# Interpro - July 2003 Results



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Hurrah! Finaly, after two aborted attempts, we managed to get together at Interpro for our rolling road session. Big thanks to everyone who turned up - it would have been pretty boring by myself!

We plan to write this up in more detail for an article for the magazine - however, it will be months before that hits the streets (too late for the next issue...) so below are the basic results. If your car is listed below and I've got your mod details wrong, drop me an IM and I'll edit it. I'm also only posting the highest figure anyone got - if you want to post with your experiences of Revo on / off, or compare this session to other sessions, pleae do - I will be! 

Cheers, Clive

P.S. I've invented a new measurement - "OOMPF" - Only Our Made Up Push Factor, which I've got just by multiplying max power by max torque - it doesn't really mean very much, but it lets us have a ranking, and will give us something to argue over discuss. Â 

V2 of the results - updated with GCP's exhaust details and coupe-sports best run:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Big thanks to Clive for today!! 

It was good to meet a load of new faces and also catch up with all the usual suspects. Apologies if i was a bit flakey at the start, but not having sleep the previous nigth didn't help. :-[

My BHP was slightly down on standard, but with the torque up and the car in desperate need of a service, ill be happy with what i got 

VERY interesting REVO results, which do not(IMHO) give a true representation of the day for them. Lots of failed install attempts, BHP and Torque figures fluctuating on cars and of couse James's(Coupe-Sport) story, which i will let him explain. 

I was sceptical about REVO, and even with the 5 hour test prog on my car and a thorough questioning of the REVO rep, im still not convinced :-/

Winners for me on the day were MTM, with both Rob and Grahams cars showing that you get what you pay for!! 

All in all great fun and im sure peeps will be along with pics soon. 

cheers
Kevin


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Clive, what a fantastic day!! - Excellent. Both Hazel and me had a great time, met up with people who I had never met and was good to put faces to names. Kev, your car looks as good in the flesh as it does on your sig, all credit to you m8.

Really pleased with the performance figures, I would have been happy with less but to have got those made me a really happy bunny ;D ;D

Thanks Clive for all the hard work and determination to make this all come together at last - Well done Â ;D

Graham

PS. almost forgot to say - Lisa, you must have the cleanest underside on the forum


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Just had a thought, with these figures I guess we should be able to work out the Power to weight ratio, how do you do this, multipy the weight by something and what is the weight for a coupe or a TTR?

Graham


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Cheers guys, especially Clive for a well organised day...

As Kev said, 1 or 2 issues with Revo. Despite having the trial put on a few months ago, and deciding the time was right for the full program, the Powermap guy was totally unable to take my money from me.

3 flash attempts and a flash back to standard and we were no better off - the software would install, but was always "disabled". Rather disappointing because the whole point of the day for me, was to "before and after" my car....

Still very happy with my "Standard" figures, but not being able to have the remap done on the day tarnished things somewhat......

Great to catch up with a few of you guys that I haven't seen in a while, as well as some people from other more recent meets...

Hopefully I'll be able to have SOMETHING done to my ECU. Jabba won't touch it (APX engine code), Revo (hopefully) will be able to sort the problem out and get the full program on mine, or I might have to start looking at other options!

Either way, i hope to be pulling nearer 270bhp and 290ft/lbs for the next shoot-out!


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

> Clive, what a fantastic day!!........PS. almost forgot to say - Lisa, you must have the cleanest underside on the forum


Yes and I have the Barely_Legal Video to prove it : 
( copies available by request )

It was great to meet the usual suspects and more new faces, even the notorious V E K and B3 VES!!! Â 

Had Revo installed and had lots of fun with that, sounds like it might need tweaking but I'm happy with 257BHP 259 max torque.

Thanks Clive for organising it for us, weather, caterpillars, puddles and all Â  Â ;D


----------



## Silversea (Jun 18, 2002)

Some good power / torque figures 

Surprised to see that no APR mapped TT's ???
Did any turn up and if so what did they produce ?


----------



## Silversea (Jun 18, 2002)

Looks like the APX engines were hard to beat on the day... ;D


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Surprised to see that no APR mapped TT's


The results of everybody who was there with a TT or Golf are above... (and before you ask, no there wasn't something else there with APR! )

Clive


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Looks like the APX engines were hard to beat on the day...


Not sure who is what actually. Mine is a BAM, and _I_ was hard to beat, with a standard turbo anyway . Graham, are you BAM or APX?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

clived wrote


> Graham, are you BAM or APX?


IIRC Graham, Rob and Myself are all APX codes.

LoveiTT wrote


> Kev, your car looks as good in the flesh as it does on your sig, all credit to you m8.


Thank you Graham, that's much appreciated.


----------



## Silversea (Jun 18, 2002)

> Not sure who is what actually. Mine is a BAM, and _I_ was hard to beat, with a standard turbo anyway Â . Graham, are you BAM or APX?


My apologies, I thought your TT was a 2000 / early 2001. :-/
I take that statement back.... ;D


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Shame no Jabba or Supachips either, but you can't win 'em all!!

For those that expressed an interest (love or hate!) the details of my exhaust are here:

http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/apr_exhaust_tt.html

Very slightly oval tipped, but doesn't protude from the body at all, unlike the Forge or Remus (and most Millteks I've seen) so keeps a relatively stealth appearance (until you start it up, anyway!)

As you can see from the pictures, no silencer part way down the pipe (the OEM system has one), no "kink" past the 4wd system (the OEM system does) and a tiny (in comparison) rear box that doesn't show below the valance (unlike the Forge box...)

Hefting it around, I'd say it also weighs about 1/2 the same as the OEM, and the overall result is (certainly from the cockpit) a rather throaty grumble / roar and the noise when backing off the throttle is very "rally".....

Probably a bit OTT for some, but for others, it'll be the sort of noise that brings a smile to your face and makes you want to blip the throttle when sat idling....!

(oh, and BTW... i didn't pay the price APR wanted. I'm not that rich! AwesomeGTI were selling one second-hand, so I picked up a relative bargain......)


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> My apologies, I thought your TT was a 2000 / early 2001. Â :-/
> I take that statement back.... ;D


Don't be too sorry, as if Rob's is an APX, he is invincible!


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Great day had , met some new and old faces ;D and finally got figures for the Revo program ;D
Cheers Clive for all the work you put in
Jonah


----------



## Silversea (Jun 18, 2002)

Sounds like an eBay type of bargain.... ;D


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> Sounds like an eBay type of bargain.... ;D


It was.....


----------



## Silversea (Jun 18, 2002)

> It was.....


I know... ;D Still, it seemed like a good buy.
Is it much noisier than a Milltek ?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> Is it much noisier than a Milltek ?


Hrm... *ponder* - on balance I'd say.... very much so. I think the Forge sounded louder than the Milltek (although that might just be my ears).... but this was different altogether!


----------



## powermap (Feb 9, 2003)

Thanks for a great day guys & girls. 
It was good to meet up with you all, well done Clive for organising it, i have never seen anyone else so well prepared before 

It looks like i have a trip to Cardiff to sort out this week to complete that bloody awkward install, i will let you know the results as to why we could not get the program to activate ???

Thanks again

Ian


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Cheers Ian,

I know you won't let me down! 

I'm not that far into Wales (before Cardiff itself, junction 28 M4)... looking forward to having the full program, if it will go on.... just a shame I couldn't RR it before and after for comparison.

But looking at everyone else's figures, almost all Revo + Exhaust combinations were hitting 265ish bhp and 270+ ft/lbs of torque, with the standard Revo ones (no exhaust) just slightly behind... so I'd anticipate somewhere in the middle of the quicker group


----------



## powermap (Feb 9, 2003)

Yes i will deffinetly sort it this week 

I was pleased with all the Revo results today (i bloody would be ;D) seeing they are only pushing 1.2-1.3 bar of boost on average, running the low boost 9 program.

I am sure you will be more than happy with yours once we get it sorted.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Well as soon as you've got some ideas from Head Office about what is causing it, I'm happy to get together and sort it.... 

The only difference since the trial was done (engine wise) is a service with Audi.....


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Yep, I can confirm that mine is an APX engine. Anyone fathomed out how to do the Power to Weight thingy yet?

Graham


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2003)

Ian.............(hello matey )

Being "on the inside like"....did you get any further info on when the 150 would be sorted?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> Being "on the inside like"....


So he was out on parole for the day was he? That would explain the shifty look


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2003)

> So he was out on parole for the day was he? That would explain the shifty look


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

So how does one interpret these results. Is it as easy as saying that the MTM chip is better? 
W


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Concur with all of the above. ;D ;D

Nice to see the usual crowd and put some more faces to names too.

