Wanna get no.31 on the RR sometime to check whats actually coming outta the wheels. Thought the Trophy would be a bit nippier but it could just be the way im driving it coming from driving a diesel for the last 3 years! Got a Orbisound and IK so expecting 190 at the wheels? Or am I in dream land?
Rolling Road somewhere?
hon_bris said:
You are getting power at the wheels confused with power at the flywheel. 190 bhp at the wheels is about 230bhp at the fly!
the trophy is 182 bhp at the flywheel as standard so you can expect maybe a couple of bhp above standard with your mods as clios almost always under-read as standard.
Dream land, with intake and exhaust inc sports cat you will be lucky to get an extra 5-6bhp.
The std car should be 179bhp (182ps) so about 144bhp at the wheels.
The std car should be 179bhp (182ps) so about 144bhp at the wheels.
My car has an orbisoud, angelworks inlet, ITG filter and custom superchip remap and made 163BHP at the wheels which is just over 190BHP at the flywheel when RR at Sanspeed. My car was massively down on power when it was put on its first RR run apparently this quite common for 182's and Trophy's, I left Sanspeed with a 27BHP gain which I think was well worth the money.
campo - any thoughts of a specific cold air feed? although on a RR this won't make much, if any, difference.
To do it properly, it needs to be sealed onto the airbox - I have enlarged mine to 75 mm, which required modifying the airbox by blending in a 75 mm aluminium connecting pipe.
I am suspicious of connecting this to the foglamp aperture, as often this is a stagnation point, so left the inlet in the standard place near the horn mounting.
I am suspicious of connecting this to the foglamp aperture, as often this is a stagnation point, so left the inlet in the standard place near the horn mounting.
I did something similar many years ago on a MG Metro (1,400 Longman) and it developed a missfire over about 70 mph. The aero folk at work reckoned that it was probably due to erratic pressure fluctuations, or even stagnation (pressure going negative) which explains why most cars pick up ventilaition air from the base of the screen, a known high pressure area. Anyway disconnecting the feed from the airbox cured the problem and it was not becuase of running rich/weak as we played with the mixture.
Coincidentally I once spent a cold night in the MIRA full scale tunnel with a Toyota Supra Group A car, and out of curiosity we found a similar problem when using pressure tappings.
Hence my note of caution.
Coincidentally I once spent a cold night in the MIRA full scale tunnel with a Toyota Supra Group A car, and out of curiosity we found a similar problem when using pressure tappings.
Hence my note of caution.
what about running one from under the car? maybe down through the engine bay an out - just infront of the bottom cover?
Cue - sorry - just don't know
Hoolio - great but unbelievably noisy.
This all could explain why some cars duct from the side of the bottom centre rad duct, oh and why some cars with two small intercoolers just don't perform.
Hoolio - great but unbelievably noisy.
This all could explain why some cars duct from the side of the bottom centre rad duct, oh and why some cars with two small intercoolers just don't perform.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 0
George K said:
That explain why the Gruppe M for the K20 Honda lump works so well in that case.
George K said:
I found this site really good: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1023/art ... larArticle
I have hopefully managed to source a pressure switch so i will hopefully be able to measure where the best place to run a cold air feed will be.
Phil - most interesting and contrary to what I was saying!! Promise you that there is high pressure at the screen base! The stagnation explanation is correct, my fault - but there are still points at which there is virtually zero flow.
There are also some very good articles in an Australian auto journal which worked on an MX5 and a S6 which did far more detailed analysis and incremental pressure tappings. The MX5 was best at the base of the screen - and the S4 - I forget - could look up the magazine details next time that I am home.
There are also some very good articles in an Australian auto journal which worked on an MX5 and a S6 which did far more detailed analysis and incremental pressure tappings. The MX5 was best at the base of the screen - and the S4 - I forget - could look up the magazine details next time that I am home.
George K said:
It is the same magazine, the mx5 test is at: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=0892
It will be interesting to see where the Trophy's best flow area is as all cars are different
thinking about it - wouldn't the splitter direct air up the body work towards the fog light area and around towards the wheel arch?
I thought the idea of the thing is push air upwards, increasing downforce? that's not to say ours actually does anything anyway.........
I thought the idea of the thing is push air upwards, increasing downforce? that's not to say ours actually does anything anyway.........