Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: minifreek on 06 March 2014, 12:47:23
-
I have recently rebuilt the top end of my X25XE and installed 4 x G cams (3.0 cams) a 3.0 litre lower divider, 2.5V6 Vectra Challenge blueprinted heads port matched and knife edged to the 3.0 lower divider built by Swindon racing Engines...
I will be going to a rolling road with another Vauxhall car club and am expecting around 170BHP off a standard X25XE, with me having the 3 litre cams and divider etc.. and the ported heads would i be expecting around the 200BHP mark or just below or more...? I also need to fit a Facet adjustable fuel pressure regulator to help with the fuelling...
Anyone any ideas what i could expect...??
-
Around 190bhp.
Exhaust manifolds are a big obstruction.
-
Around 190bhp.
Exhaust manifolds are a big obstruction.
agreed..
-
Yes, to get close to the 200bhp you would need to at least for the manifolds from a the 2.6/3.2 which are imrpoved over the stock 2.5/3.0 ones.
-
Would the 2.6/3.2 manifolds fit on the X25 heads...?
I would like to fit tubulars but they are so damn expensive, I know they are probably the best to use but out of my pocket range at the moment... unless I can get the flanges and I'll weld my own up :)
-
if you want more power, bore to 3.0 or even bigger and use 3.2 crank
-
I do want more power BUT i have a limited budget (as we all do) and want to know what 'off the shelf mods' there are for that little bit extra...
I could get a 3.2 and drop that in - for instant power BUT i also need the time to do it, and another car whilst this is off the road etc...
I'll live with what Iv got for now I guess :)
Which of the fuel lines do I connect the adjustable FPR to... ?
Is it the thicker of the 2 lines..? 1 is 19mm and the other is 17mm, I presume the 17mm is the return..?
-
Would the 2.6/3.2 manifolds fit on the X25 heads...?
I would like to fit tubulars but they are so damn expensive, I know they are probably the best to use but out of my pocket range at the moment... unless I can get the flanges and I'll weld my own up :)
Yes but you do have to trim 5mm off the front pipe (not hard)
-
I presume the 3.2 manifolds are a bigger bore size...?
When you say you need to trim 5mm off the front, how do you mean please :)
And do the downpipes etc... just bolt up or do I need to get 3.0 litre downpipes and middle sections etc...?
Sorry for the questions but this Omega and the V6 is a learning curve for me at the moment as Im used to 4 pot engines...
-
I do want more power BUT i have a limited budget (as we all do) and want to know what 'off the shelf mods' there are for that little bit extra...
I could get a 3.2 and drop that in - for instant power BUT i also need the time to do it, and another car whilst this is off the road etc...
I'll live with what Iv got for now I guess :)
Which of the fuel lines do I connect the adjustable FPR to... ?
Is it the thicker of the 2 lines..? 1 is 19mm and the other is 17mm, I presume the 17mm is the return..?
IMHO this is a total waste of time and money ... :)
Reasons : The combustion cycle is controlled in closed loop by the lambdas telling the ECU what the composition of the exhaust gases is... the ECU then "trims" the fuel to obtain the correct stoichiometric ratio. The fuel "trimming" is done by changing the open time of the fuel injectors. If you up the fuel pressure then for the first minute of closed loop operation you will get more fuel into each cylinder as the injector timing will be for the "old, low" pressure... the lambdas will sense an incorrect fuel/air mix and the ECU will shorten the injector open time to reduce the fuel input ..... hence negating the high fuel pressure... so the standard FPR is as good as any adjustable one .... :)
To increase the power by using fuel you need both more fuel AND MORE AIR to maintain the stoichiometric ratio ...... so forced induction of some description .. :)
Just my thoughts .. nowt else :)
-
Thanks for that Entwood, I welcome your input and opinion, however, I have found that on my old car, a Vectra B with X20XEV installed, the adjustable FPR produced power.... I removed the original FPR 3.2 bar (?) and replaced with the Facet FPR it went from 135 BHP to just over 141 BHP on standard cams....
The cams where then replaced for FR cams and it then produced 150BHP at standard pressure, with the adjustable FPR it made 159... a good increase.... for not a lot of outlay...
It should have ran 135-139 BHP standard - I was happy with the results...
As to my question, which fuel line do I connect the FPR to....? is it the thick or thin fuel line...
