough unit to be able to cope with that.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT C Ringworm Tuning
Fecking must be, can't see it lasting long running that kinda power
Be mapping on Q16 soon....
Mitsubishi haven't changed their internal turbo setup for many years, and they run 360 thrust bearings... But they're not srewed down like the Garrett hybrids, so they can move when the turbo runs large amounts of boost.
You might get a good power figure but the turbo won't last long.
You're also stuck with the good but bad twin scroll setup. Good because twin scroll is awesome, bad because Renault put some retarded bolt pattern on the manifold, so you'll have to get a custom one made to use a proper turbo.
Was gunna say, ain't it a Mitsubishi turbo, a TD04 or somit ain't it?
Yes, it's a TD04.
Matt, I think your going to need a stronger gearbox if you seriously want to tune your car.
As in my thread reference stripping second gear, I'm only producing 240 lb/ft and it's a lot smoother than the graph you posted.
Is there no way you can squeeze the 225 box in? or what about going down the same route as Scoff with a stronger vag unit?
I wonder how much of a ball ache it would be to fit a volvo T5 (m56) gearbox?
Only a couple of thoughts that I'm considering myself after my box failed.
Yeah the box has always been the thorn in the side, but im hoping it lasts long enough to come up with a plan/finances to change in the future. I guess it also depends on how i drive it. Progressive power might offer a little more time;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SP33DY
Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT C Ringworm Tuning
300hp is going to be the absolute maximum for the internals and as far as I know no one has cracked 300hp yet, the most I've seen is 282hp/340lbft with the larger 630cc injectors as the standard ones are running 100% duty making anywhere near those figures. This is also with a forge fmic (larger than standard) and a de-cat. You will have inlet temp issues on warm days with hard driving, i.e on track without the forge ic.
The boost at stg2 is approx 22psi (good deduction Mr Cooke) and the turbo is at its limit.
Some guys are now looking in to hybrids but as mentioned it's a pain in the arse with the manifold if you want a proper turbo!
I might have a nice spare T3 available soon Mat-chew... Do you it at a nice price ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Streetfighter
:cooter:
Bet you will ash-tray, will that help me towards a new manifold :scared: :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashy
What's it off btw?
This is what can be done with "big" turbo, uprated clutch and forged internals....
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...TuneGreece.jpg
Has that been proven or just myth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Streetfighter
Has anyone tried simply upping the fuel pressure as opposed to fitting the 630's? (I've read about the larger injectors causing incorrect fuel gauge readings)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mart
I haven't tested it, I don't want to melt my engine at only 5000 miles :laugh:
The fuel gauge issue is due to gauge just being a display from a calculation not a sender unit.
So when the computer no longer understands the injector function/volumetric flow it cannot perform the correct calculation to display the value to the user of what is left in the tank. Needs the numbers done properly.
As for altering fuel pressure I'll have to think of a way to do it. The standard injectors are widely viewed as less than very reliable so any excuse to get rid of them is a good one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Streetfighter
I don't know what exactly you find inside a 225 F4R but if they're as tough or tougher than the Clio 172's innards then I'd say 300hp is by no means a limit, I pushed my standard 172 internals a long way past that before something gave up. If the 2 engine's use the same rods then I'll say that the rods are the weak point, I bent 3, blew one apart and holed a block. That was pushing quite hard, I would expect a 172 F4R to hold up at 300hp pretty well, and I'd hope that the 225's engine had stronger rods, and not the match-skick like ones you find in the 172 block, or are they the same ?
Slightly off topic, does anyone know the compression height of a 225 piston ? are they flat top ?
I'll scratch around for that info Scoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
300bhp is quite close to the limit of the standard pistons from what I've heard. The sustained combustion pressures required to achieve circa 310bhp are sufficient to cause piston skirt deformation over a period of time and eventually failure and then game over!!
Much over 275hp I think you need to look into pricey forged pistons. Rods and crank are strong enough for 350bhp+ and probably quite a bit more, although the standard big end bearings are a bit dubious. And that's before thinking about clutch and gearbox limits. You need more flow than the Mitsi turbo can give and then it's back to the manifold........
I agree on the whole, all sounds very sensible, I just think it might be a bit unfair to the original components to give them an absolute limit. I use standard 172 pistons at quite a bit more than 300hp, they've been in there for about 2 years with varying levels of tune and show no wear at all!! no undue slap or other worrying signs. I should add though, that is with 1800cc and low compression, so I'll not be seeing the peak pressures that the 2L engine with high c/r will see, I am cheating :)
PS yes, would be happy to see any info you might have on the standard 225 stuff. Any pipctures of the conrods ? I do wonder if they are the same as the 172, in which case, take my word for it, they are none too strong!!