Also cheers to Clive for doing a great job organising it, Ian from Powermap for taking the time to re-flash my ecu and to the guys at Interpro for spending the time at the end getting some good comparison results on my car.

What i do know is that i have a very healthy standard car (28 BHP up on standard ) but the performance mode is not working properly   so thats an issue i need to sort with Revo.

Have about 50 photos so will stick them up tomorrow 

James.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> So how does one interpret these results. Â Is it as easy as saying that the MTM chip is better? Â
> W


Not really - the graphs (ie the power delivery itself) is more important than actual figures....

I didn't look at the MTM graphs (!) but I would hazard a guess that, running higher boost, they have a sharper peak torque which flattens off a lot quicker, therefore are running their higher figures for a shorter band. This will give you perhaps harder acceleration and more of a kick in the back, but you'd have to change up quicker to keep in the powerband......

The "smoother" curves / delivery of the AMD/Revo chips mean slightly less power but held over probably a longer period - this gives a more "standard" feeling ride (particularly the APR/Revo based code) but just with more urgency....

You pays your money, you takes your choice. Better figures for bragging down the pub dont always equate to a better "on the road" driving experience....

The only advice is to talk to a few drivers, perhaps try a few chipped cars and see what suits you......


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

jampot - cheers for the advice. what you have said is what I have read elsewhere too. I did want the more of a kick in the butt experience but I got a good deal from AmD so I am booked in to get their chip.. I figure I won't be disappointed either way 

W


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

I dont think you can say one is better than the other just by looking at figures alone. At the end of the day its how you want your car to feel, as Tim says - you pays your money, you takes your choice. You buy the chip wich gives you the best driving experiance you want. I've gone the MTM route and I like it, I like it a lot Â ;D but someone else might prefer the Revo or AmD chip because of the way it delivers the power.

Its nice to say that I've got this amount of BHP or that amount of Torque but its the way the car puts the power down to your liking which is more important.

Well thats my two pennyworth anyway for what its worth ;D

Oh and before anyone says why have I branded my sig picture with my results then - its done with tongue in cheek - couldn't do a smiley in my sig pic :-/

Graham


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

> Yep, I can confirm that mine is an APX engine. Anyone fathomed out how to do the Power to Weight thingy yet?
> 
> Graham


I'm pretty sure its:

BHP / weight X 1000

ie 280 bhp car weighing 1417 kgs

280/1417 =0.1976 x 1000 = 197.60 BHP per ton


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Sounds about right. A TTR is unladen at 1515 kg... With 280 bhp, this equates to 184 bhp/tonne.

Shows how a light car can make a real difference. My VX220, with only a sports exhaust offers a power of 156 bhp. With it weighing in at 875 kg, this equates to a power to weight ratio of 178 bhp/tonne! ;D


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Sounds about right. A TTR is unladen at 1515 kg... With 280 bhp, this equates to 184 bhp/tonne.
> 
> Shows how a light car can make a real difference. My VX220, with only a sports exhaust offers a power of 156 bhp. With it weighing in at 875 kg, this equates to a power to weight ratio of 178 bhp/tonne! Â ;D


In other words, we'd toast you, right Paul, especially round the twisties!


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

> Sounds about right. A TTR is unladen at 1515 kg... With 280 bhp, this equates to 184 bhp/tonne.
> 
> Shows how a light car can make a real difference. My VX220, with only a sports exhaust offers a power of 156 bhp. With it weighing in at 875 kg, this equates to a power to weight ratio of 178 bhp/tonne! Â ;D


My Jabbasported Cupra with full 2.5" Milltek system
219BHP and 1119kg = 195.7 BHP per tonne ;D


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

some pics -


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Great Pics James!

But... what with all the mods clearly listed , along with BHP, is it not best to blank out the registration plates???

I don't really want this to be the way they find out!

Cheers Â

Lisa


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

Clive

Thanks for arranging the day, very interesting, good to meet a few other forum faces.
Good to know my car is still delivering healty figures ;D

Gavin


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> But... what with all the mods clearly listed , along with BHP, is it not best to blank out the registration plates


done


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

ta


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

Anyone got the curves from thier day? I'd like to see them purely from an interest point of view (peakiness etc.) and may help others to make an educated decision.

Rhod


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Rhod,

Everyone has their own plots, and I have everyone's plots.

Obviously anyone can scan in and post their own and as soon as time allows I'll create some composite plots, showing some interesting comparisons.

Be careful when comparing plots as the scale of the y torque / power axis varies, so may not be the same for any two plots you are looking at. When I do the comparisons, I'll scale the plots accordingly, as I did with the last 3 I overlaid.

Cheers, Clive


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Perhaps that is something best left for the paper copy of the article


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Tim,

I don't plan to restrict posting of the graphs to the magazine, for who reasons. Firstly, it means sitting on them for months, when people could be getting some value out of them, and secondly, this wasn't a TTOC event as such, it was a "anyone who fancies it" event! 

I think it would *also* make a great article for the mag - get the info out there to all those who are not on line!

Cheers, Clive


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Lets have 'em then..... 

I want to drool electronically over my graph which shows a peak boost around .95bar (no chip upgrade) which only tails off to .9 right at the end, thus giving me an enormous wedge of power right up to around 6000rpm.....

lurvely - the wonders of a well run-in engine, combined with the easier breathing exhaust......


----------



## dunks3 (Sep 12, 2002)

Dont suppose you guys have a record of the REVO settings used on the day?

I had my S3 RR'd @ Interpro a few months back, running REVO, low boost 9, timing 5 and achieved 254 bhp and 268 lb/ft

Cheers

Dunc


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Dunc

From memory and heresay, thats what I think most of the Revo chaps there were using.....


----------



## boggie (May 8, 2002)

Damn, wish I could have been there as it sounded like a good day out. Would have been useful too as I have the APR conversion but no way would I have been safe to drive as I was on my stag doo the night before and didn't get to bed until around 4am. Woke up still drunk. Interesting reading though, FYI the APR chip was creating very similar figures to the AMD chip when I had it tested but that was different rollers on a different day. Ah well maybe next time.....


----------



## mav (Jan 9, 2003)

5 pages already!!

many thanks again Clive for organising.... you will be pleased to hear I shot my best round ever at The Players GC in the afternoon... renewed vigour in my swing after a morning at Interpro! ;D

Good to see the infamous WakTT TTotal and B3VES and to get the usual ribbing from Kev Powell !! Kev - golf is a real man's game, right! :-*

I was really happy with my 4th position in terms of OOOMMPH - 264bhp/303torque....

Clive recommended a Forge intercooler should prob be my next mod - any other views on that?

oh and great photos coupe-sport !!

Richard ('Mav')


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Clive recommended a Forge intercooler should prob be my next mod - any other views on that?


Yes, you're right, it is fairly expensive  - so do what I did - get it "pre-loved" !

Clive


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

This makes fairly interesting viewing....not sure how accurate the dyno is, but this car is putting out over 320bhp...at the wheels!

http://www.x103.co.uk/dubs/TSR_rolling_road_150303/videos/TSR-RR_Badger.wmv


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Thats Bill with his Jabba'd Ibiza. He was at the 'wheres my power gone' rolling road shoot out me and Clive attended at Power Station :-[

I'd like to see that against Gary Handa's 'creation'


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

Yep...Badger Bill!

He supplies alot of brembo bits and pieces and kits.....

I have some hub centric spacers on order from him


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Re Bill's car: On the day the video was shot, Bill doesn't beleive the car was putting out anything over 320, even though TSR's rollers were showing up to 340. I think you'll find this isn't a "at the wheels" figure either. _Since_ then however, he's had a fair bit of work done (charge cooler, gas flowed head, lower compression ratio ceramic coated pistons etc) and Bill reckon's it's pushing 348Bhp.

(No, I'm not a secret Seat tuner - I just asked Bill for the details!).

Clive


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> He was at the 'wheres my power gone' rolling road shoot out me and Clive attended


James, what is it with you, rolling roads and missing power? 

Clive


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

> Re Bill's car: On the day the video was shot, Bill doesn't beleive the car was putting out anything over 320, even though TSR's rollers were showing up to 340. I think you'll find this isn't a "at the wheels" figure either. _Since_ then however, he's had a fair bit of work done (charge cooler, gas flowed head, lower compression ratio ceramic coated pistons etc) and Bill reckon's it's pushing 348Bhp.
> 
> (No, I'm not a secret Seat tuner - I just asked Bill for the details!).
> 
> Clive


Think he was at Castle Combe on Saturday, probably second quickest car of the day, behind a MK1 GTI with reported 400bhp Jabba power.. 

