cam upgrade & big bore throttle body

[Kos]

mattG had MS on his touring before the turbo, that only made a touch over factory power. he was expecting more and disapointed with the outcome, but he did admit it was smother to drive and more mod range grunt.

[fowler]

but his engine was hanging and he knows this he said it himself
but 175 out of a low comp is good remember they are between 150-168 at best then he has put an urbo on it jesus i am suprised it has lasted this long.

[Kos]

i await the proof, even then i doubt it.

the TB is still th original size and airflow getting in is the same

[fowler]

fair enough but do i care !!!

[1an]

fowler ill be putting your theory to good use in the new year, wold be quite intrested to know more etc and see the graphs if possible.

[fowler]

not a prob mate feel free i am usually around you are not far from the workshop pop down pm me for details

[toby]

Unfortunately, drifting off topic a little at times here.


This thread was a query on possible ways to compensate for a loss in low down torque when fitting a higher lift cam.

This is about torque not power and what help such as MAF BBTB etc.

Don't get me wrong, some interesting chat here.

Cheers
Toby

[M5pilot]

daimler,

we can have an open discussion about what's the most cost effective way is on here.

No matter what system you go with the aim is to remove the AFM and replace it with a more efficient air metering device.

The one thing no one can run away from is that a rolling road remap of some sort is going to be required. It doesn't have to be the balls out "every load point" remap which could be expensive, it could be just live remapping the full throttle and then doing a general percentage change on part throttle for ignition timing and fuel. This would be far less time consuming and cheaper. Atleast the full throttle will be fully optimised here.

I think it's important that as many different type of options are given to people as everyone has a different budget.

Sal

Sal, can you re-map my Toaster?

You mean the Silver one with the black Azev's?....

[Ant]

Yeah a little off topic but its all relevant info IMHO.

Cam.BTB.BBTB and all the required gaskets and/or labour soon adds up,

These are the dyno sheets for the car in question, pretty consistent power over the 6 runs carried out,

NO mods to the engine, stock M20B25K with 81K miles, stock TB and inlet, ITG airfilter and stock TB elbow, std OE log manifold and front/centre with Mongoose rear box.

Control Mods are MsnS-E with wasted spark and 440cc/min injectors( coz I'm too lazy to swop the OE back, these are 27% duty cycle @ WOT ) Walbro255 fuel pump.






For the record an M50tu with no cats and cone filter makes 215 on the same dyno, Wills M50(parkside built ??) did similar figures iirc on similar equipment

Dyno used is Fritz Bitz, for those that dont know its Clive from Prism Engineerings old unit.

[fowler]

Cheers ant told you i was not lying so

[bss325i]

I'm at a point where im not sure what to do next purely because of all these conflicting oppinions. I have been folowing this thread from the begining and it seems no one can agree on what is the best route to take.
My car is a low comp 325i sport with only 42k. It has an ITG and is about to have fitted a BTB, sebring center and scorpion back box. Im now ready to go the next step and do something with the engine management but not sure what? I dont want a chip as this is not versatile enough and i want to loose the AFM for obvious reasons. I may have a cam change at this point as well to a 272 scrhrick but management mod takes priority over this. Ive heard good things about the Dastek Unichip and every man and his dog seem to rave about Megasquirt. Im not exactly sure of the cost of either of these or what my other options are with regard to management.

[snoops]

Ant do you know what power the car made stock before any of these mods?

[fowler]

BSS i am in kenley so if you want a chin wag overa pint just drop me a line on my number in my sig
but personally i recomend mega squirt!!! with a cam ! should be a good car.
price range not sure have a rough figure but it can't be quoted without a pyhsical inspection.

[M5pilot]

Ant,

200 + BHP from a stock engine with Stand Alone?

Oguz's rebuilt 2.7 (which you made) with high compression, BTB 6 Branch, CAT CAM, Big Bore throttle body, ITG intake and your own chip makes 225 bhp on another dyno with the same software.
So your telling us that all that work only accounts to an extra 25 bhp and 15 lb.ft ?

The Alpina 2.7 engine in the car I take care of has a Schrick 284/272, BTB, BBTB and ITG and has standalone and barely makes 220 bhp on a good day.

I can come to 2 conclusions:

1) That dyno is massively out of calibration or the operator has made a mistake somewhere.