The FPR was taken from a Westfield track car which suffered a lot of damage from impact as was too far gone to repair - unfortunately.... the owner of the Westfield would adjust the FPR from 3.2 Bar for road use and when on track would adjust it to 5 bar, if it didnt work then I dont think he would have bothered with it... he was that kind of bloke..
-
Thanks for that Entwood, I welcome your input and opinion, however, I have found that on my old car, a Vectra B with X20XEV installed, the adjustable FPR produced power.... I removed the original FPR 3.2 bar (?) and replaced with the Facet FPR it went from 135 BHP to just over 141 BHP on standard cams....
The cams where then replaced for FR cams and it then produced 150BHP at standard pressure, with the adjustable FPR it made 159... a good increase.... for not a lot of outlay...
It should have ran 135-139 BHP standard - I was happy with the results...
As to my question, which fuel line do I connect the FPR to....? is it the thick or thin fuel line...
The FPR was taken from a Westfield track car which suffered a lot of damage from impact as was too far gone to repair - unfortunately.... the owner of the Westfield would adjust the FPR from 3.2 Bar for road use and when on track would adjust it to 5 bar, if it didnt work then I dont think he would have bothered with it... he was that kind of bloke..
The Westfield probably didn't have a lambda controlled closed loop ECU..... in which case overfueling could increase power; deliberate overfueling can be used to lower the initial temperature of the charge air, and to prevent overheating of the "burned" charge .... I don't dispute that..... on many cars I have fitted larger jets to carbs to increase the fuel/air ratio ... my point here is quite simple ... on a closed loop lambda/ECU system with full fuel trimming via variable timed injectors it simply won't make any difference without re-mapping the ECU... .. :)
-
I MAY have some 2.6 manifolds avaialble if it dries up this weekend enough to unbolt the exhausts
-
Thanks for that Entwood, I welcome your input and opinion, however, I have found that on my old car, a Vectra B with X20XEV installed, the adjustable FPR produced power.... I removed the original FPR 3.2 bar (?) and replaced with the Facet FPR it went from 135 BHP to just over 141 BHP on standard cams....
The cams where then replaced for FR cams and it then produced 150BHP at standard pressure, with the adjustable FPR it made 159... a good increase.... for not a lot of outlay...
It should have ran 135-139 BHP standard - I was happy with the results...
As to my question, which fuel line do I connect the FPR to....? is it the thick or thin fuel line...
The FPR was taken from a Westfield track car which suffered a lot of damage from impact as was too far gone to repair - unfortunately.... the owner of the Westfield would adjust the FPR from 3.2 Bar for road use and when on track would adjust it to 5 bar, if it didnt work then I dont think he would have bothered with it... he was that kind of bloke..
The Westfield probably didn't have a lambda controlled closed loop ECU..... in which case overfueling could increase power; deliberate overfueling can be used to lower the initial temperature of the charge air, and to prevent overheating of the "burned" charge .... I don't dispute that..... on many cars I have fitted larger jets to carbs to increase the fuel/air ratio ... my point here is quite simple ... on a closed loop lambda/ECU system with full fuel trimming via variable timed injectors it simply won't make any difference without re-mapping the ECU... .. :)
OK I understand exactly what you are saying.... the engine was a C20XE.....
-
I MAY have some 2.6 manifolds avaialble if it dries up this weekend enough to unbolt the exhausts
Your miles away LOL would cost a fortune to courier them Id have thought...?
-
The original manifolds (2.5/3.0) are thick walled cast iron, the later ones are thin welded formed steel and have improved flow characteristics.
The only mod required is to take your existing front pipes and on the end, where the front pipe to manifold gasket sits, is a metal lip, this needs cutting back by about 5mm to allow it to correctly mate with the later steel manifolds.
As for the FPR, dont waste money on over priced ones if your set on getting one, get a 3.7 BAR one off a 2.6/3.2 and dont expect great gains, you might see a little during WOT (although unlikely but this will be the only place you might see some as the setup is in open loop control during WOT) but, the block learn valves will have adjusted any short term gains out of the setup automaticaly after a few miles.
As for what you saw on your Vectra, the 'gains' are less than the accuracy of the rolling road which have very varied results dependent on operator, time of day, weather conditions yadda yadda yadda....basicaly, a rolling road is not accurate so take them with a pinch of salt.