Worth going to see those two alone.


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> James, what is it with you, rolling roads and missing power?
> 
> Clive


  - i dont know - but on both occasions you've been there - hmmm suspicious ....


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

> Re Bill's car: On the day the video was shot, Bill doesn't beleive the car was putting out anything over 320, even though TSR's rollers were showing up to 340. I think you'll find this isn't a "at the wheels" figure either. _Since_ then however, he's had a fair bit of work done (charge cooler, gas flowed head, lower compression ratio ceramic coated pistons etc) and Bill reckon's it's pushing 348Bhp.
> 
> (No, I'm not a secret Seat tuner - I just asked Bill for the details!).
> 
> Clive


mmmm...thats 311 BHP per tonne :

A Paganini Zonda is 315 BHP per tonne.....

that is going to be one quick little car ;D


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

...if he can get enough traction - 2wd and lots and lots of power

and those Ibizas ... crap


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)




----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

... paying a visit to Jabba then Nick ???


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

that was a ? not a im confused sign ??? - daft forum code :


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

I'm quite happy with 220bhp.....don't think I'll be re visiting quite yet! ;D


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> P.S. I've invented a new measurement - "OOMPF" - Only Our Made Up Push Factor, which I've got just by multiplying max power by max torque - it doesn't really mean very much, but it lets us have a ranking, and will give us something to argue over discuss


If you want a more 'meaningful' measure of 'oomph' try multiplying the maximum torque figure by the number of revs that the torque continues to be above, say, 75% of max torque. This will favour those who have a flat torque curve as oppose to those who have a 'peaky' delivery and give a much better feeling for the true on road 'oomph' of a car (you could then also divide this by the mass of the car to enable comparison between different types of car or between coupes and roadsters).


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

we need that concorde ad whooshing noise again.

just to illustrate how I'm feeling as all that talk (not torque) just went right over my head.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> ............ all that talk (not torque) just went right over my head.


Ahh ............ you'll be one of those in IT then


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> If you want a more 'meaningful' measure of 'oomph' try multiplying the maximum torque figure by the number of revs that the torque continues to be above, say, 75% of max torque


Just thought about this... thiis wouldn't really work. Imagine a car that had a really quite flat torque curve, but with a gentle rise - it could reach it's peak quite late (so the "number of revs the that the torque continues to be above, say, 75% of max torque" could be tiny, but it would still be a great drive. Also, what with 75% being a number you've just picked out of the air, how the OOMPF mk2 figure would vary between cars with higher torque figures and quicker drop off and lower torque figures and slower drop off would be a bit arbitary (like OOMPF mk1 isnt!!!). So I'm afraid that your submission to the OOMPF standards body is rejected. 

HOWEVER - how about area under the torque line - that must mean something  This would seem like a fair measurement as it kind of takes into account the fact that in the real world a driver can, to a degree, use gears to try to keep the engine in its sweet spot.

Just need to find some easy way of translating the printouts into comupterised graphs and then a cute way of calculating the area... any ideas?

Cheers, Clive


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> HOWEVER - how about area under the torque line - that must mean something Â


I agree entirely and this is precisely what my 'oomph' factor tries to estimate. In the case you give to 'reject' (boo hoo :'( ) my original proposal I would contend that a flat torque curve will produce a large area under the torque curve between the 75% points - indeed a lot of torque curves will not drop off to 75% again after reaching maximum before max revs are reached and so the rev range multiplication 'factor' would be from the point where 75% of max torque is first achieved until max allowable revs !

Now, as you suggest, to find the area under the torque curve accurately all we need to do is find a mathemetical function which describes the torque v revs curve and integrate it between the limits of revs=0 to revs=max (Kell, are you keeping up with this  ). However, I would contend that most people when really trying do not drive with revs below, say, 3000 rpm. Therefore we should really integrate the torque/revs function within the limits revs=3000 to revs=max allowable by the rev limiter.

There again, I would contend that a simple multiplication of max torque value by the rev band that the torque is above 75% of its max value will suffice for comparison purposes!


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

That's cheating Â  You've changed your proposal from:



> that the torque *continues* to be above, say, 75%


to


> torque *is* above 75% of its max value


However, we're now working towards the common goal of finding the area under the graph. You go ahead and work on the formula for torque vs revs (that should keep you quite for a while - Ford or GM might have a Cray you can have a slice of time on!) and I'll ask around if anyone knows of any software that will just measure the area Â 



> There again, I would contend that a simple multiplication of max torque value by the rev band that the torque is above 75% of its max value will suffice for comparison purposes!


I agree it would be interesting to compare the measured-area figure to the "75% estimate" figure :

Cheers, Clive


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2003)

great work clive on finally getting the day sorted,,, 

like the 00MPH :


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

is the Boost relative to all this :-/ somone running low boost, but also getting good BHP/Torque figures could increase boost to gain better results if he/she wished, so surely the boost factor should be incorperated ???
or am i just talking Crap because i have low boost setting  ;D
Jonah


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> could


Come on Jonah, this has to be about what _has_ been done to the car, not what _could_! 

C


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Oh ok !! just thought it might move me up atleast one place  ;D


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> That's cheating Â  You've changed your proposal......


Cheating ....... cheating !! (more boo hoo and sob sob :'( ..... mummy, mummy that man is calling me a cheat)
You have obviously spotted some subtlety that I can't, or meant, between the proposals ???

However, I don't think that there will be any software that can automatically map out the torque v revs function so it'll have to be the approximate method. Would need to see a few 'real' plots of torque v revs to see what torque % would be sensible to use! Then again could just use a set rev band, say 3000 rpm to max (although this might discriminate against those that produce a lot of low down 'grunt'!


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Garvin, I think we need our own thread! 

The difference between your two proposals was that originally you said "continues to be above" - i.e. as you move up the rev range, what proportion of the torque curve that is above the point of peak torque is above the 75% level. Second time round you took away the notion of "continues" and went for "is", which is probably what you meant first time 

But hey, lets measure the area, even if it means converting all the graphs to the same scale and cutting up lots of graph paper to work it out!

Clive


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Just came back to read this thread as it was getting so long in such a short time, erm what are you all talking about? I'm now totaly confused by all the ifs; buts and maybe's. As I'm a technician of a very low level can you tell me in very simple terms what these figures really mean then. I thought I had it all sussed out when I was given my printout - 281BHP and 300 lbs torque - simple. Obviously not.

I'm not having a go at anyone here, I'm genuinely interested but just can't seem to fathom out what your talking about :-/ :-/

Graham


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

It appears to be some sort of elaborate mathmatics that means Clive did better on the rollers than you Graham ;D


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

LOL ;D

Graham


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

Great day Clive and so glad we got there in the end after all of the knockbacks you received earlier.

It was my first 'RR meet' and I wasn't disappointed. Since mtm measured it 15 months ago, I lost 18 bhp and gained 18 lb/ft of torque - exactly what I wanted! ;D

JampoTT, your exhaust ROCKS!

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> JampoTT, your exhaust ROCKS!


Cheers Rob - high praise indeed considering the calibre of your car 

You never know, I might be persuaded to part with it eventually, but for now its great fun.....


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Clive my peak torque was 234lbft not 225... more than the first 4 TT's... 

With a standard figure of 178BHP and more torque than the 180BHP TT, i can see now why these are easy game

James.


----------



## Steve_M (May 6, 2002)

Sounds like you all had a good time ! I remember going to a few a while ago and the figures weren't that great. Good to see MTM being recognised at last, I bet Kim's happy with this thread !

Talking about power to weight ratio I'll be driving my kit car for the first time this weekend, 185 bhp in a car weighing about 450 Kg . . . that's over 400bhp/tonne  ;D

You can never have enough power ;D


----------



## AL_B (Jun 19, 2002)

Nice one Clive. Glad the rolling road day happened in the end.

Its good to see some REVO figures at last, along with some of the other tuners.

Now before anyone jumps on me, I'm not calling the figures into question or anything like that - they all look about what you'd expect. But isn't it wierd how:-

1) Mav's produced less boost than TTotals, yet had greater torque
2) GCP, I assume had standard exhaust, yet produced almost exactly the same as TTotal who has a Forge exhaust
3) Revo and Revo test program were very close
4) WAK's and UK225's AMD's are a strange comparison. WAK more torque, yet UK225 more power.

I know I'm stating the obvious, and there's probably no explanation other than, every car is different.

Anyway, at least folk have some decent figures to go off now.