2) Your engine is not a 2.5 and the previous owner had a displacement change

Another thing you have to look at here is that the same car with the same management made 210-220 bhp when it had a turbo strapped to it?

Surely you of all people should understand that something just doesn't add up here?

Sal

[M5pilot]

I'm at a point where im not sure what to do next purely because of all these conflicting oppinions. I have been folowing this thread from the begining and it seems no one can agree on what is the best route to take.
My car is a low comp 325i sport with only 42k. It has an ITG and is about to have fitted a BTB, sebring center and scorpion back box. Im now ready to go the next step and do something with the engine management but not sure what? I dont want a chip as this is not versatile enough and i want to loose the AFM for obvious reasons. I may have a cam change at this point as well to a 272 scrhrick but management mod takes priority over this. Ive heard good things about the Dastek Unichip and every man and his dog seem to rave about Megasquirt. Im not exactly sure of the cost of either of these or what my other options are with regard to management.

Barry,

before you decide on any management upgrade you should have a look at the pro's and con's of the available systems.

Here's my opinion based on experience of many cars with management upgrades:

1 - Unichip/Custom Chip: Both achieve the same result but the unichip is easier to map with and the cost of further remapping is usually very cheap if you upgrade anything else in the car. Your stock ECU is used and hence all of the research and development put into the mapping by BMW is still present.
Not many people appreciate how much work goes into creating a map by a manufacturer.

2 - Standlone systems: Cold start issues are very difficult to get around.
You have to have access to someone who knows how to map for both power and driveability UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. This is an absolute nightmare and those who have experience of this will confirm this.

If I could go back and choose between MAF conversion using the stock ECU and standalone management on the Alpina I would choose MAF everytime for an every day car. While the throttle response and control of low end power is brilliant the consistency is so difficult to get spot on and this in turn affects driveability.

With the standalone I am finding myself now adding a MAF which will give me pretty much the same thing as a MAF conversion but the only difference being that I have an aftermarket ECU which has a little more resolution.

Ultimately the difference in power between standalone and the OE ECU is very small on normally aspirated cars if using the same air metering devices.

My personal favourite is the Unichip/MAF conversion. Your using an OE ECU and OE BMW MAF (from a later BMW) and simply adjusting the fuelling and timing to suit. The results have always been good and the mapping can be catered for most modifications to get target fuelling and ignition timing.

Sal

[fowler]

- Unichip/Custom Chip: Both achieve the same result btu the unichip is easier to map with and the cost of further remapping is usually very cheap if you upgrade anything else in the car. Your stock ECU is used and hence all of the research and development put into the mapping by BMW is still present.
Not many people appreciate how much work goes into creating a map by a manufacturer.

Yes but there are many down fall to this as you are releativly still relaying ton the old Motornic system ( which is over 30 years old)
so the piggy back chip is not really a worth while mod as it costs the same as having squirt fitted.

2 - Standlone systems: Cold start issues are very difficult to get around.
You have to have access to someone who knows how to map for both power and driveability UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. This is an absolute nightmare and those who have experience of this will confirm this.

these cold start issues have been addressed and now you can't tell the car is running on standalone.
plus there are so many peopl who can use the squirt software as it has become quite universal and rebranded for diffrent manufacturers. eg specter is a rebranded mega squirt ina diffrent box.
if standalone is so bad why have most top modfying companies used it.
also the cost of standalone has reduced some what considerably.
in the question of Ozguz car yet again hehas an AFM and a 20 year old system running it. Plus from Ozguz car the fueling runs out at the top end so the engine could make more power with m30 injectors and a larger fuel pump you would prob see at best 240i ish with stand alone i think 250 could be possible.
this are all advances which should be welcomed not protested.

My personaly favourite is the Unichip/MAF conversion. Your using an OE BMW MAF and simply adjusting the fuelling and timing to suit.

IMHO for that money for the piggy back chip and maf and mapping time its not worth it.
still using an old system SAL
the technoledgy used there sal is what people where using on sierra Cosworths in the late 80's

[M5pilot]

Fowler,

the first thing I'd like to say is that it's refreshing to see someone who has the ability to have a grown up discussion on this forum about something so delicate and where opinions can differ so much. Keep it up mate, hopefully others will follow!

