|
||
|
14th July 2020, 08:27 | #21 | |
Posted a thing or two
Alpina D3 Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cheslyn hay
Posts: 1,002
Thanks: 58
Thanked 294 Times in 227 Posts
|
Quote:
A performance map from a tuning company such as SAWS or Force Tuning can get you closer to the "160" number, but it's not possible to hit with the stock turbo, you run out of boost. With a manual boost controller set to 24psi you can hit just shy of 155bhp. Fit a bigger turbo and you will then be limited by the fuel system to around 165bhp. I've said time and time again that a dyno run with video and printout proof should be done for this map. There is some sketchy evidence that is an excel spreadsheet showing that a car hit 170bhp with the map and a synergy box, but it is simply not possible because of the mechanical limitations. There are a few people that have gone from a "160" map to one that maxes at around 155bhp and they have noticed a significant performance increase. I wonder how that is? |
|
14th July 2020, 09:02 | #22 |
Can't help myself
Rover 75 Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 865
Thanks: 469
Thanked 150 Times in 113 Posts
|
I asked in my original post if this discussion could be kept to the matter in hand. It's gone into technical realms which are pushing focus away from the matter in hand. This isn't relevant on this post. Please carry on any technical discussions or opinions about what will/will not have to be done with remaps or Synergy boxes, on a separate thread. Thanks.
__________________
R75 C2 RJBLH Connoisseur CDTi Auto Saloon Built 08/02/2005 @14:57 hrs: Registered 26/08/2005 122nd of 141 built that day British Racing Green Pearlescent (HFF) Sandstone leather with black piping (SPJ) 136,000 miles Last edited by goltho; 14th July 2020 at 09:08.. |
14th July 2020, 10:38 | #23 | |
Avid contributor
MG ZT Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 109
Thanks: 5
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
14th July 2020, 10:38 | #24 | |
Avid contributor
MG ZT Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 109
Thanks: 5
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
15th July 2020, 18:36 | #25 | |
Premium Trader
75 CDT Tourer,2.5 Launch Saloon, Omipro MG/Rover (T4) Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liversedge, West Yorkshire
Posts: 5,405
Thanks: 1,105
Thanked 1,340 Times in 661 Posts
|
Quote:
Depends on the dyno and how it's set up Everyone who knows anything about dyno's knows that you can test the same car on numerous occasions without modification and get entirely different readings. you can get it to read what you want. Just because you've not managed to get a car mapped to 160 doesn't mean it can't be done. Did you know about the two grades of engine fitted to the 75/ZT? It's why some are far quicker than others and produce more bhp! The A grade engines were supposed to be fitted to the top line cars the B grade to the lesser models (where possible). Towards the end they fitted what they had, it's a case of pot luck so you're never sure what you have fitted There's a thread on here in the dark recesses of the forums that was commented on by someone who worked on that part of the production line who expained this. I've encountered it many times when identical cars with no issues have been a lot quicker than others. I remember one particularly well was whenI lent Dave (Duotone who was a mod on here) my car to get some parts for his car. He returned and immediately commented that mine was a heck of a lot quicker than his! Same spec car built within a few Vin numbers, similar mileage, serviced regularly with exactly the same readout on all systems We've never claimed that a 160 remap will definately produce it on a particular car only that on independant Dyno's have shown that it was achieved when tested by members that had it applied. And which 160 map were you comparing yours to, there's more than one and they're all different with slightly different output figures We've never actively advertised the map it's always been done on the recommendation of others. We offered them as there were and still are a lot of really bad ones about people were paying good money and either ended up with a really rough map or one which failed the emissions test. All of ours cause no issues with the emissions test unlike some from the sources you mentioned Here's an recent example of a comment of a forum member who was recommended by another member to have it done: "Hello Russ Thank you for the work you did on my 75 on Thursday I had a V8 in Australia, now I feel like I have 308cu in under the the Rover bonnet. Smooth, instant power. All the best John" By the way TiRich's car, Hogwartz and JohnDotCom's cars were all dyno'd and produced 171bhp. Rich's car used a TU3b and John's a Synergy both on top of an Angel remaps tune. A simple Google search will show the results and also the you tube link to the 162.8 run on another Rich's Auto. Unfortunately due to Photobuckets greed a lot of the other dyno result photos on here have disappeared and as the members concerned have moved on it's not been possible to get them to resubmit them. as you well know Russ