Look forward to seeing the graphs.

AL


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

James, I'll update the numbers - you had so many runs, it's easy to get confused!  Is it your standard run you're talking about?

Al,

1) If there was one figure I wouldn't rely on 100%, it is the max boost - they were just reading this off the gauge. Not saying I think they are way out, but it is possible a little human error margin could have slipped in.

2) GCP has Milltek cat back - I'll update the details.

3) Yep! Compared to Kop the Revo test program is a little down on torque, but then, it is running less boost. Comparing to barely_legal is a little misleading possibly as the car was 7 bhp down pre-Revo.

4) Could this be down to the amount of "tweaking" that AmD do? Both had pretty flat torque curves.

Clive


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Was everyone on Optimax?

Anyone admitting to using Millers etc for the extra kick?

I'll be very interested to see all the graphs.

The results posted are really what I'd expect to see. If MTM didn't have having the biggest peak BHP then I guess something would be wrong, given the way it's designed to work.

I'll be taking my APR chip along to Wak's AMD RR session so hopefully we can get another good comparison.

P.S. Clive, Did you notice how I didn't advise people to test drive each chip and not simply go on the peak figures? JampoTT said is for me


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> ......... can you tell me in very simple terms what these figures really mean then.


Graham,

What we are 'babbling on' about is trying to find some way of better representing the output figures to better describe how the car will feel 'on the road'. A car can have a very high specific max power and torque figure, but if they are 'peaky' i.e. the high figures are only avalilable over a small rev range then the car will not be as 'driveable' (have that sustained oomph or grunt to it) than a car which has a high proportion of its max torque over a large rev range. Just chasing max torque and power is not what its all about - its about getting as 'flat' a torque curve as possible balanced against the max torque.

This is especially important with 'turbo' cars as peaky outputs generally result with being easily caught 'off boost' and then getting thunderous kick in the back as the correct rev range is achieved - feels good initially but it is not conducive to having the easiest (or quickest) car to drive - you end up having to stir the gearbox quite a lot and judging your gear change points to pefection to get the best out of the car. A nice flat torque curve gives you a sustained 'thrust' which may not appear to be as exciting, but can in fact make for much quicker progress!


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Clive - yep in standard form it was producing 178BHP and 234lbft (and not much smoke either!)


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> Graham,
> 
> What we are 'babbling on' about is trying to find some way of better representing the output figures to better describe how the car will feel 'on the road'. A car can have a very high specific max power and torque figure, but if they are 'peaky' i.e. the high figures are only avalilable over a small rev range then the car will not be as 'driveable' (have that sustained oomph or grunt to it) than a car which has a high proportion of its max torque over a large rev range. Just chasing max torque and power is not what its all about - its about getting as 'flat' a torque curve as possible balanced against the max torque.
> 
> This is especially important with 'turbo' cars as peaky outputs generally result with being easily caught 'off boost' and then getting thunderous kick in the back as the correct rev range is achieved - feels good initially but it is not conducive to having the easiest (or quickest) car to drive - you end up having to stir the gearbox quite a lot and judging your gear change points to pefection to get the best out of the car. A nice flat torque curve gives you a sustained 'thrust' which may not appear to be as exciting, but can in fact make for much quicker progress!


Just look at the dyno graphs then (when they are up) - very easy from looking at the curves to get a feel from what the car will be like on the road.

James.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Garvin, thanks for taking the time and trouble to explain to me what these graphs actually mean, however, I had been told so many times before I got my car chipped to drive all the various options before deciding, to get a feel for how each chip lays down the power. I did this up to a certain point and decided on the MTM chip because I liked the way it felt compared to others (personal choice). Now if what your saying is correct (or I am once again getting the wrong end of the stick !!) then I should be looking for a chip which has a much flatter torque curve because that will give me a quicker progress. But what if I don't want that, what if I just want to 'Feel' that I'm making quicker progress - which my MTM chip does for me.

At the end of the day, if this widget in my car makes me feel that its a vast improvement over my standard widget then I'm happy. Apart from Robs car, I wouldn't mind betting that there is not much difference in overall performance between the chipped cars at Interpro, only the way they feel. Some have got more BHP to others and some have got more Torque, all would be better than the standard. I still get to work in the same time as I did before I got it chipped but it just feels that I got there quicker ;D

Graham


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Graham,

It isn't that a flatter torque curve in itself makes the car quicker. The point here is that looking at the peak torque or power figure only doesn't give you the full picture, as it is possible that that level of torque is only available for a very limited range of engine speed.

This is why I overlaid the original three graphs (and why we'll overlay some of the new ones) - you can then see how the torque compares across the rev range.

What we saw on the original (2002) Interpro graphs was that yes, the MTM chipped car (mine) had a big peak and then dropped off, but when it dropped off, it wasn't that far behind the cars that just didn't have the peak - so on balance, an acceleration run from low revs to high revs in a single gear may have produced pretty similar results from both the MTM and the non MTM cars.

This all leads on to the "area under the graph" conversation - what we're saying is that the area under the graph represents a mesure of "accross the rev range acceleration ability". All we need to do is find a way to measure it failry accurately. I imagine (haven't looked yet) that there is some freeware somewhere that lets you point points, put a smoothed line through them and will then work out the area - if anyone knows of one, let me know. This is a little hassly though as we'd have to transfer all the graphs into this system. The other approach is to get the graph paper out, trace the line onto the paper (correcting the scale between graphs, obviously!) and count the squares....

Clive


----------



## mark (May 13, 2002)

Hi All,

Great meeting you all on Sunday and seeing what you've all been talking about for so long. I think I can feel myself sliding down the slippery slope of modding... especially for an exhaust like Jampott's. It really sounds superb (if very loud).

I was really pleased with my results on the day. Completely standard car running Super Unleaded and I had higher than average torque and a nice smooth power curve. It was a shame I couldn't get the revo demo working but I'm sure Ian will sort that out and it's very nice to see that the car is 'healthy' before I get going on the mods.

Special mention for Wak & Graham's satnav/DVD/playstation systems. Really left me drooling.

Kev, the wheels looked great - that finish really sets them off well!

I'll try and post my graph at some point but I was very impressed with the guys at interpro. Very professional and they took time out to discuss the results of the graphs and comment on the cars.

Clive - well done for organising it. Once I've got some mods I'll definitely be up for another one.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> .......I had been told so many times before I got my car chipped to drive all the various options before deciding, to get a feel for how each chip lays down the power ........... and decided on the MTM chip because I liked the way it felt compared to others (personal choice).


Absolutely right - at the end of the day it is all down to personal preference.



> Now if what your saying is correct (or I am once again getting the wrong end of the stick !!) then I should be looking for a chip which has a much flatter torque curve because that will give me a quicker progress.


If the absolute max torque figure for two cars is the same then I would contend that the one with the flatter (call it fatter if you like) torque curve will be faster on the road and easier to drive faster. However, a higher max torque, but peakier delivery, will be faster on the road that a lower max torque, but flatter delivery, provided there is a significant difference in the torque - but they will feel very different to drive.



> But what if I don't want that, what if I just want to 'Feel' that I'm making quicker progress - which my MTM chip does for me.


Absolutely fine - a lot of people actually prefer a peaky 'whack in the back' delivery rather than a smooth more continuous 'surge' of power



> At the end of the day, if this widget in my car makes me feel that its a vast improvement over my standard widget then I'm happy. Apart from Robs car, I wouldn't mind betting that there is not much difference in overall performance between the chipped cars at Interpro, only the way they feel. Some have got more BHP to others and some have got more Torque, all would be better than the standard. I still get to work in the same time as I did before I got it chipped but it just feels that I got there quicker


In the real world it is torque in the mid range that is important, power is the result of torque at the corresponding engine speed and the max power figure really only helps with top speed - and how many of us actually get to use the TT at or around its max speed. I suspect that you are correct in that there is probably little difference in overall performance. However, anything that increases the driving pleasure must be worth it.

IMHO, for a real perfromance improvement, most people could reduce their A to B times significantly by really learning to drive and upgrading the brakes first before going for increased torque/power!


----------



## dylarolla (Mar 5, 2003)

Just a thought.....albeit a long one.

As has already been stated the best quantitative assessment of overall performance would be to measure the area under the curves for BHP and torque, rather than peak figures. Â

As some of you have alluded to, peak figures tell you next to nothing about the range of the performance. Â A peak spike of say 300 lbs ft sounds great but if the remainder of the torque curve fails to get above 230 lbs ft then that represents a brief kick in the rear at a very specific point in the rev range and then a relatively subdued remainder of the rev range.