-
As others have said, the ECU will trim back anything that allows more fuel in, without getting more air in. That's what a close loop system does, and with each new Euro emission standard, the ECU maps have to get tighter and tighter and tighter.
So, whilst you may get a short term gain (beyond any placebo effect), the ECU will simply, and quickly, learn and trim it right back.
As to the rolling road results, that's too close to call, given I bet I could put my supposedly 200+bhp Omegas on 3 different rolling roads, and get +/- 10% easily. Additionally, due to the nature of the clientele that many rolling roads are marketing at (the my-cock-is-bigger-than-yours pub bragging), they do tend to be somewhat optimistic
-
Yep, rolling roads can be quite repeatable, if atmospheric conditions are properly compensated and the rollers are maintained and used meticulously. I've seen Dave Walker's rollers produce figures within a few BHP for the same car on different dates. You can't normally rely on a rolling road, or an engine management system, to be that consistent, so your gains are probably "in the noise".
Sadly, that "baseball cap on backwards" types who normally operate such facilities really don't understand what they are doing and, especially if they have a vested interest in fudging the results so that their tuning mods look good, can't be relied upon.
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
-
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
Good luck, be interesting to see a before, after, and after 1 month.
Would also be interesting to see the LTFT readings after a few days :y
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
Pretty sure the 17 mm nut is the return :y
-
my experience with the 2.5 is that, after port polishing and 3.0 cams, I felt low rpm torque values are lower than before, as the car pull is not like before.. however, upper range rpm hp values are obviously much higher.. this was visible on dyno.. - 187 hp - so be aware in daily usage on streets higher flow exhaust manifolds wont help your consumption and torque values..
-
I'd not expect much of a gain without properly adjusting the fuelling - and by that I mean a bespoke map.
There's a lot of misinformation about the 4 "G" cams. Yes, they were installed in the 2.5 Vectra GSi for 200 BHP, BUT this was with a fuel map to suit. changing the cams alone is not a recipe to get the same output I'm afraid.
As a counterpoint, my 2.6 had 4 "G" cams in it when I bought it. I had "before and after" dyno tests conducted when I put the original cams in and picked up 8HP by going back to the original.
I'm predicting 185BHP if the dyno is properly calibrated. So that's 175 to 195 in the real world
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
So hard at times just to get a straight answer huh! So many unasked for opinions at times its quite frustrating! Spend your money as you see fit and do as you want matey, i'm all for pulling away from the crowd as i have done with my Miggy 8) :y
-
my experience with the 2.5 is that, after port polishing and 3.0 cams, I felt low rpm torque values are lower than before, as the car pull is not like before.. however, upper range rpm hp values are obviously much higher.. this was visible on dyno.. - 187 hp - so be aware in daily usage on streets higher flow exhaust manifolds wont help your consumption and torque values..
must note also
port polish+
+cams
+throttle modified
I changed 2.5 ecu to 3.0 ecu
and used used 3.0 inlet divider
and get 187 hp ;D original was 143 ???
and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp ;D
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
So hard at times just to get a straight answer huh! So many unasked for opinions at times its quite frustrating! Spend your money as you see fit and do as you want matey, i'm all for pulling away from the crowd as i have done with my Miggy 8) :y
Thankyou for a straight and honest answer :) y)
I have noticed, since joining this forum, that there are many unwanted opinions/answers but I guess thats just how it is...
I do value opinions from most but when I ask a simple question I do kinda expect a simple answer, if I want an opinion, I will ask... such as calling something like 'tracking' and I get an unwated answer of 'I hope you really mean a full geometric set-up' - no I mean tracking... end of... :) but just my opinion on the matter...
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
So hard at times just to get a straight answer huh! So many unasked for opinions at times its quite frustrating! Spend your money as you see fit and do as you want matey, i'm all for pulling away from the crowd as i have done with my Miggy 8) :y
Thankyou for a straight and honest answer :) y)
I have noticed, since joining this forum, that there are many unwanted opinions/answers but I guess thats just how it is...
I do value opinions from most but when I ask a simple question I do kinda expect a simple answer, if I want an opinion, I will ask... such as calling something like 'tracking' and I get an unwated answer of 'I hope you really mean a full geometric set-up' - no I mean tracking... end of... :) but just my opinion on the matter...
