131/135 tourer - any comparative timings?

[pondweed]

has anyone (other than Ron, who has some of these posted on his site too for the 116) taken any 30-50 and 50-70 timings whilst sorting/testing tuning products like TU3 and synergy, or others?

I'm trying to be systematic about setting levels and comparing times before/after "adding kit"... and the data I'm getting appears useful, although pretty unscientific! Would be interested in swapping with anyone who done similar, with the 131/135 engine and tourer body? (which is 40kg heavier and thus has different characteristics)

[Ti Rich]

Yes - Me and Maxii

The times in the yellow boxes were strange and should have been repeated if we had time. Conditions were damp (not ideal as performance always suffers) and two people were in the car. This was done before the days of intake mods and springs!!

My car also had a faulty MAF at the time, but i did not know that then.

The figures for TU3b + MAFAM are about the same as a Synergy Unit but Ron has improved the maps since these tests were done.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/evansrj/ZTPerformance2.jpg

[Ti Rich]

Oh and here is a roilling road test with and with out the TU3b. Note that in my opinion this rolling road is a bit optimistic. The car had a faulty MAF at this satge too as can be seen by the shape of the power curve low down.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/evansrj/BeforenAfter.jpg

[Ti Rich]

And another. Here we see the car with a remap and then adding the synergy with a week map. This rolling road was certainly on the conservative side in my opinion.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/evansrj/ZTRollingroadOct20063.jpg

[pondweed]

what fantastic stuff Rich.... I'd seem some of the rolling road stuff linked elsewhere but the on road timings are what most of us can realistically identify with... so the spreadsheet is extremely useful.
I can extrapolate your (ZT) cars figures, allowing a little for the extra weight of the tourer to give me something to aim for. I've got the higher revving times fine.. but my low down 30-50 still seems weak.
Anyone know if there are differences in gearbox ratios that could create a theoretical difference between Rover 75 and MG ZT for timing purposes (or indeed anything else?)
cant this be lodged somewhere useful under 'tuning data' on this forum or the club site?

[Roverron]

My timings fro the early days with just a Tu3 fitted - no springs, Pierburgh maf, decat and with skiiny 195 tyres on are:

30-50 in 4th 5.2
40-60 in 4th 5.5
50-70 in 4th 5.5

50-70 in 5th 7.2 (no Tu3 = 9.3, which is better than AUtocars 10.5)
60-80 in 5th 7.9

I will try to do some today on my way to the dyno.

30-50 in 4th 6.67
50-70 in 4th 5.54
These were just single runs with the Synergy on setting 3 - low maf comp. The Pierburgh maf usually needs med or high maf setting.

30 is about 1300rpm which is below the rpm where the turbo start to get going so I not too bothered about it as in reality I never floor the throttle at less than 1500rpm. Trying to improve on the 30-50 time would probably result in smoke and worse fuel consumption because of the lack of turbo boost.
I could feel the surge starting at 40, so I'd expect the 40-60 time to be about the same 5.5secs. Obviously the decat is not going to have much impact at these sort of revs, but at least it shows that there is perhaps a slight improvement when you allow for the wider tyres.

Fitting 215 section tyres has ADDED about .2 - .3 seconds TO he times.

Ron

[Ti Rich]

Fitting 215 section tyres has knocked about .2- .3 seconds off the times.

Ron

Ron

I think you meant to say fitting 215 tyres has ADDED 0.2/0.2 seconds per time.

While Rover used the 75's perfromance figures in practice the ZT is slower due to the 225 tyres and 18" wheels.

[Ti Rich]

I've got the higher revving times fine.. but my low down 30-50 still seems weak.

Almost certainly a MAF problem. What is your current set up and where are you based? I might be able to help as i have a MAFAM and TU3b and a spare MAF sensor that i can fit to anyones car for a trial.

The MAF sensor has a HUGE effect on the cars overall performance and MPG in my opinion.

[Roverron]

Ron

I think you meant to say fitting 215 tyres has ADDED 0.2/0.2 seconds per time.

While Rover used the 75's perfromance figures in practice the ZT is slower due to the 225 tyres and 18" wheels.

Er Yes!

Ron

[pondweed]

Almost certainly a MAF problem. What is your current set up and where are you based? I might be able to help as i have a MAFAM and TU3b and a spare MAF sensor that i can fit to anyones car for a trial.