The area under the curve would give a much better representation of the performance.

Furthermore, the variation in BHP or Torque values across the rev range (say between 2000 and 6000 revs) should also go some way to describe the car's performance. Â i.e.) the lowest and highest torque values within a given rev range.

If I was looking for an indication of this "under the curve measure" I would do the following:

A) Take your results graph/curve (in this case torque)
B) If there are any, smooth out any peaks or troughs to produce a less spikey (but more wavy) curve 
C) Define a rev range (let's say 2000-6000, or perhaps over the range the turbo is working - whatever that might be)
D) At each 500 rpm interval find the corresponding torque value (reduce the interval for a more accurate reading)
E) Sum all these torque values (taken in D) and divide by the number of readings taken (in this case 9). Â This will give you an average torque value across a defined rev range. Â Let's say the resulting value is Â 260 lbs ft
F) Then to give you some idea of how much this average torque value can deviate, and therefore how consistent this torque is, take the lowest reading from the highest reading to give you the torque range. Â Let's say in this case it is 80 lbs ft (280 lbs ft at 3,500 and 200 lbs ft at 2000 rpm).
G) Now divide half (as it is a variation from an average) the torque range value (F) by the average torque value (E) and multiply by 100. Â In this case 15.38% (40 / 260 x 100). Â The value 40 is calculated from F/2

So now we have an average torque of 260 lbs ft, plus or minus 15% (or 40 lbs ft). Â Nice, flat curves will produce very low percentages whereas more spikey curves will show with much bigger percentage values. Â

As a final calculation, to provide the sort of OOMPF value Clive talked about I would reduce the average torque value (E) by the percentage value (G). Â i.e.) Reduce 260 lbs ft by 15.38%. Â In this case 221 lbs ft (260 x 85/100). Â

So what you're left with is:
Peak Torque = 280 lbs ft
Lowest Torque = 200 lbs ft
Average Torque = 260 lbs ft
Torque range = 80 lbs ft
Torque range (%) = 15.38
DOPIT (Dylarolla's Overall Performance Indicator for Torque) = 221 lbs ft

I know it sounds a little long winded but this would actually give a good benchmark single figure representation of the overall performance of your car (in terms of torque in this instance).

Obviously there are caveats and conditions that need to apply in order to make this measure valid but I reckon it's a reasonable start.

I must get out more.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Totaly agree with your last comment Garvin, I upgraded the brakes, intercooler etc before getting the re-chip. All I've got to do now is learn to drive better ;D

Now, where's BigJon's phone number ;D

Graham


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Eventually!!!!.......My Pics:-

http://www.wak-tt.com/interpro2003/interpro2003.htm

Only got 264bhp and 291 ft.lbs of torque, happy enough but, she aint running right something is odd and boost is slightly low.

Going to try a new DV soon to see if I have a problem with the current one! :-/


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

Just keeping it short and sweet at 3 am... 

Thanks Clive, a stalwart effort incredibly efficient and brilliantly carried out ! Well done indeed.

Thanks also go out to the lads at Interpro who did a great job of herding in the flock of turbo'd beasts with out any panic or stress as if they were just a fleet of old fiestas (maybe thats what they thought !)

A really fun day out too , something for the calender, also a very social; eve nt as you can have a good natter as you wait your turn. Lovely to see everyoine there. John


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Great pics Wak

But who's this little kid?


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

and there's a nasty man next to her, just about to offer her a ***...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Hugo/Julian weren't there, were they?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Coincidence or just bad luck?
After the R+R session i drove the 110miles home when about 1/4 mile from home went to stop at trafic lights when the clutch pedal stayed down and wouldnt return,only when i pulled it with my hand. Managed to get home and parked up, next morning got in the car and the pedal did the same so drove round to dealers which is about 500m away.
they have today changed the master cylinder and the problem still exists so now the gearbox has to be removed and slave cylider and pipes have to be replaced.
could this of been caused by the R+R session or is it just coincidence?
they are now trying to get me a better car than the Passat i have now as the job will be longer than origanally thought 
Jonah


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Co-incidence I'd have thought Jonah - other than the fact they take it up to high revs, I'd say they are actually pretty gentle with the car.

Clive


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

No - its a pretty common fault. 4 motion golfs suffer the same (same 4wd Haldex drivetrain) - unlucky though 

rgds


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Just for the record i wasn't looking to point fingers at anyone ;D
Jonah


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

The graphs are scanned and up on the web!

Right now it's just a directory with the files in - http://www.rig.org.uk/dyno/ (thanks James). The number on the graph (and in the file name) corresponds to the graph number on the results table.

We will turn this into a proper web page as soon as time allows.

Cheers, Clive


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Had a quick scan of the outputs and they make very interesting reading - a calculation of 'area under the curve' could well be quite 'eye opening'!

My personal initial comments are:-

Mike_G : To me, this is the pick of the bunch - how all good tuned engines should look - not high specific outputs per se but 'beautifully proportioned'.

Others that look good, in no particular order, are UK225, WAK and, of course, B3VES (although the latter might like to sacrifice some top end bhp to flatten that torque curve - would be a real cor blimey motor (not that it isn't at the moment!!)

I'm afraid there are a couple that 'flatter to deceive' - sorry guy/gal:-

Love_iTT : A max of 300lb.ft but really only a useable max of somewhere around 275lb.ft (but still very, very good)
barely_legal : a max of 259lb.ft but, again, only a useable max of somewhere around 230lb.ft

Finally I just love kmpowell's - just shows what a good job Audi have done with the standard engine.

Revo seems to be a bit of a 'curate's egg' doesn't it!!


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Garvin you seem very switched on to all this, so you may be able to advise me,I feel my torque is low compared to others & wish to sort that.

Would it mean getting my map tweaked again by AmD or are there other mods I can do to help.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Garvin you seem very switched on to all this, so you may be able to advise me,I feel my torque is low compared to others & wish to sort that.
> 
> Would it mean getting my map tweaked again by AmD or are there other mods I can do to help.


You're joking aren't you - looks pretty damn good to me - compared to the others yours is a very flat torque curve indeed and not low at all ???
I'd be over the moon with that output!

However, you may benefit from better breathing at high revs so a few mods on the that side might see a small increase - otherwise I would think it was down the big turbo route!


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Really cool ;D

I will be happy then !

Dont really understand the graphs to be honest :-[

I have only really looked at the max figure rather than whats gone on to get there :-/


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> I have only really looked at the max figure rather than whats gone on to get there


There are others with higher specific max outputs but they drop off rapidly whereas yours doesn't - this is the reason why the debate has gone on as to how to project these outputs as a single 'oomph' factor - I'm pretty sure yours will come out good on any such assessement!

For example :-

The WAK machine appears to have higher outputs but they drop off quite quickly as the revs continue to rise. I, personally, would prefer your outputs to his!

The B3VES machine has very high outputs but it's all developed well up the rev range - I predict it is very quick indeed but will have characteristics more like a V-TEC Honda than a 'normal' TT and require quite a bit of gear changing to keep it on song!


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

I've done a couple of graph overlays to get even more discussion going.

Being selfish, they are both to do with me! The red line is always me. The black lines are my indication of where I think the torque starts to seriously differ and then come back again... Having looked at these I REALLY want to do area under the graph stuff. Garvin, what do you think of these?

My car compared to Graham's car:










And my car compared to Morgan's (UK225)


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> I've done a couple of graph overlays to get even more discussion going.......... Garvin, what do you think of these?


Really interesting!

The comparison to Graham's is quite interesting ........ it seems to be close for very different reasons. However, I think that, personally, I would prefer yours 'on the road'. The gear change points for maximum progress will be quite different between the cars - much lower in the case of yours (but then I have never liked revving the 'whotsits' off a car to get good progress!)

Compared to Morgan's car, again there's not a lot in it is there - I would give you the edge here as well!
Would love to see the MTM against the AMD without the FMIC - do you think the FMIC is making much contribution on the rolling road?


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

We should both have similar mods come the AmD shootout, I have FMIC & cats being fitted next week ;D


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Would love to see the MTM against the AMD without the FMIC - do you think the FMIC is making much contribution on the rolling road?


Unfortunately (from the point of comparison) I had the cats and FMIC fitted at the same time.

All I can say is that my torque dropped (16 points) and my power went up (22 points) after they were fitted - although it was a cooler day in Feb (but still at Interpro) the first time round, so who knows really!


