rolling road

steve_147 · Post by **steve_147** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:08 pm

at last i got the rover rolling road today

rover 220 gsi turbo

s14 turbo front mount de cat 10 psi thats all ppl

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e112/ ... S-RR-6.jpg

249bhp

243 lbs/ft

very happy must say

what u lot think

Regy · Post by **Regy** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:15 pm

its overreading? ALOT

Post by **Punx0r** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:20 pm

Sounds like an awful lot for the mods you've mentioned and the boost. What was the reading at the wheels?

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:27 pm

Im afraid it doesnt add up at all matey. 2psi lower boost tha stock and a 70lb.ft hike in torque and 53bhp??

Post by **SubCat001** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:32 pm

What where they using to read the RPM?? As it appears to be around about 800ish rpm out.

kenny · Post by **kenny** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:36 pm

nice result, although is you gauge accurate? seems a lot of power for a t28 at only 10psi

also why do you have boost cut removed if only running 10psi?

steve_147 · Post by **steve_147** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:52 pm

thats the front mount im running an i can assure that there is no other mods on the engine other than wot iv have listed, u are all more than welcome to come view it lol i had it rolling roaded at hi tech 6 months ago an it ran 241 at the fly

my mate had his evo 9 rolling roaded at a diffrent place two weeks ago an it ran 421 at the fly
an today he ran 418 at the fly so im not worried about the power reading as i think the rollers are fine imo

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:43 pm

Must just be one of those "good" engines then

brad · Post by **brad** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:47 pm

thats car looks the split image of mine!!!!!!!!!1

and iv hearde that chipped uk rollers over read on a few other cars

Post by **Punx0r** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:33 pm

If you're happy with the way it drives on the road then that's all that matters really.

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:35 pm

Yep, just dont go telling people youve gained all that power and torque by turning the boost down lower than standard

RobBBoi · Post by **RobBBoi** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:57 pm

bradharris wrote:thats car looks the split image of mine!!!!!!!!!1

and iv hearde that chipped uk rollers over read on a few other cars

Lmao, it was only earlier today I said that to you! Coincidence or what?!

Great reading you got there aswell!

xr4x4 · Post by **xr4x4** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:49 am

steve_147 wrote:thats the front mount im running an i can assure that there is no other mods on the engine other than wot iv have listed, u are all more than welcome to come view it lol i had it rolling roaded at hi tech 6 months ago an it ran 241 at the fly

my mate had his evo 9 rolling roaded at a diffrent place two weeks ago an it ran 421 at the fly
an today he ran 418 at the fly so im not worried about the power reading as i think the rollers are fine imo

bring it down to the RR day on the 24th.. and we can prove it.. just to be sure.

C2K · Post by **C2K** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:38 pm

Shhyeah, right. Ok. Nice one.

Roboscot · Post by **Roboscot** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:04 pm

Gotta laugh sometimes, someone will come on with claims about their car and is told to prove it with graphs, then when they do have a graph, are told the graph is wrong!

Regy · Post by **Regy** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:07 pm

Roboscot wrote:Gotta laugh sometimes, someone will come on with claims about their car and is told to prove it with graphs, then when they do have a graph, are told the graph is wrong!

lmao lmao lmao, tis to true lol

victor3 · Post by **victor3** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:54 pm

Absolutely. R/R figures are just a guideline - it's how it feels to you!

Chris200 · Post by **Chris200** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:56 pm

Shouldn't the torque and bhp lines be crossing at 5252rpm???

Dom · Post by **Dom** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:31 pm

Chris200 wrote:Shouldn't the torque and bhp lines be crossing at 5252rpm???

...and there appears to be no BHP at all until 3000 rpm...

looks to me like the RPM is out.

Leo · Post by **Leo** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:37 pm

FWIW mine made 235bhp and 239lb/ft on 12psi with S14 turbo and Pulsar IC, and that's quite a tired engine ......

shen · Post by **shen** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:04 pm

Dom wrote:
Chris200 wrote:Shouldn't the torque and bhp lines be crossing at 5252rpm???
...and there appears to be no BHP at all until 3000 rpm...

looks to me like the RPM is out.

if it had silly cams on it couldn't that cause no power till 3k rpm .. pure race cams i mean ... dunno if they exist for t series but i imagine they must.

John W · Post by **John W** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:17 pm

Chris200 wrote:Shouldn't the torque and bhp lines be crossing at 5252rpm???

