- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 0
Was suprised the scooby made so much extra torque and power. Fairly impressive stuff.
Optimax is a RIP-OFF ?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Optimax makes all my cars sound better, what I mean is, they rev smoother, you can hear it, its very obvious, also bit better on mileage.
Moderators, what does it take before someone is banned ? All the abuse aimed at Stromba is OK is it ? OK for kids reading this to read ?
Anyway, back to the thread..
I thought the most interesting thing on the Fifth gear test was that every car was well below its claimed power figures.
EVO magazine now test actual figures against manufacturers' claims and they have also, I think, yet to find a car whose actual bhp matches the makers' claims.
So what hp does a Trophy actually put out, after running in and on a day of average temperature for the UK, say 15 degrees ? Anywhere near the 182 ? Anyone been on a rolling road yet ?
Anyway, back to the thread..
I thought the most interesting thing on the Fifth gear test was that every car was well below its claimed power figures.
EVO magazine now test actual figures against manufacturers' claims and they have also, I think, yet to find a car whose actual bhp matches the makers' claims.
So what hp does a Trophy actually put out, after running in and on a day of average temperature for the UK, say 15 degrees ? Anywhere near the 182 ? Anyone been on a rolling road yet ?
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 0
I dont know about trophys except for Nik's rolling road. But quick 172's put out the stated BHP. The 'slow' ones put out considerably less. Maybe 160 (some even less than that). These are at the fly figures.
The problem was traced by Nick Hill at Hillpower to be mainly due to the variation in inlet and exhaust manifold designs. There are 3 or 4 designs, each one coming from a different factory. Some are very restrictive and some are not so restrictive. He also found a 6 lbs difference in the weight of different cranks. You get a heavy crank and a restrictive inlet and outlet manifold design and you have a slow f4r.
As an aside, people take their 172's to tuning companies, and these companies are very aware of this problem. I would not be suprised if some of those who have noticed substantial gains in oerformance from tuning, is mainly because the tuning company has replaced a restrictive manifold with a non restrictive one. And then taken the credit for 'tuning' the car.
I would be very suprised if any f4r puts out over the stated bhp. I am suprised that people do not return their cars after poor rolling road tests. Law suits and returns are common in America for cars that do not put out the stated bhp. Jill has a firend who bought a civic type r. On a rolling road it put out less bhp than it was meant to. He returned it to honda who rebuilt his engine for him. I would expect the same from renault.
The problem was traced by Nick Hill at Hillpower to be mainly due to the variation in inlet and exhaust manifold designs. There are 3 or 4 designs, each one coming from a different factory. Some are very restrictive and some are not so restrictive. He also found a 6 lbs difference in the weight of different cranks. You get a heavy crank and a restrictive inlet and outlet manifold design and you have a slow f4r.
As an aside, people take their 172's to tuning companies, and these companies are very aware of this problem. I would not be suprised if some of those who have noticed substantial gains in oerformance from tuning, is mainly because the tuning company has replaced a restrictive manifold with a non restrictive one. And then taken the credit for 'tuning' the car.
I would be very suprised if any f4r puts out over the stated bhp. I am suprised that people do not return their cars after poor rolling road tests. Law suits and returns are common in America for cars that do not put out the stated bhp. Jill has a firend who bought a civic type r. On a rolling road it put out less bhp than it was meant to. He returned it to honda who rebuilt his engine for him. I would expect the same from renault.
Nik
ClioTrophy Admin
Good points there Stromba, its poor how inconsistantly these things are manufactured really.
My 164 at the fly result i'm taking with a pinch of salt at the moment as there were a lot of odd readings that day, but I will be taking it to the rolling road day i've got booked for in February, to get a second reading. Quite possible it wont be much different, but I'm expecting a little more with a few more miles on the clock.
A trip to Angelworks for some manifold work may be on the cards soon anyway, so will be interesting to see the results of that.
I still get the feeling theres quite a bit more running in for the engine yet, it's still feels quite sluggish below 4500rpm and takes an age to pick up from low revs compared to my 172. Still find it odd that its supplied with fully synthetic oil, that cant help the running in process surely.
My 164 at the fly result i'm taking with a pinch of salt at the moment as there were a lot of odd readings that day, but I will be taking it to the rolling road day i've got booked for in February, to get a second reading. Quite possible it wont be much different, but I'm expecting a little more with a few more miles on the clock.
A trip to Angelworks for some manifold work may be on the cards soon anyway, so will be interesting to see the results of that.
I still get the feeling theres quite a bit more running in for the engine yet, it's still feels quite sluggish below 4500rpm and takes an age to pick up from low revs compared to my 172. Still find it odd that its supplied with fully synthetic oil, that cant help the running in process surely.