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Garvin, what do you think of these


Just another thought - it would be good to lift your torque curve at the higher revs. Do you have any 'easy breathing' mods that might help this - I note Graham has a Neuspeed Intake? Then again perhaps you could try a packet of Tunes ;D


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

> The B3VES machine has very high outputs but it's all developed well up the rev range - I predict it is very quick indeed but will have characteristics more like a V-TEC Honda than a 'normal' TT and require quite a bit of gear changing to keep it on song!


To see/hear it spinning on the rollers was quite a sight/sound ;D


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

There are some good ones - but also some strange curves - especially torque peak.

Garvin - you asked about the FMIC on the rollers - this graph here is one of the best (IMHO) i've seen from a TT on the last session at Interpro










comparisons here -

http://www.rig.org.uk/newsite/TT/ttdyno.htm

Boost comes in so strongly, and its making peak torque at just 2000RPM and maintains this fairly flatly through to 5000RPM.

Not running very high boost either.

The MTM car (clives before the intercooler conversion) shows the high torque due to the fierce boost curve MTM use - around 26PSI dropping back as the revs rise. The big drop though is the ECU knocking back the timing due to the charge temp rising.

James.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Do you have any 'easy breathing' mods that might help this - I note Graham has a Neuspeed Intake?


Graham and I plan to try to do a Neuspeed / standard airbox swap and before and after RR readings, so hopefully I'll be able to answer that one at some point!

Maybe the combination of some sort of air intake solution (Neuspeed, BMC, Jabba when they make it...) with Samco hoses all round might help a little.

Clive


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Anyone wanna buy my shagged TTR :-/

Funny because I thought before Sunday my car was going quite well. Obviously not. Maybe I should just concentrate on making it look pretty.

Graham


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Anyone wanna buy my shagged TTR
> 
> Funny because I thought before Sunday my car was going quite well. Obviously not. Maybe I should just concentrate on making it look pretty.


Graham, why the sudden dissolutionment? I think your car did great on the day - and look how close your car and Morgan's car are - apart from your higher power output ( = higher top speed, all else being equal).










It'll be very interesting to try the air intake swap experiement...

Cheers, Clive


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Graham

I'll give you a tenner and a Vectra estate for it... Always seems to go like stink to me!

Paul


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

> Graham
> 
> I'll give you a tenner and a Vectra estate for it... Always seems to go like stink to me!
> 
> Paul


LOL - As much as that, I think that from some of the comments about my car on how it looks on paper I'd be ripping you off !!

Graham


----------



## carfanatic (Nov 17, 2002)

Hi! Nice to read this thread. We also had a dyno day a few weeks ago with some TT's and S3. I havn't got the printings yet but I did a pic from the monitor which I can show.


















It was a warm day with 27Â°C but I was very happy with my results. 208,5KW=283,5 hp and 424,2NM= 313,5lb/ft. At full power she made 264,8 lb/ft.
My mods are custom chip from Wimmer-RST, custom 3" cat-back exhaust, modded air box and samco intake hose. Next mod will be race cats and fmic but I don't know when to do it cause the car runs realy great now.


----------



## AL_B (Jun 19, 2002)

Like the comparison graphs Clive, well done.

The comparison of your car and Graham's (Love_iTT?) is a good one. Same chip, FMIC, milltek and cats, but completely different torque curves. Your's peaking early, Grahams spiking further up. I don't think the Neuspeed intake would have such an effect.

Looking at all the graphs (graph 12 is missing by the way) they're all pretty different. REVO ones of Jonah and TTotal look a bit spiky, but gcp's is nice an smooth. Although Johahs looks like he more torque for slightly longer. AmD ones look quite similar and fairly smooth.

Anyway, I'm rambling on. 

AL


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> (graph 12 is missing by the way)


Ooops - thanks, my fault - wil be fixed on Sunday (James the hoster-of-graphs is away till then!).

Clive


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Anyone wanna buy my shagged TTR


Graham - I don't think anyone said your car was 'shagged' or anything like it. My apologies if any of my comments have disappointed you but you have to admit that the 300lb.ft figure is a very 'spikey' max output and, if used in isolation, does not give a real comparison with other cars. However, your motor does has over 260 lb.ft available between 3000 and 5500 rpm - there is nothing 'shagged' about that at all - it is still one of the best on the forum Â 

Regarding mods - don't stop! I, for one, enjoy reading about the mods you do cos you research them properly and provide good write ups and piccies about them - makes the forum all that more interesting. As for just making the car pretty - that's OK but, personally, I much prefer to read about the more 'go' rather than more 'show' mods.

How about a water spray cooled intercooler, or a nitrous oxide injection kit, or a bigger turbo? What about ripping the engine out all together and 'blue printing' it with nitrided cranks etc so you can really get some mega power out of it without blowing it up Â - go on, someone has to take on that mean B3VES machine


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

> Like the comparison graphs Clive, well done.
> 
> Looking at all the graphs (graph 12 is missing by the way) they're all pretty different. REVO ones of Jonah and TTotal look a bit spiky, but gcp's is nice an smooth. Although Johahs looks like he more torque for slightly longer. AmD ones look quite similar and fairly smooth.
> 
> ...


The spikes in some of the graphs could be due to wheelspin.


----------



## AL_B (Jun 19, 2002)

gcp,

Aye, its possible I suppose. How well were the cars tied down? I saw a picture where the car had two straps attached to the tow hook at the back, and clamped down to opposing hooks on the floor. Did they do the same at the front?

If they did, I think wheel spin is unlikely, as that is exactly the same way my (and others) cars were tied down at the Well Lane RR session I organised, and there was no wheelspin at all.

But you guys are running a bit more power/torque, but I still think its unlikely. But its possible.

AL


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Having studied the output graphs I have now produced the table below based on my earlier suggested 'formula' (well close to it anyway).

The Grunt Factor is calculated by multiplying the maximum torque figure obtained by the rev range over which at least 75% of this maximum torque is available and then divided by 1000 (just to keep the numbers manageable). The Revs Low are 'read' directly off the graphs and the Revs High are the revs at which max power is obtained on the basis that its not really worth revving above this as the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The only exceptions to this are the Wak and B3VES machines where the power (bhp) curve is unusually flat at the max point so I have increased the Revs High figure accordingly as the max power is obtained at the lower end of this flat region. My apologies to Mike_G beacause this 'crude' method does not really do his extremely flat torque curve justice (wait for clived's area under the curve calculation - that should rectify it)!

Please note that this is merely supposed to indicate how the car feels on the road to drive. It does not show which has the fastest top speed or acceleration (weight is an important consideration for the latter). View it as which car would be easiest (laziest?) to drive quickly and consistently, e.g. the B3VES machine would undoubteldy be the fastest on the road but it has to be kept within narrower limits to achieve this (some extra torque lower down giving a Revs Low of, say, 2300 rpm would elevate the B3VES Grunt Factor to an amazing 1386 ). Some of the others at the top of the table would, IMHO, make swift progress in an easily driveable way.

Now, accepting that this is going to upset someone, somewhere, (donning flame suit) herewith the table:-

http://www.********.co.uk/gallery/garvin/Interpro.jpg

One could view that anything above the 1000 mark as a pretty serious machine with a standard 225 TT sititng just below the 700 mark.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

It just goes from bad to worse ??? Oh well, I "Love iTT" ;D

Graham


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

WOW  i'm amased i have moved up to the top of the Grunt Factor no flaming from me Garvin ;D couple of questions though.
should i be looking to increase my Boost setting? as i seem to be one of the lowest in the list of boost figures, would this be benifial to me or would 
i loose some BHP and gain Torque or visa versa i presume more of both would be ideal or would u leave the way it is:-/

Also i have checked and my setting are the same as Mavs on his Revo but he gets 1.3bar and i get 1.15bar, is there anything that could cause this lose of boost ie turbo hose,DV ect or could it just be the makeup of the car?

PS no grunt at the moment as the Gearbox has been removed from my car 
Jonah


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> .... should i be looking to increase my Boost setting? as i seem to be one of the lowest in the list of boost figures, would this be benifial to me or would
> i loose some BHP and gain Torque or visa versa i presume more of both would be ideal or would u leave the way it is
> 
> Also i have checked and my setting are the same as Mavs on his Revo but he gets 1.3bar and i get 1.15bar, is there anything that could cause this lose of boost ie turbo hose,DV ect or could it just be the makeup of the car?


The main reason you are 'top of the pops' on the Garvin chart is that your high torque is available over a very impressive rev band.

I don't have Mav's graphs (not posted) so its difficult to assess any difference - but I can assume it's similar to TTotals which produced a slightly narrower 'bandwidth'. The differences are minor and I do not have access to the Revo algorithms (don't suppose they'd send me a copy do you Â  ) to see how it maps the engine but it is odd that mav's max boost should be higher for the same setting and tested on the same day/conditions/dyno Â ??? It could be down to DV (I would think it unlikely to be loose hose etc).

