|
|
Post by Zed. on Sept 22, 2018 17:19:48 GMT
is that on E85? been looking into flexfuel after reading your build thread  Rich. |
|
|
|
Post by niklas on Sept 22, 2018 18:56:32 GMT
Yep, E85. or rather E80.2 at the time of the dyno  |
|
jon
Chats A Lot
Posts: 270
|
Post by jon on Sept 22, 2018 20:22:10 GMT
been looking into flexfuel after reading your build thread Unfortunately the chances of us getting E85 available at petrol stations in the UK seem pretty much non-existent at the moment  |
|
|
|
Post by Zed. on Sept 22, 2018 21:18:06 GMT
been looking into flexfuel after reading your build thread Unfortunately the chances of us getting E85 available at petrol stations in the UK seem pretty much non-existent at the moment I know, but it costs nothing to do a little reserch & the issues with conventional 'rubber' in the fuel system mean some replacements  theres a few clever combined afm/ff gauges that can inform ecu's of the engines in&out anyway, the results are the important bit  Rich. |
|
|
|
Post by SloMant on Mar 10, 2019 22:19:19 GMT
Just found this wonderful thread, so I want to add to it. This is my Mk2.5 RS printout. Some people believe that it is a myth that MK2.5 RS has more power than a regular 1.8, but from my experience it is a fact.  |
|
|
|
Post by jackyboy on Mar 12, 2019 19:16:49 GMT
126whp plus 19 equals 144bhp that's about right for a stock 1.8 2.5 I think?..
Mines supercharged mk1 1.8 (broken somewhere) was 139whp on Skuzzle dyno then 156bhp on mtech bhp dyno.
So I think a lot of people are guessing with transmission loss.
From what I know mx5 transmission loss is about 19bhp give or take 1 or 2hp.
I've heard people saying 200whp is 240bhp at the fly. Canoe Spheres š
|
|
|
|
Post by sandys on Mar 12, 2019 21:09:02 GMT
transmission losses aren't a fixed number, the faster things are spinning and loaded the more is lost, a percentage tends to work better are you sure you don't mean 19%, this will differ dependent on whether single roller or double etc, most dynos can measure losses via a coastdown.
|
|
|
|
Post by carl4x4 on Mar 27, 2019 14:14:56 GMT
Thought I'd post the results of my 1.8 swap into my '91 NA Engine: - Standard 1.8 from a 1999 car with Vics, origin is a bit sketchy but Nick at Skuzzle thinks it may be from an RS - Internals, Cams, etc. all left standard - AFM removed replaced with GM air intake temp sensor & K&N pipe - standard mk1 manifold & cat back exhaust, silenced cat replacement pipe - lightened flywheel - Using 1.6 loom, CAS, coilpacks, - 1.8 injectors - ME221 ECU (figure below is hp at the wheel)  Engine was set up by Nick at Scuzzle in the UK, The way the cam timings behaved on the dyno indicates that's very likely to be an RS engine. Interestingly VICs was set up to switch on at 3500 and off at 5500 above which it was detrimental to the power. HP figure showed is wheel hp, which I am extremely pleased with. I also fitted a 6speed box and 3.9 Torsen diff which means I can really exploit the new power. gears 1,2, are pretty frantic but fun, gears 3 and 4 now pull hard all the way to the red line Depending on how you like to calculate flywheel hp, 139whp = around 160-166bhp at flywheel.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dweenimus on Apr 22, 2019 17:26:18 GMT
Probably about time I put this up. Ex auto engine and auto cams, td04, me221  |
|
|
|
Post by ecksjay on Apr 23, 2019 12:30:28 GMT
 Mk2 RS with fully built engine and TD05-16G at around 0.8bar (tad less to be honest). Great strong engine, very lucky with it. Plenty in the tank if im feeling brave and go for a 3" exhaust. |
|
|
|
Post by niklas on Apr 24, 2019 9:15:09 GMT
Great power for 0.8bar, good job.
Oh yeah, I've already seen this in your build thread š
|
|
|
|
Post by ecksjay on Apr 24, 2019 9:59:00 GMT
Great power for 0.8bar, good job. Oh yeah, I've already seen this in your build thread š Yeah it was a bit surprising. Thought it was 1.1bar but when we double checked it was actually 11psi as the gauge was psi, not bar, so its actually more like 0.77bar or thereabouts (in high boost). Cracking little turbo, just aint brave enough to turn up the wick as it'll just end up blowing gearboxes and stuff im sure. |
|
|
|
Post by niklas on Apr 24, 2019 10:55:23 GMT
Maybe. I have a spare 6spd and run my 334whp on track. Tuned to be gentle for the drivetrain though |
|
|
|
Post by ecksjay on Apr 24, 2019 20:22:52 GMT
yeah cant go wild, the engine will likely take 400bhp given the spec list, the rest - not so much  |
|
|
|
Post by V6 on Dec 3, 2019 16:48:29 GMT
transmission losses aren't a fixed number, the faster things are spinning and loaded the more is lost, a percentage tends to work better are you sure you don't mean 19%, this will differ dependent on whether single roller or double etc, most dynos can measure losses via a coastdown. My stage one rolling road on a hot summers day was 300bhp with a calculated coast down of 8% loss / 92% efficiency. For spinning a gearbox, shaft, LSD, rear hubs that seemed quite low losses to me. Clearly a bit different as mine is a Honda V6. But I presume the driveline losses must be the same, as its all Mazda kit after the flywheel. Now if you apply that 92% efficiency / 8% loss to a factory 140bhp 1.8 that would suggest you need to see 128bhp at the wheels... if it really is making that 140bhp. If people are assuming much greater losses than this I'd be interested to hear those views. |
|
le sigh
Jul 15, 2023 20:03:52 GMT