Many an Omega has ended up scrapped in frustration from ignoring that particular piece of advice...
As to the fuel rail, it's clearly the smaller one, although all that 'opinion' that people have posted, is actually detailed information as to why it won't work. You are of course free to ignore any posts which you don't like or agree with.
As to your first sentence, Paul didn't answer your question either ::)
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
So hard at times just to get a straight answer huh! So many unasked for opinions at times its quite frustrating! Spend your money as you see fit and do as you want matey, i'm all for pulling away from the crowd as i have done with my Miggy 8) :y
Thankyou for a straight and honest answer :) y)
I have noticed, since joining this forum, that there are many unwanted opinions/answers but I guess thats just how it is...
I do value opinions from most but when I ask a simple question I do kinda expect a simple answer, if I want an opinion, I will ask... such as calling something like 'tracking' and I get an unwated answer of 'I hope you really mean a full geometric set-up' - no I mean tracking... end of... :) but just my opinion on the matter...
Many an Omega has ended up scrapped in frustration from ignoring that particular piece of advice...
As to the fuel rail, it's clearly the smaller one, although all that 'opinion' that people have posted, is actually detailed information as to why it won't work. You are of course free to ignore any posts which you don't like or agree with.
As to your first sentence, Paul didn't answer your question either ::)
I did though,ages ago ???
-
Your miles away LOL would cost a fortune to courier them Id have thought...?
try these http://www.parcel2go.com/ (http://www.parcel2go.com/)
i got a 18" tyre sent for less than a tenner.
-
The rolling road I use and have always used is A&M Vauxhall specialists on Deeside (almost but not quite North Wales).
He doesn't cater for the CHAV baseball willy wavers..... he doesn't have time for them...
I have the adjustable Facet FPR already and will install it, when I find out which is the return feed for the tank....
So hard at times just to get a straight answer huh! So many unasked for opinions at times its quite frustrating! Spend your money as you see fit and do as you want matey, i'm all for pulling away from the crowd as i have done with my Miggy 8) :y
Thankyou for a straight and honest answer :) y)
I have noticed, since joining this forum, that there are many unwanted opinions/answers but I guess thats just how it is...
I do value opinions from most but when I ask a simple question I do kinda expect a simple answer, if I want an opinion, I will ask... such as calling something like 'tracking' and I get an unwated answer of 'I hope you really mean a full geometric set-up' - no I mean tracking... end of... :) but just my opinion on the matter...
Many an Omega has ended up scrapped in frustration from ignoring that particular piece of advice...
As to the fuel rail, it's clearly the smaller one, although all that 'opinion' that people have posted, is actually detailed information as to why it won't work. You are of course free to ignore any posts which you don't like or agree with.
As to your first sentence, Paul didn't answer your question either ::)
I did though,ages ago ???
Indeed you did Henry :y
Doubtless the OP will be along shortly to say thank you... ::)
-
my experience with the 2.5 is that, after port polishing and 3.0 cams, I felt low rpm torque values are lower than before, as the car pull is not like before.. however, upper range rpm hp values are obviously much higher.. this was visible on dyno.. - 187 hp - so be aware in daily usage on streets higher flow exhaust manifolds wont help your consumption and torque values..
must note also
port polish+
+cams
+throttle modified
I changed 2.5 ecu to 3.0 ecu
and used used 3.0 inlet divider
and get 187 hp ;D original was 143 ???
and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp ;D
Did installing the 3 litre ECU actually improve the BHP....? or is it simply a better map installed..?
@ Taxi Al - Im not going to start a tit for tat war, just accept that I value an opinion when I want or ask for one, not when I ask a completely different question... leave it alone and move on.... I mainly work on trial and error, if it dont work - remove and replace... if I install the Facet FPR onto the very clearly marked return pipe (BTW Im used to a 2 litre Vectra Ecotec engine and that isn't anything like the V6 engine as your probably no doubt aware) and that does have a return pipe, obviously, but is also not that easy to find.... so please forgive me if I ask too many questions about something Im not sure about....
