MG-Cars.com
MG MGF Technical Rolling road wash up :o) BBS discussion at MG-Cars.net
MG-Cars.net
Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
Recommendations
Parts
MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.
|
|
MG MGF Technical - Rolling road wash up :o)
| Cracking day - thanks to everyone who turned up, t'was fun! :o) Useful day for me - discovered that my fuel pressure regulator is pumping too much fuel, loosing me about 8bhp... so I'll be putting that right ASAP. I think that Dave got a bargain for his money though: his car was running lean at peak rpm; after a bit of tweeking of his FSE FPR, he got a further 10bhp!!! I reckon that is the best 40 quid he ever spent on his car! ;o) LOL Loads of stories to tell, and plenty of pictures to post... More soon! |
| Rob Bell |
| Great day.........till the drive home. My engine warning light came on 10 mins after I got on the M40 :( Looks like a trip to the dealer Monday, wonder if its conected to the probe failing to pick up an air/feul reading on the RR? or my figures being a little on the low side compared to everyone elses? |
| Steve White |
| Rob how did you measure he was running lean at peak rpm ? Wide range lambda ? |
| T |
| Hi all, so the benefit of a correct adjusted FPR is finally recognised... ;O) / Carl. |
| Carl Blom |
| FPR Yeah!! perhaps this has too often escaped the attentions of the Darkside. fine tuning is pretty essential! |
| Neil |
| >> Rob how did you measure he was running lean at peak rpm ? Wide range lambda ? << Yes, a wide range Lambda Thierry :o) >> so the benefit of a correct adjusted FPR is finally recognised... ;O) / Carl. << LOL - yes it has been - but the CRITICAL thing here is that the FPR needs to be CORRECTLY adjusted: too high or too low and you'll loose power. |
| Rob Bell |
| >> My engine warning light came on 10 mins after I got on the M40 :( << Arrgghh!!! Sorry to hear about that Steve. Any indications as to what the problem was/is? |
| Rob Bell |
| >>Arrgghh!!! Sorry to hear about that Steve. Any indications as to what the problem was/is? << Beginning to think its something to do with the emissions, especially after what Chris said on Sat. I checked the exhaust system over yesterday and the clip that fastens the manifold to the flexy, although not loose, wasn't as tight as it could have been, so I have tightened it. Found a place round to corner from where I work advertising diagnostic facilities for MGR's so at lunch I'm going to see how much they will charge to plug it into Testbook and find the fault code & reset the light, as its easier then the 30mile round trip during rush hour to get to my dealer |
| Steve White |
| I can vouch for too high. My Lambda readings were consistently low showing that I am running rich all the time. It was good to be able to see real prove of what I thought was happening. I have the standard FPR (1998) so it shows that there is a wide range in manufacturing tolerances. No wonder my mpg is rubbish, that and a heavy right foot:-) So the question is what to do about it? Simply replace mine with a FPR set to a know value 3.2/3.3 bar? |
| Steve Ratledge |
| Steve(R) - the problem is that you don't actually know where you are with your current fuel pressure regulator. Sadly you missed the final run of the day when Dave had his FPR adjusted on the RR - but this is sure to be the easiest way to solve your fueling problem: a quick RR run with a Lambda in the tail pipe, and nip up the adjustment screw until optimal stoichiometry corresponds with peak rpm/power. An alternative solution is to go for a completely mappable ECU. G-Force maps with a Uni-chip, or you could go for an Emerald M3D. Both seem to be weighing in at similar money for the chip+RR set up. Back to the FPR: I'm going to revert my FPR to the one I originally had on the car - but that too may be too rich too!!! Nuts! I'm in a similar boat to you in this regard... |
| Rob Bell |
| A summary of the day's results can be found now on the MGoT forum: http://forums.mgs-on-track.com/showthread.php?p=999 I've corrected all the artificially high G-force flywheel measures to what you'd actually see on our cars, based on previous RR at Emerald. I don't think anyone is going to be too disappointed with the final figures... :o) |
| Rob Bell |
| >> Found a place round to corner from where I work advertising diagnostic facilities for MGR's so at lunch I'm going to see how much they will charge to plug it into Testbook and find the fault code & reset the light, as its easier then the 30mile round trip during rush hour to get to my dealer << So we're talking about the MIL here Sharky? Not sure whether this is related to your woes on the RR. I was very worried about that flat spot you've got. I don't agree with Chris - I am sure that you'd have seen a far higher peak power than you did had the curve been smooth. Interesting point Chris made regarding intake temperature: might be a problem with the inlet manifold temperature sensor? Test book should be pretty revealing. |
| Rob Bell |
