OP
OP
Renno555
Guest
[quote author=FQ 340 link=topic=829.msg7015#msg7015 date=1164113649]
Frawls,
You're quite right, you and I did discuss your torque figures at length, sorry should have been generalising. In my defence though, you were the only person that I did discuss torque with and nobody was keeping a log of the torque results nor the points that torque was coming up and peaking at in the range.
The thing is, as you know, rolling roads only actually measure torque and then do the sums to produce the HP figure, which by definition happens high up in the rev range. I personally am only interested in the torque curve as that is what will tell you how a car drives while also giving you the HP figure.
As for your loss in torque and HP, my guess is that it is solely down to the fact that the car was road mapped. Your losses sound like a big drop but there could be a huge amount going on in the background.
My own car produced a 20 HP and 5 lb/ft gain over when I ran it two months ago on 95. The only difference between the runs was the addition of about 10 litres of 102 RON fuel to a half tank of 95 and an ECU reset.
Driving the car, the power difference was imperceptible. The car did feel smoother and more responsive, but up high, I really didn't think there was any difference. On the rollers however, there was a clear 20 hp gain.
Boost was also up all the way across (1.9 bar) giving good early torque but there was a massive drop in torque at 5000 rpm that then leveled out before dying at 6500. This dip in the torque curve is almost certainly down to timing. Whether it is that the timing hadn't readvanced yet after the reset or whether it the fuel still isn't good enough to get optimum ignition advance I don't know. However, I am now very sure if I could run the car constantly on good fuel, the full 340 hp and 320 lb/ft would be easily available.
I personally thought your torque curve looked really impressive, especially beside the Sti's and even the P1. Insofar as it is possible to tell from the curve, I'd say it's a bit of an animal on the road.
I know it is very frustrating spending money and not getting the results (it happened to me before) but as Andy says, if you want roller results, you have to map on the rollers. If you did, with your set up, you'd easily see 300+ on torque and hp.
Don't know if the car would drive any better however.
There is an interesting post on the lancer register site where they put the FQ340 against the FQ400 on the road in a variety of tests. In almost all of the various head to heads that they conducted, the FQ340 was actually quicker than the 400 despite giving it a full 60 hp. The 340 pulled like the 330d you mentioned and got clear ahead well early on and the 400 was never able to close the gap.
Balls out however, the 400 was ultimately the quicker car (albeit not by much) as with its extra horses it could pull further in each gear and the initial gains of the 340 were eventually pulled in and surpassed.
I'd say if you put your machine alongside some of the similarly powered cars from Saturday, you might find a similar result.
Also, I'd say if you were to run some better fuel for a while, those losses might well disappear.
More importantly, how much will you lose when you move over to TT land?
Jesus, and I thought I was bad going for an Evo.
Type 25 man, has to be at that budget.
Seriously think about it, the last one is 350 and 355 lb/ft, the new one is 425 and 400. Ok it won't be quite that on our fuel, but oh my God, what a car.
In any event, you absolutely must have over 300 lb/ft it's essential, you won't last. No way.
[/quote]
Well said, Just one little thing regards the people not checking there torque / curve ETC. A couple people I know of there on Sat know all about ( or at least have there opinion on ) rolling roads and see it as a day out but thats it, so maybe thats why they may not have been so concerned with there sheets as much as people normally would IMO. But Im sure everyone had a good luck at them at home or later that eveing.
Frawls,
You're quite right, you and I did discuss your torque figures at length, sorry should have been generalising. In my defence though, you were the only person that I did discuss torque with and nobody was keeping a log of the torque results nor the points that torque was coming up and peaking at in the range.
The thing is, as you know, rolling roads only actually measure torque and then do the sums to produce the HP figure, which by definition happens high up in the rev range. I personally am only interested in the torque curve as that is what will tell you how a car drives while also giving you the HP figure.
As for your loss in torque and HP, my guess is that it is solely down to the fact that the car was road mapped. Your losses sound like a big drop but there could be a huge amount going on in the background.
My own car produced a 20 HP and 5 lb/ft gain over when I ran it two months ago on 95. The only difference between the runs was the addition of about 10 litres of 102 RON fuel to a half tank of 95 and an ECU reset.
Driving the car, the power difference was imperceptible. The car did feel smoother and more responsive, but up high, I really didn't think there was any difference. On the rollers however, there was a clear 20 hp gain.
Boost was also up all the way across (1.9 bar) giving good early torque but there was a massive drop in torque at 5000 rpm that then leveled out before dying at 6500. This dip in the torque curve is almost certainly down to timing. Whether it is that the timing hadn't readvanced yet after the reset or whether it the fuel still isn't good enough to get optimum ignition advance I don't know. However, I am now very sure if I could run the car constantly on good fuel, the full 340 hp and 320 lb/ft would be easily available.
I personally thought your torque curve looked really impressive, especially beside the Sti's and even the P1. Insofar as it is possible to tell from the curve, I'd say it's a bit of an animal on the road.
I know it is very frustrating spending money and not getting the results (it happened to me before) but as Andy says, if you want roller results, you have to map on the rollers. If you did, with your set up, you'd easily see 300+ on torque and hp.
Don't know if the car would drive any better however.
There is an interesting post on the lancer register site where they put the FQ340 against the FQ400 on the road in a variety of tests. In almost all of the various head to heads that they conducted, the FQ340 was actually quicker than the 400 despite giving it a full 60 hp. The 340 pulled like the 330d you mentioned and got clear ahead well early on and the 400 was never able to close the gap.
Balls out however, the 400 was ultimately the quicker car (albeit not by much) as with its extra horses it could pull further in each gear and the initial gains of the 340 were eventually pulled in and surpassed.
I'd say if you put your machine alongside some of the similarly powered cars from Saturday, you might find a similar result.
Also, I'd say if you were to run some better fuel for a while, those losses might well disappear.
More importantly, how much will you lose when you move over to TT land?
Jesus, and I thought I was bad going for an Evo.
Type 25 man, has to be at that budget.
Seriously think about it, the last one is 350 and 355 lb/ft, the new one is 425 and 400. Ok it won't be quite that on our fuel, but oh my God, what a car.
In any event, you absolutely must have over 300 lb/ft it's essential, you won't last. No way.
[/quote]
Well said, Just one little thing regards the people not checking there torque / curve ETC. A couple people I know of there on Sat know all about ( or at least have there opinion on ) rolling roads and see it as a day out but thats it, so maybe thats why they may not have been so concerned with there sheets as much as people normally would IMO. But Im sure everyone had a good luck at them at home or later that eveing.
but personally a road map would make me feel happier as i belive that the tarmac is where the car belongs just a personal opinon