__________________
Replacement Key Service http://https://the75andztclub.co.uk/...d.php?t=244732 Full T4 Testbook diagnostics available. Diesel ECU repair and replacement. Options enabled or disabled as required. Diesel X-Power 135 and 160bhp, Rover 1.8T 150 to 160 MG 160 V6 to 177 upgrades available P.M. for details. Last edited by BigRuss; 15th July 2020 at 21:03.. Reason: Spelling errors |
|
16th July 2020, 13:04 | #26 | ||
This is my second home
Rover 75 CDT Manual Connoisseur SE, Rover 75 CDT Automatic Connoisseur SE & a Freelander Td4. Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 11,531
Thanks: 3,470
Thanked 3,119 Times in 2,247 Posts
|
Quote:
Russ to be honest I couldn't give a monkey's whether the 160 remap actually produces 160bhp on my car or if it is a tad shy of it. Let's face it if you were hooning a Jaguar XJ220 and only got to 212 mph (as they did on test) would you be moaning about going 8 mph faster or enjoying the ride? The fact remains that this remap improves the car's performance no end giving a very tractable power delivery and makes the car far more enjoyable to drive. It also makes for safer overtaking. As a bonus fuel consumption is good, there is no increase in exhaust smoke, and it has proved to be reliable with no detriment to the pump seals or any other engine component if my car is anything to go by, which as you know is well on the way back from the Moon mileage wise. A job well done! Quote:
Dougie I think you are wasting your time with this thread - there is no documented evidence of 'fuel pump problems (e.g. leaking seals) as a result of using a Synergy box' How can there be? You would have to carry out extensive testing to prove the Synergy box was the cause of the seals failing. It can only be anecdotal evidence on a forum, and there is plenty of it on here whereby seals have failed and there was a Synergy fitted. If you want to run with a Synergy box then do it and see how you go. But if and when the seals fail you will be yet another supplier of anecdotal evidence simply because you won't be able to evidentially prove the root cause of the seal failure one way or another. |
||
16th July 2020, 14:21 | #27 | |
Avid contributor
MG ZT Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 109
Thanks: 5
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Quote:
Ie someone putting a box on a 150k cranked to the max? |
|
16th July 2020, 15:05 | #28 | |
This is my second home
MG ZT CDTi Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: carrick
Posts: 7,859
Thanks: 3,494
Thanked 2,657 Times in 1,973 Posts
|
Quote:
Theoretically, a tuning box will accelerate the failure. The many anecdotes of them failing with a tuning box, compared to those without,is not even enough evidence, as there will be many many more without the box fitted. However, if there are roughly the same failing with the box, than without, then it would be statistically reasonable to assume.that the box is causing an issue. Practically though, this cannot be proven without expense ie replace the seals (and the entire fuelling system) and start from scratch. Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk
__________________
It is not gloss primer .............. it is duct tape silver! |
|
16th July 2020, 15:16 | #29 |
This is my second home
MG ZT CDTi Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: carrick
Posts: 7,859
Thanks: 3,494
Thanked 2,657 Times in 1,973 Posts
|
The 135 and 116 as I understood it were not 135 bhp nor 116 bhp.
As I understood the 160 was a 160ps (from the best tested), or close to it, as in a 2 litre m47r engine is not 2litres. But it is easier to call it a 160 map than a.zt/75 forum map (or similar). The whole.point surely of a map, certainly this one, was to produce a more usable driving car. More torque (isn't that what a diesel is about?), better response, and hopefully better economy, without looking like a twonk imitating yanks or vdubbers trying to, 'roll coal' . Bragging rights is another reason for mapping a car, but let's face it, from any 160bhp car simply is a non starter for brag worthiness. Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk
__________________
It is not gloss primer .............. it is duct tape silver! |
16th July 2020, 15:51 | #30 | |
Can't help myself
Rover 75 Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 865
Thanks: 469
Thanked 150 Times in 113 Posts
|
Quote:
Mods, please close this post as its work is done. Thanks.
__________________
R75 C2 RJBLH Connoisseur CDTi Auto Saloon Built 08/02/2005 @14:57 hrs: Registered 26/08/2005 122nd of 141 built that day British Racing Green Pearlescent (HFF) Sandstone leather with black piping (SPJ) 136,000 miles Last edited by goltho; 16th July 2020 at 15:55.. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|