Nik
ClioTrophy Admin
ChrisB said:
Thread has now been cleaned up.
I'm not going to start issuing bans left right and centre, i hope that people on here are mature enough for me not to have to do that.
If ayone has a complaint about someone, please PM a moderator or myself, rather than result to insults on the public forum.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 0
Take your car to Hillpower nik and ask him to tell you which inlet and exhaust manifolds you have, just swappin them for the 'good' ones will probably get you up to the 180 bhp they are meant to put out.
My williams 0200 was a slow car until it went to nick at Hillpower. He blueprinted it to manufacturers optimum spec and lightened the crank and also uprated the oil pressure slightly, and it will now pull hard from any speed in any gear. It may not be the fastest engine ive ever driven, but the driveability is now out of this world. More gains to be made from getting the engine working as it should than tuning it with the usual cams etc.
It makes it so much easier to drive with low down power and you can afford to be caught in the wrong gear on a corner and the engine will help you out.
My williams 0200 was a slow car until it went to nick at Hillpower. He blueprinted it to manufacturers optimum spec and lightened the crank and also uprated the oil pressure slightly, and it will now pull hard from any speed in any gear. It may not be the fastest engine ive ever driven, but the driveability is now out of this world. More gains to be made from getting the engine working as it should than tuning it with the usual cams etc.
It makes it so much easier to drive with low down power and you can afford to be caught in the wrong gear on a corner and the engine will help you out.
Nik
ClioTrophy Admin
Yeah, might have to have a word with Nick. My Trophy definitely seems a bit gutless below 4.5k rpm. I know thats normal to some extent with these engines, but my 172 was more responsive lower down the revs. The Group N ECU I bought through Hill Power made quite a lot of difference on that though, so i guess i'm just missing that.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 0
The 182 will always have less low down grunt.
They made the f7r. It was a very good engine low down. They then made the f4r from it, and to get the jump in power they used a wilder cam. So you gain top end and lose bottom end.
Then the 182 was a further development whereby they used a wilder cam still to get the extra 10bhp. So you will always have less bottom end and more of a kick. Thats what happens from using wilder cams. I beleive renault used the 4-2-1 manifold on the 182 to try to claw back some low end power, as the 172 has a 4-1 system, the same as the williams (which is a beterr manifold for giving top end)
They made the f7r. It was a very good engine low down. They then made the f4r from it, and to get the jump in power they used a wilder cam. So you gain top end and lose bottom end.
Then the 182 was a further development whereby they used a wilder cam still to get the extra 10bhp. So you will always have less bottom end and more of a kick. Thats what happens from using wilder cams. I beleive renault used the 4-2-1 manifold on the 182 to try to claw back some low end power, as the 172 has a 4-1 system, the same as the williams (which is a beterr manifold for giving top end)
F4R has 80% of it's torque available from 2500 rpm. Peak at 5250rpm. And it has more torque than the F7 in standard trim - All F4R variants produce 200Nm, with the 182 producing peak torque 250 rpm lower down the range than the 172.
So basically your talking shite.
ECU tweaks, exhaust manifold and better matched inlets is where the extra power came from from.
So basically your talking shite.
ECU tweaks, exhaust manifold and better matched inlets is where the extra power came from from.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 0
The Williams produces 175Nm of torque
The 182 produces 200 Nm of torque
The Williams has 150 bhp
The 182 has 180 bhp
The Williams has 85% of peak torque available at 2500rpm
The 182 has 80 % of its torque available at 2500rpm
So the Williams produces 148.8 torque at 2500rpm
The 182 produces 160 torque at 2500rpm
So yes the 182 produces more torque at low revs. However the lardy 182 weight alot more.
So let redo the torque figures giving the torque to weight ratio
Williams: 150.3 Nm per tonne at 2500rpm
182: 146.8 Nm per tonne at 2500 rpm
And now lets calculate the amount of peak torque as a decimal of the peak power:
Williams: 1.16
182: 1.11
So to recap:
Williams has more torque per weight available at 2500 rpm than a 182 and produces more maximum torque per maximum power than a 182. And add to that, the Williams has 95% of its peak torque available at just 3500 rpm
In simple terms: a more drivable engine.
Hence the reason it is described as a stroker engine. An engine where it's capacity has been increased by lengthening the stroke of the pistons. You gain a lot of low-down torque at the expense of a high rev limit. More like a diesel than a petrol engine. Low revving, high torque, low power engine.
In the real world (not on a stats page), the engine gives the Williams one of its biggest advantages. And absolutely amazing traction (along with a fine chassis). Hence the reason that although the stats would suggest other wise, at the 1/4 miles, most of the fastest clios have f7r engines.