The MAF sensor has a HUGE effect on the cars overall performance and MPG in my opinion.

thanks for offer. Maf is 36,000 miles old. I've not cleaned it yet. Synergy just fitted and MAFAM range is on with it on '10' (so mafam is thus 'low') The new Synergy Temp sensor is wedged into the passenger side end of airbox, where there is a handy plastic clip hole.

my strategy for getting it right has currently been to advance the mafam range (with tu3 off) from off , L, M and H and take 30-50 times.. thus:
"everything off" 10.4secs
Low 7.25
Med 7.74
High 8.3
So thats why I've got it on Low range, highest power so far... as it seemed optimum response. I should redo the low and medium times again to make sure...

with Synergy "all" on
30-50 in 4th 6.5-7
50-70 in 4th average about 5.7
Interesting Ron's point about remapping the Synergy for his decat trials... if and when my MAF goes skyward, I'll fit pierburg and thus the modified 10 fitting with the pierburg maf setting seems a must then, in theory. With the optional switch fitted, its not worth NOT having the thing set on max, as youve always got a lower middle range to play with anyway...
I havent experienced much difference yet in the feel of the throttle sensitivity levels from playing around (quickly) with the box settings. I'd like "205GTi".. but I realise that the 75 tourer is a weighty beast and thus sensitivity isnt necessarily going to translate as directly into direct forward thrust! But I am probably missing power still... I envisage my 50-70 in 5th being slower than the 7.5-8 Ron said it should be. One run this morning of just under 9...

[pondweed]

thinking of rons point on the website about adjusting his throttle stop too.

Is there any danger in just adjusting it "down" a little - without connecting it electrically to get it to 100%?..i.e. to ensure it's actually getting to a full 'open' reading when you do use full throttle....?

has anyone else found that its needed this adjustment and how do you actually do it spannerwise?

[Ti Rich]

Your figures look about right to me! I don't think you have a problem. Make sure your air filter is clean and use a quality fuel.

With a remap and the Synergy (on a low setting) i can get the 50-70 in 4th down to 5.0 seconds!!!

[Roverron]

thinking of rons point on the website about adjusting his throttle stop too.

Is there any danger in just adjusting it "down" a little - without connecting it electrically to get it to 100%?..i.e. to ensure it's actually getting to a full 'open' reading when you do use full throttle....?

has anyone else found that its needed this adjustment and how do you actually do it spannerwise?

Don't attempt it without reading the % via the diagnostic port. If you go off the end of the track the voltage will drop to zero on full throttle and so will the power. Not good in the middle of an overtake!

I agree with Rich, your timings are reasonable. You could experiment a bit to see if your 50-70 in 5th comes down a bit more. Try a higher mafam setting - it may improve 5th gear even if it slightly worsened 4th.

Ron

[pondweed]

Don't attempt it without reading the % via the diagnostic port. If you go off the end of the track the voltage will drop to zero on full throttle and so will the power. Not good in the middle of an overtake! Ron
yikes..:eek:I think I'll leave that alone then...
presently feeling a bit of a wombat. went to change synergy setting from 10 to a higher mafam'd 6.... and realised that it had been on...errr..... 4. I'm now not sure whether I put it down purposefully OR whether my timings now have a lot more potential than I thought! (One really needs a Synergy-assist with a voice recognition stopwatch and auto-dictate-notepad mounted on the dash... christmas coming!)

[pondweed]

with all the discussion going on mpg, I feel that it would be useful for some of the rough timing stuff to be stored somewhere obvious.. so that others have a guide when sorting MAF issues and so on? (This string was really useful at the time but gets lost)
e.g. latest
131 CDT Tourer manual, synergy setting 5 and inlet mod, K&N (195 tyres)
30-50 (4th) 6.8
50-70 (4th) 5.7
50-70 (5th) 7.8

[Ti Rich]

Those timings look about spot on!

[Roverron]

Those timings look about spot on!

For a heavier tourer they are.

My saloon is marginally quicker - about 0.3 secs. But this could be due to road conditions as well so I can't really argue! I normally use setting 6 which will give a bit more low down as well. (or does on mine)

It was quickest with the original 195x65 tyres.

Ron

[pondweed]

Those timings look about spot on!
yes - and thats due to having had your spreadsheet and rons figs (thanks!) close the hand - more peoples' figs together will make it even easier to see what sort of effect extra remap or extra weight have...as long as posted figs list the pecularities of each car...