I would say that Ant's car in the same condition should be dynoed elsewhere before such results can be verified. I personally don't believe them and it's not like I don't have experience. The MBE sytem on the Alpina I have has more resolution than the MS and it's had 100's of hours worth of mapping. I have various maps for full load of which some are very aggressive. That engine has much higher compression than Ant's and all of the above mentioned bolt on mods and a decent cam. On both Bexleys and my own dyno the results range from 210-220 bhp depending on the conditions.

If Ant's car does put down that power again then I'll ask him to remove the MS and go back to stock and we'll take another measurement. Only then can we see what difference the standalone has made with the AFM delete.
It may just be that Ant's engine puts down a hell of alot more power than any other 2.5.

The question of Bosch withUnichip vs Standalone:

You say that you are ditching the Motronic for a more modern system? Your actually not going forward much at all with the standalone on an NA M20 engine. The main difference between the ECU's will be the resolution. The Motronic has trim maps for coolant temp, air intake temp etc etc. So does standalone. The resolution on the Bosch ECU is more than enough for a road car. We are talking about the later ECU's, not the 073's!

The standalone systems are hardly more advanced. The actual difference is that they can be more customised when major changes are made.

If it's a simple case of losing the AFM on an engine, standalone gives little in terms of driveability and performance over the standard motronic with a unichip.

However, if your adding a turbo or supercharger to your engine then the standalone really does have a huge advantage.

It's not about technology, it's about application.

The cost of a MAF conversion using the unichip is about £800 and at most £40 for fuel for mapping. The cost of a standalone system is usually £1000+ once you've accounted for the MAF, labour to fit & map it and buying the sensors and main unit. Then, you have the countless hours of mapping which will cost fuel.....lots of fuel!
You could avoid using a MAF and use a MAP sensor but for a road car the MAF is going to give ultimate driveability.

Top companies have used standalone? Are we talking about tuning companies? What was the application when it was used?

Sal

[Ant]

Anyone that wishes to discredit the dyno better take it up with Fritz bitz, me I'm happy to set the cat amongst the pidgeons here as usual.......

Re Sals comment, same car with Ms and turbo making only 20hp more- true but 5.2psi and running mid 10 AFR on the day it way dyno would have cost almost 30 hp Sal, even you'll have to admit the easiest way to kill power is running too rich, it did have 218 lbs/ft of torque from 1809 rpms to 5200 though.....

My engine is stock, B25, no hidden stroker crank or headwork- anyone wishing to pull it apart for inspection is more than welcome, just put it all back as you found it please

Re Oz's 2.7, that runs over 220hp on any dyno its straped too, and there's more power to come from that yet as it 14.9 @ wot due to the injectors being maxxed out, so adding some M30 units and a management tweak( thats up to the owner ) should see that up into the mid 240's and gain back some midrange grunt the BTB manifold robbed it of.

Tobys original qusetion wa how to retain torque- easy, ditch the AFM and remap the load sites to concentrate the delivery where you want it to be.

FYI, my car on the fritz dyno is using 5x12 load sites, the rest are above atmospheric pressure still as the map is a turbo map, 14 x16 is possible and would possibly make more midrange still.

Test pilots welcome BTW,

On the same day, same dyno, same operator a tuned M30 did 260hp. M50 did 215, M40T did 171 and a stock iS runs 134 , out of calibration ?????

[fowler]

I would say that Ant's car in the same condition should be dynoed elsewhere before such results can be verified. I personally don't believe them and it's not like I don't have experience. The MBE sytem on the Alpina I have has more resolution than the MS and it's had 100's of hours worth of mapping. I have various maps for full load of which some are very aggressive. That engine has much higher compression than Ant's and all of the above mentioned bolt on mods and a decent cam. On both Bexleys and my own dyno the results range from 210-220 bhp depending on the conditions.

In the terms of resolution i believe the new V3 board has alot more than previous versions of MS. Plus i believe there are some subtle differences on one bought from the dealers in the uk and Ant. Not sure what the diferences are.
As to say about the alpina i believe you have BBTB, BBTB exhaust, MBE, and a well lairy cam, i am not sure if you are still using a MAF on the MBE.
But what i am trying to say at this point is that with no obstructions to the airflow into the engine just passina a subtle element on the way to the TB the cold air as no choice but to rush into the Inlet at a larger rate. comapred with an obstruction of a MAF grid etc.

The standalone systems are hardly more advanced. The actual difference is that they can be more customised when major changes are made.
or when no changes are made they can be optimised to get full potential out of an engine.