If you can manage those outputs with, what appears to be, lower boost then I would be tempted to stick with it (less stress). However, improvements may be made if you aim to make it breath more easily and lower the charge temperature e.g. some form of induction kit with, perhaps, an FMIC. If the Revo measures charge temperature then it may well result in your boost being 'upped' as well which may well produce a significant gain. Without much knowledge of the Revo 'system' it's difficult to advise.

What I would say though is that the Revo + Forge exhaust seem a well matched pair - Forge have obviously done their homework very well and it seems to me to be the bargain of the modifications - now they'll put their price up no doubt Â


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

> gcp,
> 
> Aye, its possible I suppose. How well were the cars tied down? I saw a picture where the car had two straps attached to the tow hook at the back, and clamped down to opposing hooks on the floor. Did they do the same at the front?
> 
> ...


All the MTM cars were getting wheelspin, Robs obviously being the worst. This definately affected the graphs for these cars.

If they were doing a serious session they would have added more strapping , as it was they just sprayed the rollers with tyre grip compound.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> All the MTM cars were getting wheelspin


Oh oh oh - can we add, 5% to our grunt factors to compensate? 

Clive


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Garvin - if I email you scans of my rolling road results can you work out a grunt factor for me?
W.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Garvin, is the main problem I have with the car the MTM chip Â then? The reason I ask is that between Clive and my car, the main two differences are the Neuspeed induction and that my engine is an APX and I'm sure that Clives is a BAM code, could these two factors make that kind of difference?

Your deductions have realy got me thinking over the last couple of days, dissapointment to begin with I must admit but more rationally now. If I were to take off the FMIC, induction kit, sports cats, swop over my Â resonated Milteck from the non-resonated, sell them all and get a Revo or AMD chip instead of the MTM then would you think that this would show a marked improvement.

In other words Garvin, I'm asking for you advice here. I've spent a lot of money on the mods over the last few months, now if I can claim some of that money back by selling them and yet still end up with a better performing car then thats what I will do.

Sorry about all the questions but I want to get to the bottom of why my car is not performing as good as what I thought it was. Coming midpoint on your table is good but not great.

Thanks in advance.

Graham


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

No disrepect to Garvin here, but you could get cars to move up and down his table by altering the percentage cut-off point chosen - it's totally arbitary - so don't get too hung up on it Graham. Of course, om OOMPF factor is _also_ pretty arbitary - I may have used a couple less variable's that Garvin, but my number still doesn't really mean anything!

Area under the curve (I'm looking for software now) or even better 1/4 mile and in-gear acceleration times are what count IMHO!

Clive


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Graham... I think you've gone mad!

No-one on a standard turbo got more power than you and no-one but Clive and Mav have more torque.

I don't think you'll get any better by moving tuners to be honest. And you'll lose a lot of benefit by dropping off the other stuff...

Drive the car and enjoy it


----------



## mav (Jan 9, 2003)

??? have I been missed out of the new leader board? ???

re my graph, I should be able to get it scanned in and posted on Tuesday.

Mav


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Mav,

It's my fault - I managed to miss your graph out of the zip file I sent James. I've already sent him a replacement, but he's not around till Sunday to put it on the web.

In the meantime, I can either e-mail it to you / Garvin (IM me your e-mail addresses) or put it up on my webspace for you until James does the update.

Clive


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> ..... Coming midpoint on your table is good but not great.


Graham - Lets get one thing straight - theres absolutely nothing wrong with your car! My method is crude (if clived works out the area under the curve more accurately then you will probably see another shuffle in the order). It is merely an indication. All those over the 1000 mark are so close as to make no real difference (in fact I suspect that if two or three runs on the rolling road are done by each car and an average taken then things would probably switch around again).

However, having said that, it does seem, albeit from the limited plots available, that the MTM chips do aim more at getting a high maximum torque figure rather than maximising the rev band over which it is available. This will result in the car having a more distinctive 'push in the back' at the point in the rev band when it comes 'on song' rather than a more 'lazy' sustained delivery of power. You state from an early e-mail that you actually preferred the former so I would stick with it. Otherwise, before making any rash decisions, I would get hold of a Revo'd car with the Revo exhaust and try it - see if you like that sort of delivery - if so then change by all means - just try it out first if you can.

I am impressed, though, with the improvement the Forge Revo and exhaust combination seems to make.

You also mention the APX v BAM engine - yes this could well make a difference, the two could well have different 'characteristics' even though their 'specific' outputs look the same on paper (i.e. max torque and power) - does anyone know what the main differences are between these two?


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Garvin - if I email you scans of my rolling road results can you work out a grunt factor for me?


Yep - covered by recent IMs - when its up on your web site I'll add you to the table.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> No disrepect to Garvin here, but you could get cars to move up and down his table by altering the percentage cut-off point chosen - it's totally arbitary


No 'offence' taken cos you're absolutely right - it's not exact by any means although it's not so arbitrary as you might think!
The Revs Low at 75% of max torque actually does correspond quite well to the lower revs that anyone would 'sensibly' try to extract some performance for each car in question (and chosen intially from some previous experience).
The Revs High, set at the point at which max power is achieved, is also a good point - revving it over this point is pretty pontless.

However, this little exercise does seem to have a few people thinking more, dare I say it, objectively about such performance mods and if it results in them being more selective, or asking the suppliers more pertinent questions about their various wares, then it's a damn good thing as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

;D wait till AmD shootout !


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> All the MTM cars were getting wheelspin, Robs obviously being the worst. This definately affected the graphs for these cars.
> 
> If they were doing a serious session they would have added more strapping Â , as it was they just sprayed the rollers with tyre grip compound.


I'm amazed at this. It would certainly support the more 'sudden' delivery the MTM chips seem to aim at but for a professional set up to allow this to happen is a bit quite shocking - you might as well have not done it and throw these outputs away


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

I believe the wheel spin happened on a few cars not just the MTM cars mainly due to Tyre shine,
Jonah


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Garvin, thanks for your reply. As far as I'm aware the main difference between the two engines are the earlier engines (APX code, mine) has fixed valve timing and the later engines (Clives BAM code) has variable valve timing. If someone knows different then please correct me.

Graham


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Garvin I am wondering since I achieved good BHP & you said the torue curve was one of the flatter ones how come I am so far down now ???

You gave the immpresion it was one of the better maps :-/

just wondering, like graham has been i guess...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

..... and you missed me off all together!!


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Garvin I am wondering since I achieved good BHP & you said the torue curve was one of the flatter ones how come I am so far down now Â ???
> 
> You gave the immpresion it was one of the better maps Â :-/
> 
> just wondering, like graham has been i guess...


Unfortunately you are one of the 'victims' of such a crude method, like Mike_G, where the method does not do justice to your flat torque curve. Your absolute max torque figure comes out about mid-way of the 'field' and you have a Revs Low figure which again is about mid-way of the 'field' - the result puts you at around the mid-point. However, you have over 260 lb.ft torque available between 2750 rpm and 5250 rpm - believe me this is pretty good. An accurate area under the curve calculation might well 'promote' you up the table or, at the very least, close the gap.

As a comparison, take the B3VES machine - 260lb.ft only becomes available when it is the upper side of 3500 rpm. What does this mean - well if both your machines are trundling side by side, in top gear, at, say, 2500 rpm (assuming gearing, weight etc are the same) then if you both put 'pedal to the metal' at the same instant you'd initially 'blow the doors' of the B3VES machine ............. until it came 'on song' about 1200 rpm later when it would then begin to catch and eventually overtake you.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> ..... and you missed me off all together!!


Sorry Jampott, you're graphs were not posted by clived


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Garvin, thanks for your reply. As far as I'm aware the main difference between the two engines are the earlier engines (APX code, mine) has fixed valve timing and the later engines (Clives BAM code) has variable valve timing.


If this is the case then, I'm afraid, there is more scope for tuning a BAM engine than an APX version.

For maxium output at high revs a fair bit of overlap is required (overlap means both inlet and exhaust valves open at the same time during the 'overlap' period) in order to achieve optimum gas flow though the cylinder head. Unfortunately this just 'kills' performance at low revs where minimal/no overlap is required (if you listen to 'old' racing engines of the pre-variable valve timing era you will note that they run/sound like a bag of nails at low revs and suddenly pick up and screech/yowl 'nicely at higher revs - this is because the valve timing has been optimised for high revs racing. These engines were notoriously difficult to get moving as well as they were prone to stalling very easily at the low revs). From this it follows that a wider torque band can be achieved with variable valve timing than can be achieved with fixed valve timing and may well explain why Clive can get more torque further down the rev range.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Sorry Jampott, you're graphs were not posted by clived


Which is because Tim didn't do his second planned run, so there was only one copy of the graph, which Tim has...