@ Henryd = thankyou :) dunno when you answered my question but thankyou anyway :)
-
my experience with the 2.5 is that, after port polishing and 3.0 cams, I felt low rpm torque values are lower than before, as the car pull is not like before.. however, upper range rpm hp values are obviously much higher.. this was visible on dyno.. - 187 hp - so be aware in daily usage on streets higher flow exhaust manifolds wont help your consumption and torque values..
must note also
port polish+
+cams
+throttle modified
I changed 2.5 ecu to 3.0 ecu
and used used 3.0 inlet divider
and get 187 hp ;D original was 143 ???
and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp ;D
Did installing the 3 litre ECU actually improve the BHP....? or is it simply a better map installed..?
@ Taxi Al - Im not going to start a tit for tat war, just accept that I value an opinion when I want or ask for one, not when I ask a completely different question... leave it alone and move on.... I mainly work on trial and error, if it dont work - remove and replace... if I install the Facet FPR onto the very clearly marked return pipe (BTW Im used to a 2 litre Vectra Ecotec engine and that isn't anything like the V6 engine as your probably no doubt aware) and that does have a return pipe, obviously, but is also not that easy to find.... so please forgive me if I ask too many questions about something Im not sure about....
@ Henryd = thankyou :) dunno when you answered my question but thankyou anyway :)
143 bhp was measured with modified throttle and polished heads (head gasket was changed and valves before)
so 44 hp change cant be cam performance increase alone.. I also discovered that several days of hammering makes difference because of learning ecu which is also stated by dyno center.. so ecu map must be very effective..
-
I shall keep a lookout for a 3 litre ECU set :)
I passed up the chance to get 1 for nothing a couple of weeks ago when I removed a complete Irmscher bodykit ;) if Id have known I would have had that too ....
thanks
-
If you fit an adjustable aftermarket FPR into the fuel return line, what are you going to do about the existing one in the fuel rail? If I were going to use such a thing(and I really don't see the point), I'd be replacing the original with it.
You will need a means of measuring the resulting pressure too, otherwise you'll just be guessing at what you have/end up with. And that's a terrible way of working with sophisticated engine management systems.
My limited experience of such things is that it's just a way of adjusting how much worse you want the fuel economy to be, with little or no actual benefit.
-
The FPR has a pressure gauge on it to measure what pressure is being produced..... it replaces the existing FPR on the fuel rail, for some reason they are fitted on the fuel return line... I would have thought it would also be fitted to the main feed line but it isnt....
I need to modify a fuel rail that I have as a spare to fit this.... I shall fit it and see if it makes any difference...
Iv also been told - on here - to fit a FPR from a 3.2 as that runs a bigger pressure than the standard on the 2.5.... the adjustable FPR works in a similar way I would have thought but is adjustable...
If the 3.2 FPR makes power by letting a bigger pressure through the system then why cant an adjustable..
Economy Im not really that bothered about as the car isnt used for commuting, I am fulltime carer for my wife, so the car only gets used on short journeys 98% of the time... sometimes it goes onto a motorway, but only for about 10 miles or so....
-
The FPR has a pressure gauge on it to measure what pressure is being produced..... it replaces the existing FPR on the fuel rail, for some reason they are fitted on the fuel return line... I would have thought it would also be fitted to the main feed line but it isnt....
I need to modify a fuel rail that I have as a spare to fit this.... I shall fit it and see if it makes any difference...
Iv also been told - on here - to fit a FPR from a 3.2 as that runs a bigger pressure than t:he standard on the 2.5.... the adjustable FPR works in a similar way I would have thought but is adjustable...
If the 3.2 FPR makes power by letting a bigger pressure through the system then why cant an adjustable..
Economy Im not really that bothered about as the car isnt used for commuting, I am fulltime carer for my wife, so the car only gets used on short journeys 98% of the time... sometimes it goes onto a motorway, but only for about 10 miles or so....
Mostly because the 3.2 has different cams, different map, different manifolds, oh and greater displacement.
The fuel rail requires pressure to enable the injectors to be open to maximum effect for long periods of time. Putting the fpr before the injectors won't work, as the instant the injectors open the pressure would drop, leading to fuel starvation at WOT.
The 3.2 has a highr pressure regulator as the engine demands more fuel.
-
Thankyou for that :)
I shall install the FPR and see what happens... if it turns out to be none effective I'll go back to the standard FPR - lesson learnt etc.. if it works for longer than a couple of miles and there is noticeable difference, it will stay in place...