If it's a simple case of losing the AFM on an engine, standalone gives little in terms of driveability and performance over the standard motronic with a unichip.

I cannot comment on this as i have only driven 1 car with uni chip and this was not mapped properly.
SAL you know what car!
but i can compare between a car with cam, bbtb, and exhaust compared with a car on standalone with larger injectors and uprated fuel pump(car was turbo) and it would be very hard to tell between them as the power delivery in each car was totally different but they can both be appretiated for what they are.
but to consider the cost of each. stand alone works out a little cheaper with the prospect of future mods being catered for quite easily. with the case of either a simple road test with data log function activated. or a mapping session.

I dont disagree with what you are saying that mapping is a long process. but once you have done one engine, each engine built after that will cost considerably less to map as the fundemenatls are already there.

It's not about technology, it's about application.

I am in agreement with the above statement.

The cost of a MAF conversion using the unichip is about £800 and at most £40 for fuel for mapping. The cost of a standalone system is usually £1000+ once you've accounted for the MAF, labour to fit & map it and buying the sensors and main unit. Then, you have the countless hours of mapping which will cost fuel.....lots of fuel!
You could avoid using a MAF and use a MAP sensor but for a road car the MAF is going to give ultimate driveability

As i said in my previous post that the cost has come down quite considerably but i think each method is about the same in price.
I know there is a kit that has been developed By A-Tech which includes all required pieces for an M20 to be converted to standalone.
Yes there are some labour costs.
but the same as the Uni chip.

Top companies have used standalone? Are we talking about tuning companies? What was the application when it was used?

I know of several top tuning companies that use standalone, yes they are on diffrent vehicle mainly japanese, and your usual suspects cosworths, rs turbo's, and several high performance sports cars for example a Honda NSX, porsche 993 i think

[M5pilot]

Let's assume the dyno calibration is ok and the operator didn't make a mistake.

When you come here and have your car dynoed against other cars with and without the MS setup (you do say it takes 20 mins to reverse) we'll see the difference. You never know, I may learn something about the basics of igntion timing and fuelling from you .

At this point I refuse to believe your stock engine tuned with MS is more powerful than Nadeem Hejazi's old engine which had 6 branch, throttle body, Cam and MAF conversion.

I'd also like to correct you on the BTB manifold robbing OZ's 2.7 of midrange grunt. Would you mind removing the manifold and getting the car dynoed again to back up your claim?

Let us look back at the BTB vs stock manifold test done on a Dyno Dynamics dyno - on a 2.5 the loss is below 3500 rpms which is regarded to be "low" and not "mid" range.

[fowler]

I'd also like to correct you on the BTB manifold robbing OZ's 2.7 of midrange grunt. Would you mind removing the manifold and getting the car dynoed again to back up your claim?

it also down to how the A-tech 2.7 engine was designed with all the power coming in differently compared with the conventional 2.7 mid to high Grunt as they are famous for.
All i can say is every 2.7 is built diffrently, but most 2.7 stick to a similar formula
I know that an A-Tech 2.7 revs completely diffrently compared to an alpina 2.7 as there has been some engine development techniques since the alpina was built.

[M5pilot]

Fowler,

the Alpina has no MAF or AFM.

Which car have you driven with a Unichip? PM me if you don't want to say out loud

If someone is looking to continuously upgrade their car and possibly add a turbo in the future then it may be worth considering standalone.
If someone just wants to lose the AFM and replace with a MAF and possibly have cam and other bolt on upgrades the MAF conversion is the way to go.

Oh, and I've tested putting a MAF in the inlet on the Alpina. The Alpina runs without any air metering device and I decided to put the MAF in unconnected to see if any power is lost. This MAF had smoothing plates on both sides.

Guess what......there was no power loss at all. Nothing.

As for companies using standalone over the strock ECU. This would need to be done say if very wild cams are used and the variable valve timing system has to be taken out. Then standalone is the only option. On turbo cars when major changes have been made the tuners may not have the skill to remap the origional ECU and hence standalone is the only option. It's not because it's better.

On cars even as old as the E36 M3 the ECU's are extremely powerful. MS, MBE and most other aftermarket ECU's are a joke in comparison.

The only time E36 M3's have their ECU removed is when very very lairy cams are used and the vanos is removed.