Maverick, you talk as if ive missed out on this great car the 172. Remember Jill has a 172. We go to the shops in it, and drive it around town. When we go to Scotland on a driving holiday or a blast on the Evo triangle, we take the Williams. What does that tell you? Think about it.
The 182 produces 200 Nm of torque
The Williams has 150 bhp
The 182 has 180 bhp
The Williams has 85% of peak torque available at 2500rpm
The 182 has 80 % of its torque available at 2500rpm
So the Williams produces 148.8 torque at 2500rpm
The 182 produces 160 torque at 2500rpm
So yes the 182 produces more torque at low revs. However the lardy 182 weight alot more.
So let redo the torque figures giving the torque to weight ratio
Williams: 150.3 Nm per tonne at 2500rpm
182: 146.8 Nm per tonne at 2500 rpm
And now lets calculate the amount of peak torque as a decimal of the peak power:
Williams: 1.16
182: 1.11
So to recap:
Williams has more torque per weight available at 2500 rpm than a 182 and produces more maximum torque per maximum power than a 182. And add to that, the Williams has 95% of its peak torque available at just 3500 rpm
In simple terms: a more drivable engine.
Hence the reason it is described as a stroker engine. An engine where it's capacity has been increased by lengthening the stroke of the pistons. You gain a lot of low-down torque at the expense of a high rev limit. More like a diesel than a petrol engine. Low revving, high torque, low power engine.
In the real world (not on a stats page), the engine gives the Williams one of its biggest advantages. And absolutely amazing traction (along with a fine chassis). Hence the reason that although the stats would suggest other wise, at the 1/4 miles, most of the fastest clios have f7r engines.
Maverick, you talk as if ive missed out on this great car the 172. Remember Jill has a 172. We go to the shops in it, and drive it around town. When we go to Scotland on a driving holiday or a blast on the Evo triangle, we take the Williams. What does that tell you? Think about it.
- Thread starter
- #34
Here is a link to the article about the power gains produced by Optimax and Ultimate for different types of car:
http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=601&featureid=143&pageid=272
http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=601&featureid=143&pageid=272
When we go to Scotland on a driving holiday or a blast on the Evo triangle, we take the Williams. What does that tell you? Think about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^that you like showing off in your car? heh heh :wink:
^^^^^^^^^^^^that you like showing off in your car? heh heh :wink:
EVO ran a similar experiment with very similar results.
So effectivley the general rule is that if the engine was designed around a higher octane rating then this is to be used to attain the true power potential. However the car will adapt to the lower rating and run perfectly well, however power losses will be incurred.
So effectivley the general rule is that if the engine was designed around a higher octane rating then this is to be used to attain the true power potential. However the car will adapt to the lower rating and run perfectly well, however power losses will be incurred.
Threads like this make me laugh.
For a lowish powered car like the clio 98 ron doesnt make that much difference. For high power cars esp with turbos it will.
All this nit picking about 10 hp here and there is ghey. 10 hp makes very little difference to a car in the real world.
Just put on soem good rubber and enjoy the car as it came out of the box
For a lowish powered car like the clio 98 ron doesnt make that much difference. For high power cars esp with turbos it will.
All this nit picking about 10 hp here and there is ghey. 10 hp makes very little difference to a car in the real world.
Just put on soem good rubber and enjoy the car as it came out of the box
the tech guy in evo claims his honda jazz does 44mpg on 95 and 46mpg on 98, which roughly cancels out the price difference. so if you can get a slight bit of extra performance too with the higher RON then its a no lose situation....
I would have thought that the important measures to compare the efficiency and characteristics of the two engines would be bhp and torque per litre, i.e specfic outputs (adding weight is a totally separate argument), The torque to bhp measure does not mean much as it depends where peak torque and peak power occur. For a road car, which is relatively heavy in relation to its outputs, the shape of the torque curve will influence the shape of the power curve (torque x rpm = power) and hence the amount of energy under the power curve, which in turn is inlfuenced by the rpm drops between gears, when changing up so as to optimise this area. The drops reduce going up through the gears as the effective multiplication ratio reuces, and so does the effective power to weight ratio.
As far as fules are concerned there is more to them than just octane numbers. Different constituents do influence calorific values and even-ness of burning. There is also the issue of sulphur content and possible burning of pistons etc.
Without a proper scientific analysis it is hard to quantify the real benefits of different 98 fuels.
Most annoying it that living in Devon I either pay 104.9 in the local town, or have to drive over 20 miles to get below 94 p!!
As far as fules are concerned there is more to them than just octane numbers. Different constituents do influence calorific values and even-ness of burning. There is also the issue of sulphur content and possible burning of pistons etc.
Without a proper scientific analysis it is hard to quantify the real benefits of different 98 fuels.
Most annoying it that living in Devon I either pay 104.9 in the local town, or have to drive over 20 miles to get below 94 p!!