It is a bit wrong to give things a finite limit, agreed, but I'm always thinking along the lines of can I run the engine with the same reliability level as when it rolled out of the Renault factory not 10 times down the strip and then rebuild it.
I'll tap someone up for the info and any pictures, I'm 99% the rods are not the same as 172's. One of those situations where I never really paid much attention at the time but wish I had done now :sad2:
Yes definately, sensible limits. I'm a drag racer though, we don't have sensible limit's, just absolutes :D
Thanks in advance for any info/pics you might have. Here's a (fecked) 172 rod, might help the quest.
https://www.rtoc.org/files/Technical%...f/bent-rod.jpg
Iv'e been looking for piston/rod pics for ages with no joy!
Can someone do a cross reference for both rod part no.s??
Different part number for the rods, crank is the same though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Cheers lewis. I would guess the pistons would be different, unless the compression difference is in the rods and head?
Google SARD fpr. Job done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Streetfighter
If the fuel pump is then the weak spot, that shouldn't cause too much grief upgrading it to a higher o/p unit.
I don't subscribe to all this max limit shpiel. It's exactly the same in the Evo world, yet here I am running 450/450 (or whatever) on o.e rods, pistons, headgasket, clutch, and have been for the past 18 months, Spa track & 'ring laps galore.
Of course, there does come a threshold where parts will start breaking, but as I mentioned in the 26r thread, I'm fairly sure it won't be @ only 70hp more than o.e, imho.
Give it 12 months or so, and there'll be someone running over 300hp on standard internals...
It's virtually been done already mart, I'm just thinking of doing it differently to mapping alone to get a good set up not just working with what's already there.
This car has standard internals, larger injectors, forge fmic, de-cat and a 15g compressor wheel.
http://www.shrani.si/f/2g/FA/28yrOgT...ng3-medium.jpg
The ATW power looks impressive now 247.4 bhp, so over 250ps and boosting nicely at 1.45 bar
297.2hp (so call it 300ps) and 475 Nm with a better torque curve than the standard turbo
Reading on megane sport it would appear that it is the turbo and injectors that are the problem as already mentioned.
I wonder if the turbo manifold from ktec for clios would fit?
Obviously you'd need to fabricate a new down pipe, and if your going to that much effort you may as well fabricate a tubular manifold. Probably needed for a 5 engine bay.
I agree with Mart that the r26 would be capable of over 300bhp as Scoff said he's running pretty much stock internals at 300bhp+ The only problem is no one provides an off the shelf solution and most people who own such a new car are reluctant to rip it to bits in an attempt to fabricate something.
On a different note has anyone ever came across a strong reno gearbox?
All the volvo ones I've looked at have the starter motor located on the front of the engine where mines located on the rear.
Fair play streetfighter. Proves the point :agree:
I'd still say that needs a bigger turbo thrown at it though, as although it probably makes for comical driving around town, it's already asthmatic by 4.5/5k rpm, hence dead for spirited or track driving. That's probably the turbine side getting too restrictive.
If an overall larger (TS) turbo goes on, it might be worth looking at alternative cams.
Likewise, I'd also be testing that Forge intercooler to see how efficient it is...
You have also got to take into consideration the manufacturers restrictive components of the standard car, ie, exhaust and cat, air box , ex. manifold. and also the nannying elctronics and ecu. None of which i have!!:D So that power figuer aint bad at all.On another note, i would hope the standard 225 internals would be at least equal in strength/quality to that of the 172/182's or all of these 225's would be lined up outside renault for new engines!!:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Streetfighter
Streetfighter, what has paul done with your map sensor?? Has it got no max ceiling or is it rated as 3 bar as standard??
Exhaust is Titanium with only one box & a de-cat pipe so not much more to do there. Tubular exhaust manifold + GT28RS next perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT C Ringworm Tuning
MAP sensor as Renault intended as far as I know.
What you up to anyway? Spread the wealth :D
just found this as a continuation on the education of 225's!:D
Comments all.
Scoff,
If im reading correctly, the boost drops off nearly 10 psi?? 1.4 bar to about .75!!:eek: Thats nearly 10psi!!
btt
Yes, looks just the same as the boost response from you're engine matt. The torque curve looks similar too. Looks like you could run quite a bit more boost from that standard turbo yet then.Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT C Ringworm Tuning
Well it looks like RS tuning are leading the way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe1qPtHGoSk
:agree:
I took it out for a spin the other day Matt, it's pretty good. By ditching the OE turbo the power delivery has improved quite a lot. It was pretty geasey but it still had pretty good traction considering the power output.
oem ecu, or am I missing the 'leading the way' comment? Cue Scoff/his F-series tuning skills...