-
I mentioned economy because that is likely to be the only measurable change. Just adding more fuel is the easy bit. An adjustable FPR won't add extra air for it to use. The only effect I've seen from using extra pressure in a mapped system is to use more fuel. One of these was turned up so much I could smell it just by driving behind the car. That was a 2.9 4x4 Sierra. In case you're interested, performance didn't increase by any noticeable amount.
-
my experience with the 2.5 is that, after port polishing and 3.0 cams, I felt low rpm torque values are lower than before, as the car pull is not like before.. however, upper range rpm hp values are obviously much higher.. this was visible on dyno.. - 187 hp - so be aware in daily usage on streets higher flow exhaust manifolds wont help your consumption and torque values..
must note also
port polish+
+cams
+throttle modified
I changed 2.5 ecu to 3.0 ecu
and used used 3.0 inlet divider
and get 187 hp ;D original was 143 ???
and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp ;D
Did installing the 3 litre ECU actually improve the BHP....? or is it simply a better map installed..?
@ Taxi Al - Im not going to start a tit for tat war, just accept that I value an opinion when I want or ask for one, not when I ask a completely different question... leave it alone and move on.... I mainly work on trial and error, if it dont work - remove and replace... if I install the Facet FPR onto the very clearly marked return pipe (BTW Im used to a 2 litre Vectra Ecotec engine and that isn't anything like the V6 engine as your probably no doubt aware) and that does have a return pipe, obviously, but is also not that easy to find.... so please forgive me if I ask too many questions about something Im not sure about....
@ Henryd = thankyou :) dunno when you answered my question but thankyou anyway :)
Reply 20 :y :y ;)
-
I mentioned economy because that is likely to be the only measurable change. Just adding more fuel is the easy bit. An adjustable FPR won't add extra air for it to use. The only effect I've seen from using extra pressure in a mapped system is to use more fuel. One of these was turned up so much I could smell it just by driving behind the car. That was a 2.9 4x4 Sierra. In case you're interested, performance didn't increase by any noticeable amount.
Which will presumably kill the cats in fairly short order ::)
-
my experience with the 2.5 is that, after port polishing and 3.0 cams, I felt low rpm torque values are lower than before, as the car pull is not like before.. however, upper range rpm hp values are obviously much higher.. this was visible on dyno.. - 187 hp - so be aware in daily usage on streets higher flow exhaust manifolds wont help your consumption and torque values..
must note also
port polish+
+cams
+throttle modified
I changed 2.5 ecu to 3.0 ecu
and used used 3.0 inlet divider
and get 187 hp ;D original was 143 ???
and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp ;D
Did installing the 3 litre ECU actually improve the BHP....? or is it simply a better map installed..?
@ Taxi Al - Im not going to start a tit for tat war, just accept that I value an opinion when I want or ask for one, not when I ask a completely different question... leave it alone and move on.... I mainly work on trial and error, if it dont work - remove and replace... if I install the Facet FPR onto the very clearly marked return pipe (BTW Im used to a 2 litre Vectra Ecotec engine and that isn't anything like the V6 engine as your probably no doubt aware) and that does have a return pipe, obviously, but is also not that easy to find.... so please forgive me if I ask too many questions about something Im not sure about....
@ Henryd = thankyou :) dunno when you answered my question but thankyou anyway :)
Reply 20 :y :y ;)
It was - thankyou :)
-
I mentioned economy because that is likely to be the only measurable change. Just adding more fuel is the easy bit. An adjustable FPR won't add extra air for it to use. The only effect I've seen from using extra pressure in a mapped system is to use more fuel. One of these was turned up so much I could smell it just by driving behind the car. That was a 2.9 4x4 Sierra. In case you're interested, performance didn't increase by any noticeable amount.
Which will presumably kill the cats in fairly short order ::)
Nowt wrong with killing cats...... :D ::) :P :-X
-
hopefully to clear this up a bit....
all the fuel pressure regulator does is to suppkly a constant amount of fuel pressure across the injectors. This means that when the ecu opens the injectors for, say, 15ms, then it results in a known quantity of fuel supplied.
increasing the pressure supply to the injectors increases the fuel supplied - its as simple as that. But you can't expect this to be a better or more precise fuel map - its just the same map with more fuel in it everywhere up the rev range.
On the one hand, you could "luck out" and get more fuel at your maximum power speed which will indeed give you more power, but its far from assured. its more likely that you will overfuell everywhere in the rev range, leading to a whole host of other issues.