----------



## Steve_M (May 6, 2002)

Don't forget that the rolling road will favour cars with lower levels of boost. The fans in a RR won't come anywhere near to the cooling levels you get when doing even just 80mph.

My MTM car used to give 28psi as a momentary peak and then settle back to 26psi until it gradually dropped off with increasing revs. (Std turbo, tweaked wastegate) The boost on a RR was less than this and more importantly, it wasn't sustained for anywhere near as long.

As the boost comes in the intercoolers start heating up - on a RR they don't get enough air to cool down but on the road they will be kept a lot cooler, especially if you have a fmic like the Pace Products cooler. So a RR power run will see less power, probably even less boost at higher rpm's than you would see on the road.

This can also explain the differences between similar cars - for example Revo cars using the same program should have the same peak boost, same for MTM, but they don't because the cars were probably at different temperatures when run.

The higher boost cars will suffer more from this than the std cars.

Interesting results though, good to see MTM delivering the results as well as the best driving experience ;D


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Oh, hello - So it's $39 or out with the graph paper...

Dear Mr. Donaghue,

This is Dr. Hanley at hanleyinnovations.com. Thanks for visiting my www site and for your interest in Science graphs.

The Lite, Standard and Plus version of Science Graphs can provide the results that you need. 
More information can be found at: 
http://www.hanleyinnovations.com/sgraph.html

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions.

Thanks again for your interest.

Best regards, 
Patrick Hanley, Ph.D. 
http://www.hanleyinnovations.com

----- Original Message ----- 
To: <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:39 PM 
Subject: Dr. Hanley's Science Graphs

Hi, I'm looking to purchase some software that will allow the entry of data points, will plot a smoothed line between the points and then calculate the area under the graph between two given points on the x-axis. Must also be able to define the scale of both axis'. Can you software do this?

Many thanks, Clive


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Sorry to post in reply to myself (no, I'm not watching Robbie, I can hear it out of the window...)

I've thought of an elegant(ish), free way to do this.

I've measured the torque at 500 rpm intervals from 1000 rpm to 6000 rpm and added the numbers together. Measuring the actual area under the line would just give us a more refined, slightly more accurate version of this number. It's a bit boring, so I've only done a few so far...

clived - 2438
b3ves - 2437 (!)
uk225 - 2394
love_iTT - 2353
kmpowell - 1980

I'd say these numbers represent "across the rev range accelleratative force" - or put another way, if you couldn't choose which gear to be in, and had to go head to head from 1K to 6K, in a single gear, against another car the same weight etc. as yours, how you'd be likely to compare at the end of run.

I guess this kind of makes sense if you compare my car to Rob's. I've actually got significantly more torque (172 vs 307 at 3K) that Rob earlier in the rev range, but from about 3750 onwards he'd wipe the floor with me - so according to my numbers, stuck in a gear, we'd end up at about the same place down the road if we both went for it. Of course, this would never happen if the real world as Rob would change down a gear, wheras I'd be wanting to change up to keep my revs in my torque sweet-band of about 2750 to 4500.

Below is the graph from excel showing the torque plots... I've also overlaid this onto each of the plots I've converted so far as a sanity check to make sure I've not got any points wrong...










I've also overlaid this onto each of the plots I've converted so far as a sanity check to make sure I've not got any points wrong, for example...










Cheers, Clive


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

;D ;D ;D

Graham


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> ;D ;D ;D


Graham - After the ups and downs of this thread I take it you are happy with your car now - I told you there was nothing wrong with it 

The piece of work Clive has done is more 'laborious' than mine but defintely more accurate - but as a quick look I think my table was not that far out. Clive has also 'smoothed out your 300 lb.ft max value and, as you can see by the comparison graphs, it's not such a big deal as it maybe seemed at first.

Now, keep those mods coming


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> clived - 2438
> b3ves - 2437 (!)
> uk225 - 2394
> love_iTT - 2353
> kmpowell - 1980


The exclamation mark nest to the B3VES machine is interesting as it backs up the previous 'quick look' grunt factor findings. This is undoubtedly due to the 'lack of torque' at the lower end of the rev band and I am presuming this is associated with the inertia etc of the big turbo which requires a lot more exhaust gas 'speed' to provide the necessary 'blow'. Not an uncommon phenomena but it does show that you have to be prepared for the very different characteristrics if you go for such a mod.

What we really need now is someone to commission and install a bi-turbo mod ........... what about it Graham


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> I've measured the torque at 500 rpm intervals from 1000 rpm to 6000 rpm and added the numbers together. Measuring the actual area under the line would just give us a more refined, slightly more accurate version of this number. It's a bit boring, so I've only done a few so far...
> 
> clived - 2438
> b3ves - 2437 (!)
> ...


Clive could you do the same with my plot as we seem to have AMDx1 MTMx3 Standardx1 RevoX0, would make sense and i would be intrested to see how my car now compares to the other makes of chip.
Many thanks
Robert


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Yes a revo comparison would be good, personally cant wait for all the calcs to be done & see the final placement for everyone ;D


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

> Yes a revo comparison would be good, personally cant wait for all the calcs to be done & see the final placement for everyone Â ;D


Hello, I just noticed my ailing boostless bodge monster has more grunt than you! nanananananan! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Grrrrrr 

Wait till Clive has plotted the rest of the results then we will see ;D ;D ;D


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Yes we will ;D


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Done a rough one and i reckon mine should be around 2352, although Clives would probably be more accurate 
Jonah


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

> Done a rough one and i reckon mine should be around 2352, although Clives would probably be more accurate
> Jonah


 ;D


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

wait till i fit my hoses and turn my boost up to the same as urs


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

My graph looked crap because they couldn't stop my wheels from spinning. The power also seemed to drop off much lower than how it feels on the road and I'm wondering if my induction kit was the cause of this problem, due to heat build up.

Below is the graph from mtm last year, where they put on different wheels, presumably with stickier tyres.



















Also note that the temperature was a controlled climate 21 degrees C. Garvin is right about the drivability of my car - there's little poke low down and if I get caught in the wrong gear, it's laggy compared to a normal 225, let alone a chipped one. Once it comes on boost though, it feels like warp factor 9 and unlike most TT's it'll keep going right up to 7270rpm!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> it'll keep going right up to 7270rpm!


Is this the blow up point of the engine?


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> Is this the blow up point of the engine? Â


Not yet and it's been 18 months ;D


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Done a rough one and i reckon mine should be around 2352, although Clives would probably be more accurate Â
> Jonah


I make yours 2295... Â :

And TTotal - 2279

Cheers, Clive


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

;D

Clive will you be doing everyone a graph that will end up with a new list of who has what in OOMPH factor?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

This isn't OOMPH - this is "area under the graph estimation through piont analysis"!!!

Wak - 2424

When I've done them all I publish them all together, yes. 

Clive


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Clive

I can photocopy my graph and post it you, so you have the full set?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> I can photocopy my graph and post it you, so you have the full set?


Sure, or get it scanned and e-mail it to me.

Clive


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> I make yours 2295... Â :
> 
> And TTotal - 2279
> 
> Cheers, Clive


Well i enjoyed my brief spell at the top  although only out by 52 which is quite easy to do when doing the calcs ;D
Jonah


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Mav = 2371

So, to summarise the results so far...

clived Â Â Â Â 2438
beves Â Â Â Â Â 2437
wak Â Â Â Â Â Â 2424
uk225 Â Â Â Â Â Â 2394
Mav Â Â Â Â Â Â 2371
love_itt Â Â Â Â 2353
jonah Â Â Â Â Â 2295
ttotal Â Â Â Â Â 2279
kmpowell Â Â Â 1980

(Still working my way through it - 9 down, 4 to go, plus JampoTT's...)


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

> Mav = 2371
> 
> So, to summarise the results so far...
> 
> ...


Clive, enjoy your extra oomph as you (briefly) inhale my exhaust fumes! ;D


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> Clive, enjoy your extra oomph as you (briefly) inhale my exhaust fumes!


Rob, you did read my "in the real world howver" introduction to this measurement, right? 

Would be interesting to put the theory to the test though - side by side, third or fouth gear say, 1000 rpm to 6000 rpm...


----------

