Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kevin Wood]

That's a nice improvement.

So, was that 3.0 cams and 3.0 ECU? Surely not just the ECU?

Thanks Kevin
 
yes.. 3.0 cams+3.0 ecu+(manifold+plenum)*polishing
 
but still I'm unable to explain the big difference.. 

Yep, something was not good with the setup before, I suspect.

Are these figures at the wheels or corrected at the crank?

If the latter, then it was seriously down on power beforehand. If the former, then the new result is too good to be true. Does the difference when driving it suggest such a big improvement has taken place? That's what matters, after all.

Looking at the figures, it was peaking at 5500 RPM on one of the "before" plots and still climbing at 6500 on the other, yet made the same power.

[TheBoy]

If we're putting a load down to ECU, be interesting to see what its like in a few weeks, to see if its retrimmed itself a bit.

Manifolds? Did you touch the exhaust manifolds as well cem? I reckon there may be some gains there...

[Marks DTM Calib]

18hp is easily attributable to the cams given how the valve lift is so restricted on the 2.5 stock items (and about what we expect to see).

The before results are not good, if this restriction is still present (I supect it might be) then the after results could be closer to the 190 we would expect.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Any chance you can translate the first three lines of the dyno plot against the figures cem

[cem_devecioglu]

That's a nice improvement.

So, was that 3.0 cams and 3.0 ECU? Surely not just the ECU?

Thanks Kevin
 
yes.. 3.0 cams+3.0 ecu+(manifold+plenum)*polishing
 
but still I'm unable to explain the big difference.. 

Yep, something was not good with the setup before, I suspect.

Are these figures at the wheels or corrected at the crank?

If the latter, then it was seriously down on power beforehand. If the former, then the new result is too good to be true. Does the difference when driving it suggest such a big improvement has taken place? That's what matters, after all.

Looking at the figures, it was peaking at 5500 RPM on one of the "before" plots and still climbing at 6500 on the other, yet made the same power.

these figures are from the wheel but there is a correction  applied to find crank value..  the dyno man told me that 2.5 auto omegas (as manual here rare as hens teeth) generally give power between 115 to 130 hp on the same dyno..
 
the car made a big difference even without cams,  because I tested it before installing cams..  and what took my attention is that the 2.5 ecu was giving power with incremental increase so that you could feel instant power changes  (probably it was programmed according to autobox).. but 3.0 ecu hammers it without hesitation and from the very beginning so you feel a more linear power increase instead of a sudden
 

[cem_devecioglu]

If we're putting a load down to ECU, be interesting to see what its like in a few weeks, to see if its retrimmed itself a bit.

Manifolds? Did you touch the exhaust manifolds as well cem? I reckon there may be some gains there...

exhaust manifolds are 2.5 stock.. only the entrances are polished a bit (but I dont think will make a measurable difference)
 
I plan to change manifolds when I will play with bores at the same time    (needs time to prepare a budget)
 
however, I definitely see higher consumption avgs than before..  todays average was around 15 litre/100 km (19 mpg) (from MID).. (ok I admit I dont drive slow )
 
 

[cem_devecioglu]

18hp is easily attributable to the cams given how the valve lift is so restricted on the 2.5 stock items (and about what we expect to see).

The before results are not good, if this restriction is still present (I supect it might be) then the after results could be closer to the 190 we would expect.

I also estimate nearly half the power gain is cams..
 
I also think that Opel send the 2.5 auto omegas here with an Ecu designed towards economy..  so changing the ECU to 3.0 brought more power than we can guess..  I estimate 6-7 hp gain may be caused from increasing the inlet size and inlet polishing   later I will try the same dyno with an aftermarket open air filter instead of stock..
 
 

 Any chance you can translate the first three lines of the dyno plot against the figures cem 

 
second graph 144.4 hp translation
 
measured max engine power   97.7 kw  (132.8 HP) (5530 RPM)
calculated max engine power 106.2 kw (144.4 hp) (5530 rpm)
lost power on drive train and axels  (30.7 hp) (156.6 km/hr)

third graph 187.7 hp translation
 
measured max engine power   126.1 kw (171.4 hp) (6740 rpm)
Calculated max engine power 138.1 kw (187.7 hp) (6740 rpm)
lost power on drive train and axels 34.5 kw (46.6 hp)  (182.2 km/hr)

[Kevin Wood]

Is the config. of the ECU for a manual engine now, or still auto? ...and was the torque reduce signal properly disabled?

I too wonder if the old ECU had built up a big fuel trim \ knock retard.

[cem_devecioglu]

Is the config. of the ECU for a manual engine now, or still auto? ...and was the torque reduce signal properly disabled?

I too wonder if the old ECU had built up a big fuel trim \ knock retard.

configuration is now manual for both ECU and MID and I'm not sure before torque reduce signal was properly disabled..
 
so I'll be glad to learn how to disable it
 
 
there were no knocks on the engine before (if I'm not wrong) .. so I dont expect a big fuel trim 
 
 
 but based on the dyno mechanics info that he told me, mine was the best 2.5 they have seen as 144 hp

[Marks DTM Calib]

Auto manual config is by grounding a wire to the ECU

[cem_devecioglu]

Auto manual config is by grounding a wire to the ECU

 
I know that, but during conversion, they couldnt find the mentioned color wire    but anyway auto transmission ecu is now out