As an example, I have a Rover VVC engine, which a previous owner had blown up and substituted the 160HP version insteaad of the 143HP original one. He did, however, keep the 143HP fuel injectors "because they're higher flow ones and will give more power". Now, despite giving only 4% more fuel, the car never passed an MOT again because it was running far too rich. Needless to say, I substituted the correct injectoirs for the engine and retro-fitted the correct ecu and it now runs perfectly
-
ok.. up to now I shut my mouth about FPR subject..
in the past I have found the "chance" of driving back street modified carburetted engines.. even they lack proper management systems and sensors, you could easily feel engine suffering from lack of fuel.. first you face engine knocks and hesitation at high rpms..
and on modern engines, the first indicator will be lambda showing lean condition.. and also you may hear engine knocks which ecu may/may not retard ignition..
so personally I wouldnt bother about fuel pump and fpr unless I face those conditions.. however, in a case like forced induction (even at low pressures) you will definitely need a better pump and fpr..
-
The 3.2 has a highr pressure regulator as the engine demands more fuel.
Not convinced that is the case guiven that the injector durations never get anywhere near 100%, I suspect its more to improve the spray pattern
-
hopefully to clear this up a bit....
all the fuel pressure regulator does is to suppkly a constant amount of fuel pressure across the injectors. This means that when the ecu opens the injectors for, say, 15ms, then it results in a known quantity of fuel supplied.
increasing the pressure supply to the injectors increases the fuel supplied - its as simple as that. But you can't expect this to be a better or more precise fuel map - its just the same map with more fuel in it everywhere up the rev range.
On the one hand, you could "luck out" and get more fuel at your maximum power speed which will indeed give you more power, but its far from assured. its more likely that you will overfuell everywhere in the rev range, leading to a whole host of other issues.
As an example, I have a Rover VVC engine, which a previous owner had blown up and substituted the 160HP version insteaad of the 143HP original one. He did, however, keep the 143HP fuel injectors "because they're higher flow ones and will give more power". Now, despite giving only 4% more fuel, the car never passed an MOT again because it was running far too rich. Needless to say, I substituted the correct injectoirs for the engine and retro-fitted the correct ecu and it now runs perfectly
I would agree with all of that on an older non-lambda injected engine, or the omega when cold and in "open loop" .. however, with a lambda control giving closed loop operation the lambda sensors will detect the higher fuel injected in that "say 15ms" and will then, via the ECU, reduce the injector time to "say 11ms" to give the same fuel as before, and the only way of knowing that would be to look at the fuel trims, which would show the ECU "trimming" the fuel ... which is EXACTLY what it was designed to do under closed loop conditions ...
-
The 3.2 has a highr pressure regulator as the engine demands more fuel.
Not convinced that is the case guiven that the injector durations never get anywhere near 100%, I suspect its more to improve the spray pattern
3.2 fuel rail/manifold/injectors are identical to the 2.6, but with a 3.8 bar fpr instead of a 3.5 bar one :-\
-
Ahh, the "bonfire" theory of engine tuning again!.. ::)
"More fuel = more power".....Nope!
-
Ahh, the "bonfire" theory of engine tuning again!.. ::)
"More fuel = more power".....Nope!
;D
It also needs a suitable increase of intake air, and an equivalent increase in exhaust space from our previous discussion on the subject... not to mention remapping to properly manage the whole process... :y
-
The 3.2 has a highr pressure regulator as the engine demands more fuel.
Not convinced that is the case guiven that the injector durations never get anywhere near 100%, I suspect its more to improve the spray pattern
3.2 fuel rail/manifold/injectors are identical to the 2.6, but with a 3.8 bar fpr instead of a 3.5 bar one :-\
2.6 has the 3.8 bar reg as well :y
-
So the only differences between the 2.6 and. 3.2 are...
Ecu map
600cc
Different MAF sensor
:-\
-
So the only differences between the 2.6 and. 3.2 are...
Ecu map
600cc
Different MAF sensor
:-\
:y
-
Ok, so the ecu map allows for the extra air demand...