| There are some good figurs in that lot. well done guys! 180bhp in an F... nice! Who will be first to the magic 200 I wonder!! I am already having a dialogue with Rog Parker about the Darkside of V8 mustang engines for the ZT ....looks tricky though, the usual route wont work! K&N gives about 4bhp! ditto exhausts, Wow underwhelming! Throttle body gives about 11bhp at large cost cams ditto. We think it's the heads that need the work and a productive but probably very costly trip to Dave Andrews and the cams should see 300bhp and a glob more torque. Mind you Rog was on about low pressure superchargers ...It's dark, very dark! |
| Neil |
| Was wondering if the flat spot was heat soak related. My car was sat for quite a while 'warming up', plus Chris pointed the air hose into the side vent, I didn't think of it at the time, but perhaps we should have pointed it under the car, which is where the ITG intake pipe is? It was odd that everyone else's results where 15-20BHP high whereas mine was spot on what I was expecting. rather than being 15-20 high. Been and had a chat with a guy at this garage I've found, turned out to be very interesting, they have 3 computers they use for fault diagnosis on MGR's, one being Testbook, and another being the very latest computer they have just obtained direct from PTP for use on the latest cars. Its so new it was still in the box LOL. Can't remember the name of the third system they use. I have booked it in for after work so will find out then. The chap seemed very knowledgeable on the subject so lets hope he can find out what's wrong. |
| Steve White |
| Unfortunately yours was lower than you think Steve: the G-Force RR is calibrated for Porsches and Subarus. Porches clearly have greater drive train losses to our MGs!!! Managed to perform a correlation between the G-Force RR and Dave Walker's RR. The figures at the road for the two roads are nigh on identical. Using Dave Walker's correction, you can work out what each car is really doing at the flywheel. After adjusting the FSE, Dave's car put out a comfortable 184.5bhp!!! Unfortunately, yours was 159. :o(( There are definitely some horses that have gone astray. Perhaps the cool air intake was a problem on your car - although why yours and not Deano's (who's standard airbox ought to have been worse affected) is not clear... Hopefully the Testbook will help out here. No idea what that new system is though? Keep us posted when you find out more! :o) |
| Rob Bell |
| As Rob has said the G-Force day showed that my car was running lean above 5000 rpm (remember I use it on track days, so this is important to me). I've been trying to post the charts to show the massive improvements in both bhp and torque produced by upping the fuelling - just a 2/3 turn on the screw of the FSE. Unfortunately, the scans of the charts are too large to post into The Pit Lane on the MGoT site and I don't have any graphics software to play with them (suggestions for freeware anyone?) However, I've posted a rough set of headline figures at http://pitlane.mgs-on-track.com/showthread.php?p=1001#post1001 Remember, as Rob has just posted, the flywheel figures are skewed by incorrect transmission loss calculation by G-Force's software. However, it is the _difference_ between before and after which is astonishing. Mind you with some allowance for the errors 180+ bhp isn't bad just for a bit of head porting and standard breathing mods - standard cams and VVC. (Dave Andrews is a God!) |
| Dave Livingstone |
| Mail them to me Dave - I can reduce the file size for you. I can also overlay plots. I can also overlay plots in Photoshop, so if this would be useful, let me know. |
| Rob Bell |
| Ok Rob, I'll post you the scans - only in black and white I'm afraid, but the after line is always above the before line so easy to spot :-) |
| Dave Livingstone |
| They're sorted Dave - and they're on their way back to you :o) |
| Rob Bell |
| Thanks Rob - the graphs are now at http://pitlane.mgs-on-track.com/showthread.php?p=1006#post1006 |
| Dave Livingstone |
| Sorry - the exact url is http://pitlane.mgs-on-track.com/showthread.php?p=1008#post1008 same thread just scroll a bit :-) |
| Dave Livingstone |
| <quote Rob>LOL - yes it has been - but the CRITICAL thing here is that the FPR needs to be CORRECTLY adjusted: too high or too low and you'll loose power.</Quote> That was also clear from my RR sessions shown on your site, but don't forget, you always gain in torque, over standart FPR, no mather how weird you set the FP on the FSE. (See my RR graphs). |
| T |
| A fun day was had by all!!! :-) A big thanks to those that organised the whole thang. It may prove to have been an expensive outing for me. Now that I know my wonky curves from the last Emmerald day are all pretty and up to a very respectable bhp level, I'm a *very* happy bunny. But I *still* have that man Livingstone to chase with his healine figures!! :-) There's a voice in my head telling me to buy that exhaust and ITG box now. Aaargh. more money!! ;-) Interestingly, my re-rated FPR seemed very suited to my current configuration with the graphs showin the fueling to be as good as we'll get with the current MEMS. Thanks again to those who organised. :-) Cheers, Paul. |