Sal

[M5pilot]

I'd also like to correct you on the BTB manifold robbing OZ's 2.7 of midrange grunt. Would you mind removing the manifold and getting the car dynoed again to back up your claim?

it also down to how the A-tech 2.7 engine was designed with all the power coming in differently compared with the conventional 2.7 mid to high Grunt as they are famous for.
All i can say is every 2.7 is built diffrently, but most 2.7 stick to a similar formula
I know that an A-Tech 2.7 revs completely diffrently compared to an alpina 2.7 as there has been some engine development techniques since the alpina was built.

Yes, the ETA crank is used in place of the 324TD crank. A backward step in most people's eyes.

The Alpina uses lighter pistons which are specifically made for the job.

I have come across engines that rev aswell but not any better.

Oz was kind enough to allow me to drive his car. It revved well but nothing out of the ordinary. Makes excellent power though but he does have all the best bolt on bits you can buy and has a cam profile designed to give very big top end power.

I might give the CAT CAM a go, it would be no harm if the Alpina lost some low end torque, it's got huge amount.

LOL.....have you bought shares in A-Tech?

[fowler]

No shares yet !!! LOL
No it just my opinion and my knowledge as hopefully my new job will let me expand my knowledge further.
I believe that what has been dicussed in this thread is that which ever rout that is taken each has their advantages and disadvantages. the whole thread should give a neutralist a very good idea of what is available to them.
IN your opinion its
uni chip route
IMHO
i believe standalone route
so i beileve we can agree to disagree that each method can be equally met. with the right budget.

[M5pilot]

I've some questions about the Dastek Dyno graph:

Does this dyno have an temperatuere probe to determine the intake temperature?

What was the ambient temperature and air intake temperature during the tests? What was the power at the wheels? What was your tyre pressure?

What was the correction factor if any?

These are some of the major factors can impact results.

Why do run 5 and 1 have such a dramatic difference in low end power/torque?

Sal

[Ant]

there are plenty of ECU systems out there with more load sites than Ms/VEMS and EMS7100, that fact has nothing to do with the resoloution of the systems.

MS has 10x the PWM resoloution of any of its relatives( 100 time in case of MS2 ), and every tooth counting so although the laod sites at ( std unit) 12 x 12 seems paltry, the end result is when extrapolating between sites the MS is simply faster calculating the linear changes, the idea being to focus the mapping sites where they are needed( big cams and so on ) and let the CPU worry about the rest, want more sites ? switch to twin or triple tables and get 12 x12 x 3 , easy as clicking two boxes in the software and cracking on with the mapping.

clock speed of the CPU is more relavant than anyone would give credit for, and using 2 processors to fiddle the OE system does nothing to help that situation imho.

piggy back an 8 bit system with a 16 bit piggyback and the whole thing will only run at the speed of the slowest link in the chain, so 8 bits at best, swop in a 32 bit ( or in the case of VEMS a 128 bit) standalone and its a different kettle of fish altogether.

Look at the graph from my car, 5 x 12 load sites remember, still wanna discuss the lack of resoloution with regards to power, IGNORE the figures, just look @ the shape.

Good debate- possibly the best on here for a looooong time

[fowler]

Does this dyno have an temperatuere probe to determine the intake temperature?

not sure but it is clive's old Dyno unit from prism
now owned by
Fritz's bits

What was the ambient temperature and air intake temperature during the tests? What was the power at the wheels? What was your tyre pressure?

Not sure of the ambient temp around 17 dgrees i think
power at the wheels was from 170-175 bhp
Tyre pressure not sure normal road use 30 psi ??Ask Ant of A-tech !

What was the correction factor if any?

None

Why do run 5 and 1 have such a dramatic difference in low end power/torque?

Not sure fella ask Ant ! of A-Tech

Regards
Fowler aka ben

[M5pilot]

No shares yet !!! LOL
No it just my opinion and my knowledge as hopefully my new job will let me expand my knowledge further.
I believe that what has been dicussed in this thread is that which ever rout that is taken each has their advantages and disadvantages. the whole thread should give a neutralist a very good idea of what is available to them.
IN your opinion its
uni chip route
IMHO
i believe standalone route
so i beileve we can agree to disagree that each method can be equally met. with the right budget.

I'm liking your style!

My opinions are based on actual experience across a wide range of cars with different spec both using standalone and standard ECU's.

