Thinking of shooting for 600BHP........

Ben Cole · 13 Jul 2008 at 11:12

Funny. I've really just come to the conclusion that more than 400bhp is useless on the road and I'm talking about through a 4wd Audi drivetrain too.

However, if I was you Gibbo I'd do it too. Rude not to if it's there for you.

Not the place to ask for a reasonable response though. Everyone here will say "go for it" I reckon. One look at the "rigs in sigs" and the word overkill springs to mind.....LOL

s0ck · 13 Jul 2008 at 11:19

I'd love to see this car 'in the flesh'

I remember you saying you were sliding around in the 'stang. What you gonna do to sort it out so you have a perfect car?

Thomas. PLease. · 13 Jul 2008 at 11:29

get the 3.00 pulley

The_Dark_Side · 13 Jul 2008 at 12:41

Gibbo said:
another 50 horsepower at the wheels will be felt

It's only approximately a 10% power hike, and while you might feel the increase it wont be much. Given that you have to buy parts then take time and effort to fit them, I think that going for a bigger upgrade (that you already know is just as reliable) would make more sense.

jimblowscash · 13 Jul 2008 at 12:48

Gibbo said:
Hi there

Forged piston, connecting rods etc can be done and is done, people see 700-800BHP then and some bore out too 5.0l, no idea on cost though....

Nice to see it back in your hands Gibbo, the bloke @ brands drove it like a plank

ill mail Ad my info and if you want a set of cams doing give me a shout and well have a look for you.

bikes · 13 Jul 2008 at 15:29

Stellios said:
Do it..........just.........do it

+1

Very impressed with the power output, should be a lot of fun

Just wish I had that kind of money to throw into a bike

Flukester · 13 Jul 2008 at 19:16

go for 800, you know you wanna

... then go baiting bikers

Scania · 13 Jul 2008 at 21:59

I think it has to be an ultimate goal of 666BHP Gibbo, as already said by others.

Great to see the car @ OC yesterday, perhaps its the indoor light, but those wheels look bigger mate! :eek:

Tbh,I'd be surprised if you'll feel that much difference adding another 50BHP or so - I find very little difference in the "feel" of 620BHP compared to say 480BHP that said, trucks are probably a bit different (to put it mildly!) with regard to power delivery!

Go for it, it still seems tremendous value for money in my mind.

Jonnycoupe · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:05

DreXeL said:
TBH it's pefectly feasable to get a half-decent tune over e-mail with enough data logging using a wideband lambda, it's not really much different to live mapping on the road, just not in real-time. I guess it takes a lot of e-mailing datalogs and updated maps back and forth, but it's perfectly feasable (Andy Forrest did an Ecutec mapping by e-mail service for scoobies IIRC).

I guess it works like this:

- Tuner sends Gibbo a base map estimating fuelling etc based on the specs of the car.
- Gibbo loads map onto ECU, does some runs and starts datalogging.
- Gibbo sends datalogs to tuner, who then tweaks the map based on the datalogs, then sends updated map to Gibbo.
- Rinse and repeat.

what happens if the first map is too lean? Although i guess the email maps are just silly rich and they back it off until fuelling is acceptable. You would first have to fit a wideband lambda sensor to your car which isnt needed if you go to a dyno and the ignition is just guessing.

There is no way on this planet its as good as live mapping on a road or dyno though.

zeppelin101 · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:08

No but you can still get very good results particularly since the guys at the other end seem to have a good handle on what they're doing

Firestar_3x · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:09

Doesn't the ECU have Autotune to get a good map going then with datalogs you can lean things out / advance some timing etc until you get a good map, no reason why e-mail maps won't work well, i ended up doing something like this with the MK-5 and it did work better than autotune alone.

Overlag · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:11

ask token, apparently K&N 57i will release 500bhp.

Jonnycoupe · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:21

Firestar_3x said:
Doesn't the ECU have Autotune to get a good map going then with datalogs you can lean things out / advance some timing etc until you get a good map, no reason why e-mail maps won't work well, i ended up doing something like this with the MK-5 and it did work better than autotune alone.

How do you change the ignition setting and quantify its result as better without a dyno? Better as in safe, let alone more power.

Im not convinced. Autotune is ass aswell, the more people ignore it the better, thats what closed loop lambda control is for.

Firestar_3x · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:42

Autotune worked fine for me to get a base map, why wouldn't it? Setting the desired AFR and getting the car to self map close to these is a fine way of starting off then you can adjust whilst on the road whilst logging knock.

As for quantifying the e-mail map as better, i assume the car will start to retard the timing when it sees any knock so that along with current AFR and projected afr's + amount of pulled timing could be used as a guide as to if the maps better or not, also user general feel and drivability are a good guide, 'its not pulling cleanly at 4000rpm, so the mapper looks into the settings at 4k.

I'm not saying its better than stick the car on the rolling road or mapping it whilst driving along but its far from bad.

Simon · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:49

Firestar_3x said:
Autotune worked fine for me to get a base map, why wouldn't it? Setting the desired AFR and getting the car to self map close to these is a fine way of starting off then you can adjust whilst on the road whilst logging knock.

This 'desired AFR'?

What exactly is desired? because for me it is the ratio that provides best power output rather than an arbitary number.

Firestar_3x · 14 Jul 2008 at 10:54

The 'Desired AFR' is as you know the air to fuel ratio that the ECU aims to achive at a specific Map value given the RPM.

so something like this :

The ecu then tunes the fuling and ignition retard / advance to get these numbers.

DESIRED AFR–
This is a 20 x 20 grid where you define the desired AFR. Desired AFR should consider the very different requirements for idle, cruising, midrange, high boost and high RPM. AFR is often a blend from a cruising range of 14.7:1 to a full boost value of ~11.0:1 for a turbo rotary. The idle AFR may vary depending on the engines state of tune. There is some debate on what is the best AFR and this should be researched carefully before tuning.

Jonnycoupe · 14 Jul 2008 at 11:10

Firestar_3x said:
The 'Desired AFR' is as you know the air to fuel ratio that the ECU aims to achive at a specific Map value given the RPM.
.

Yes, and what would you set that to? The research part of that post would ironically be dyno time.

The ECU will NOT adjust ignition under a typical autotune setting unless its a E60 M5 with ionisation charge cell sensors on the spark plugs.

Simon · 14 Jul 2008 at 11:17

Firestar_3x said:
The 'Desired AFR' is as you know the air to fuel ratio that the ECU aims to achive at a specific Map value given the RPM.

so something like this :

The ecu then tunes the fuling and ignition retard / advance to get these numbers.

Arbitary numbers then...

You have no idea if they are the best

Firestar_3x · 14 Jul 2008 at 11:18

In Andys case yes given shed loads of dyno time of other cars, which was the original argument that based upon data built up from other cars a good map can be provided via e-mail.

In my case internet research and on the fly adjustments.

Yes sorry timing retard / advance.

Jonnycoupe · 14 Jul 2008 at 11:19

Firestar_3x said:
Yes sorry timing retard / advance.

Are you saying autotune adjust the timing retard/advance and not the ignition?

Firestar_3x said:
In Andys case yes given shed loads of dyno time of other cars, which was the original argument that based upon data built up from other cars a good map can be provided via e-mail.

In my case internet research and on the fly adjustments.

Can you tell me the name of the Saleen Mustangs in the UK with 600bhp facebook group so i can add the 'super-mapped' application