| Paul Nothard |
| Paul, if you want an ITG let give me a shout, I happen to have a spare.......... |
| Steve White |
| >> That was also clear from my RR sessions shown on your site, but don't forget, you always gain in torque, over standart FPR, no mather how weird you set the FP on the FSE. (See my RR graphs). << That's certainly true Thierry - that same thing has happened on my car too... :o/ Fractionally more torque at the low-end, but the top end seriously curtailed. :o( >> It may prove to have been an expensive outing for me. << Expensive for you Paul? Well, I'm so far off the pace powerwise, it going to cost serious spondoolies to get any where close to Dave's awsome beastie. I'm beginning to think that a VVC would indeed be the best starting point!! Why? Have you seen Dave's torque curve? The VVC is brilliant: the curve has pratically the same shape as the outline of Table Mountain - which is just about ideal... Mutter mutter mutter.... Will have to do better... mutter mutter mutter... LOL ;o) |
| Rob Bell |
| >> Expensive for you Paul? Well, you know how competative I am... and I want to be able to showcase the full potential of the Sabre Head... and I've now got Dave's fantastic (engine!) figure to aim for... and potentially that means spending more... but I am rapidly encountering the law of dimishishing returns. Oh, and half the salary we're used to and a new mouth to feed also. <grin> >> Well, I'm so far off the pace powerwise, it going to cost serious spondoolies to get any where close to Dave's awsome beastie. But you do get to avoid competing in "road going modified". :-) >> I'm beginning to think that a VVC would indeed be the best starting point!! <grin> No comment. :-) :-) :-) >> Why? Have you seen Dave's torque curve? The VVC is brilliant: the curve has pratically the same shape as the outline of Table Mountain - which is just about ideal... Indeedy. It's very nice. :-) <mutters> Wonder how much an ITG / exhaust could be found for... and what difference it would make... <mumble mutter mumble> |
| Paul Nothard |
| ps. You have email Steve. :-) |
| Paul Nothard |
| >> but I am rapidly encountering the law of dimishishing returns. Oh, and half the salary we're used to and a new mouth to feed also. <grin> << Yup - and I'll soon be in a similar situation! >> But you do get to avoid competing in "road going modified". :-) << True - but I'd be happy with RGM soft class... ;o) Have a spare cylinder head now - and I know where DVA lives... ;o) [Evil laugh: muhuhuhuh!] >> Wonder how much an ITG / exhaust could be found for... and what difference it would make... << Somewhere in the region of 3-5bhp - possibly more in the environment of a RR with heat build up in the engine bay... How much - well, I guess Steve is about to tell you! LOL |
| Rob Bell |
| Rob, Paul, Come on guys - let me at least have the fastest car - I still struggle to keep up with either of you on track :-) |
| Dave Livingstone |
| >>Wonder how much an ITG / exhaust could be found for... and what difference it would make...<< Well thats half the problem sorted ;o) Had my 'diognosis' and there were 7 faults logged on the ECU :oO But nothing that indicated what could be causing the power loss :o( I've had the warning light re-set, so if it comes on again its going back to the dealer. Drives no differently to before though :confused: |
| Steve White |
| This is for Dave - who always appreciates me spending his money! ;o) ;o) X-posted from the SELOC forum: >> Emerald ECU for S2 VVC - an update Following the rolling road run on the standard car Emerald fitted their ECU/software and re-ran the test. The result was a pick up in both BHP and torque of around 10 bhp/10 ft.lb. pretty much all the way through the range. However the power gain stopped abruptly at 6,500 rpm and the BHP curve flattened out just above 160 bhp. In effect the ECU was giving good gains in power and torque all the way up to 6,500 but nothing significant thereafter. Emerald believe the limiting factor is the S2 fuel injectors which were running at full capacity. Basically they have a lower capacity than the S1 injectors and they think that in order to keep the power curve heading upwards a simple swap of the injectors will be required. The alternative would be to raise the presure in the fuel system although this was felt to be a less satisfactory fix in the longer term. << ;o) |
| Rob Bell |
| Just seen this, as I've been off-line for a couple of days. Thanks Rob, but even you can't spend my money like my wife and children can :-) If you have a quick link to the thread to save me searching - can you post it. SELOC stuff can be hard to find - so many threads - so many posts! Thanks, |
| Dave Livingstone |
| I know what you mean Dave! Here's the link: http://forums.seloc.org/viewthread.php?tid=27426 Probably just as relevant to Paul too! ;o) [You know it makes sense!] |
| Rob Bell |
This thread was discussed between 10/07/2004 and 16/07/2004
MG MGF Technical index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGF Technical BBS is active now.