Getting back to the point. If you want lots of low end torque you need to keep air speed high at low rpms. There are more than a few ways to achieve this but beware that as a result top end power can suffer or will not increase alot.

If you want both maximum low end torque and high end power then I suggest you either:

1) invest in getting variable valve timing installed (you need a big budget for this!)
2) fit an engine with vanos (double preferably)

Sal

[M5pilot]

175 bhp at the wheels......

OK, so this engine is producing within 12 bhp of the Alpina engine. All from removing the AFM and mapping to suit.

No correction on the dyno? Sure about that? That means if correction was used this engine would probably produce even more power!

Sal

[fowler]

I'm liking your style!

My opinions are based on actual experience across a wide range of cars with different spec both using standalone and standard ECU's.

Getting back to the point. If you want lots of low end torque you need to keep air speed high at low rpms. There are more than a few ways to achieve this but beware that as a result top end power can suffer or will not increase alot.

If you want both maximum low end torque and high end power then I suggest you either:

1) invest in getting variable valve timing installed (you need a big budget for this!)
2) fit an engine with vanos (double preferably)

Sal
_________________

Bit still vanos has its disadvantages as most E36 m3 owners can reiably say it can be a weak point if not maintained properly.
this is why power ratio is so greatly increased to displacement in modern cars.
due to technical developments
i think playing with vanos is the next step sal see if we can perfect this system next

[M5pilot]

Ant,

the shape of that graph looks similar to that of a standard 325i.

[Ant]

3) fit a flapper valve in the plenum to effectivly alter the volume and therefoire gas speed inside, as per a lot of mid to late 90's production vehicles, example, M5, Vectra V6, alfa V6, Audi V6... Before the explosion in VVT control technologies

VVT systems alter the intake cams duration and/or lift, on the exhaust side the only purpose is to reduce emissions @ the tested "drive by" rpms to ensure the get SVA type approval( or equiv)

all MHO only though ok



@ Ben( Fowler ) you've learnt a lot in the last few months huh dude

Edit: thanks Sal, praise indeed, 5X12 and massively oversized injectors, props indeed

[M5pilot]

I'm liking your style!

My opinions are based on actual experience across a wide range of cars with different spec both using standalone and standard ECU's.

Getting back to the point. If you want lots of low end torque you need to keep air speed high at low rpms. There are more than a few ways to achieve this but beware that as a result top end power can suffer or will not increase alot.

If you want both maximum low end torque and high end power then I suggest you either:

1) invest in getting variable valve timing installed (you need a big budget for this!)
2) fit an engine with vanos (double preferably)

Sal
_________________

Bit still vanos has its disadvantages as most E36 m3 owners can reiably say it can be a weak point if not maintained properly.
this is why power ratio is so greatly increased to displacement in modern cars.
due to technical developments
i think playing with vanos is the next step sal see if we can perfect this system next

Disadvantages are only down to reliability of the early units, a majority of S50's have no vanos issues.

I can adjust vanos profile already. It makes a very big difference to the torquye curve and also top end power.

Sal

[M5pilot]

3) fit a flapper valve in the plenum to effectivly alter the volume and therefoire gas speed inside, as per a lot of mid to late 90's production vehicles, example, M5, Vectra V6, alfa V6, Audi V6... Before the explosion in VVT control technologies

VVT systems alter the intake cams duration and/or lift, on the exhaust side the only purpose is to reduce emissions @ the tested "drive by" rpms to ensure the get SVA type approval( or equiv)

all MHO only though ok



@ Ben( Fowler ) you've learnt a lot in the last few months huh dude

Edit: thanks Sal, praise indeed, 5X12 and massively oversized injectors, props indeed

So vanos only aids emissions does it. Not true.

That's why my S38 engine even with it's plenum "flap" cannot even hope to muster the same amount of low end torque as a much smaller 3.2 S50 engine with twin vanos? No matter how many changes you make it just doesn't even come close.

The S50 engine gives the most incredible flat torque curve.

An S38 engine with vanos......

[M5pilot]

Ant,

did you not say to me yesterday that your car was as quick as Oz's car?

Or were you just exagerating as usual?

So, massively big injectors give you lots of power with a 5x12 map....mmm......

Bring the car here. Atleast we can tell you what your fuelling is like...lol!


Tell me more about the intake and ambient temps and the corrections on the dyno.

Sal