The lines won't cross on the graph because the scales are different.

Chris200 · Post by **Chris200** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:03 pm

John W wrote:
Chris200 wrote:Shouldn't the torque and bhp lines be crossing at 5252rpm???
The lines won't cross on the graph because the scales are different.

Ahh ok that make's sense.

Dom · Post by **Dom** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:15 pm

John W wrote:
Chris200 wrote:Shouldn't the torque and bhp lines be crossing at 5252rpm???
The lines won't cross on the graph because the scales are different.

Yep - readings do match up - so all good there.

if it had silly cams on it couldn't that cause no power till 3k rpm .. pure race cams i mean ... dunno if they exist for t series but i imagine they must.

err, no.

Do the math - he has torque at that RPM - so he should have BHP. Yet its not plotted.

And even with wild cams you would still have some torque (therefore BHP) - otherwise the engine would not turn. You just have less than with standard cams...

Theres definitely something odd here...

Dom

C2K · Post by **C2K** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:56 am

Haha you've got someone elses graph.

Imran · Post by **Imran** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:00 pm

what's all this bring the guy down crap

he had his car RR and put up the graphs to prove.. fair play to him..
maybe it did over read a little who knows.. if he's happy with it why pi$$ on his fire

Post by **Punx0r** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:25 pm

Perhaps a lie down would help?

Ross9 · Post by **Ross9** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:27 pm

Does no-one read the scales on graphs?

thats a few, both mine and here where people say they dont cross in the right place, because they didnt lread the scales.

The reason he has no bhp, and yet torque, at 3000rpm, is because of the scales.

The torque scale starts at 0, the bhp scale starts at 100

at 3000rpm (beginning of graph) his torque is roughly 155 lb/ft, this would give a bhp of 88-89 bhp at this rpm, which is less than 100, so not on the graph.

Ross

Leo · Post by **Leo** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:39 pm

Imran T wrote:what's all this bring the guy down crap he had his car RR and put up the graphs to prove.. fair play to him..
maybe it did over read a little who knows.. if he's happy with it why pi$$ on his fire

Exactcly - hence my post:

Leo wrote:FWIW mine made 235bhp and 239lb/ft on 12psi with S14 turbo and Pulsar IC, and that's quite a tired engine ......

tourer turbo · Post by **tourer turbo** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:11 pm

well done bud,nice fmic,obviously better than the pulsar one that seems to produce sour grapes

Dom · Post by **Dom** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:12 pm

I don't think its sour grapes mate -

its just when running 1.5psi less than standard boost, with the basic mods (FMIC, T28, etc) - this is running more than standard by about 50BHP...

Well thats 1/4 of standard power more, while running about 1/6 less boost...

Either, as Grant says - this is one of the legendary "Good 'uns" - or theres a reason, such as perceived boost not being actual boost or similar...

I am willing to be proved wrong - it just seems statistically v. unlikely...

Dom

shen · Post by **shen** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:13 pm

perhaps he hasn't got the same battery to boot and ridiculous power losing massive air filters everyone seems to love...or a power sapping huge exhaust that others seem to think kick donkey boy....so many people on here follow what seems to me like an identical set of rules on tuning the tubby rovers and as soon as anyone has something different or which isn't exactly the same as somebody else who produced a certain RR number people get upset.

everones got theories on not doing this that and the other or what you must have to make what power but this lad has proof of what his car is pumping out... give him a pat on the back and be happy for him.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:20 pm

plus that is a huge fmic, compared to a pulsar unit.

and even if it was over reading a little, its still a very good number!

perhaps you can make it to basingstoke, and then everyone will have to have a nice cup of STFU lol.

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:36 pm

shen wrote:perhaps he hasn't got the same battery to boot and ridiculous power losing massive air filters everyone seems to love...or a power sapping huge exhaust that others seem to think kick donkey boy....so many people on here follow what seems to me like an identical set of rules on tuning the tubby rovers and as soon as anyone has something different or which isn't exactly the same as somebody else who produced a certain RR number people get upset.

.

Its not different at all Shen

Itsthe same as everyone does, FMIC, T28, Exhaust and filter. Only difference to the usual pre forged limits is the fact hes running 3psi less than most run.

shen · Post by **shen** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:20 pm

aye mark but because he doesn't have exact same as someone else making slightly less power with perhaps battery to boot and 12-15psi or turbo elbow, full exhaust usual gubbins everyone states he's telling porkies straight off