-
hopefully to clear this up a bit....
all the fuel pressure regulator does is to suppkly a constant amount of fuel pressure across the injectors. This means that when the ecu opens the injectors for, say, 15ms, then it results in a known quantity of fuel supplied.
increasing the pressure supply to the injectors increases the fuel supplied - its as simple as that. But you can't expect this to be a better or more precise fuel map - its just the same map with more fuel in it everywhere up the rev range.
On the one hand, you could "luck out" and get more fuel at your maximum power speed which will indeed give you more power, but its far from assured. its more likely that you will overfuell everywhere in the rev range, leading to a whole host of other issues.
As an example, I have a Rover VVC engine, which a previous owner had blown up and substituted the 160HP version insteaad of the 143HP original one. He did, however, keep the 143HP fuel injectors "because they're higher flow ones and will give more power". Now, despite giving only 4% more fuel, the car never passed an MOT again because it was running far too rich. Needless to say, I substituted the correct injectoirs for the engine and retro-fitted the correct ecu and it now runs perfectly
I would agree with all of that on an older non-lambda injected engine, or the omega when cold and in "open loop" .. however, with a lambda control giving closed loop operation the lambda sensors will detect the higher fuel injected in that "say 15ms" and will then, via the ECU, reduce the injector time to "say 11ms" to give the same fuel as before, and the only way of knowing that would be to look at the fuel trims, which would show the ECU "trimming" the fuel ... which is EXACTLY what it was designed to do under closed loop conditions ...
At WOT, it will be open loop. However, I reckon by the time its done a few miles, the trims will be in such a mess, its unlikely to run that great.
However, initially after fitting, it may give a small boost until the trims move.
OP - when going back to standard FPR, reset trims, else you may end up running lean, which I'm sure you know is very bad.
There are a few on here who know their onions, and its worth listening, taking on board what they say. Obviously, if beyond that you still wish to poke and hope, then at least you are doing in in the knowledge of the gains/pitfalls :)
-
However, initially after fitting, it may give a small boost until the trims move.
Even that assumes the standard map errs on the lean side. In my experience OEM maps tend to be richer than ideal anyway, as that's the "safe" side to be on. ;)
-
re injector trim.
yes Entwood, I'd expect that the system could self-adapt thru the injector trims, but nowhere enough to make the difference between base engine specs.
the furthest that the system could go might be 2% fuelling, whereas th e is going to need at least 10 to 15% fuelling to match his power expectation
-
I don't know if this is off topic for this thread as it talks allot about Fuel pressures etc.
In my experience, when tuning an engine, the best thing to do firstly is to allow the engine to breath more easily ... by this I mean to allow air and fuel mix in at a better rate and allow exhaust to flow more freely (obviously there are limitations connected with back pressures in the exhaust side, but I won't go into that)! In my experience MOST of the power restriction will be within the inlet manifold / Throttle Body .... In my honest opinion don't bother with a stupid cone filter or similar, Just fit a K&N or similar panel filter as the standard air intake isn't too bad!
As far as Fuel Pressure Regulator's are concerned, I think the jury is out as to whether or not you will see any gain ... You may see a sharper throttle response when linked with an uprated throttle body but it seems allot of length to go to for maybe <4bhp and decrease in Mpg's!
The other things I would look into is extensive head works, More aggressive cams, Full gas flow and port polish, Uprated Valves (they can get very expensive) and some degree of skim to increase the compression (but you may have to consider uprating your pistons / con rods and crankshaft including all bearings)!
Above all just remember to get the breathing balance correct Before you consider just dumping more fuel into the engine ... more gains can be had elsewhere and the ECU's fitted are very restrictive (maybe fitting an Omex or similar would benefit) and I believe if you want Omex ecu unit fitted, you would have to figure out a way to run it in tandom with the standard system and convert to a cable throttle to see the best increase in power!
Hope that helps towards your quest for power
-
My opinion - in days gone by you might have found an engine where the throttle body or some other ancillary component was the weakest link.
These days, engine designers have access to much better simulation tools and testing facilities. In addition, emissions requirements force them to keep gas flow velocities high through the throttle, manifolds and ports, so they will tend to design an engine at a particular power output and you'll find everything is sized to top out at about the same level of tune.
This means, IMHO, to get anything significant out of a naturally aspirated engine, you might as well start again with cams, ported head, maybe larger valves, etc. By that time, you might as well replace the engine management with one you can map properly yourself.
The days of bolt on accessories that will give you power increases are gone (they were only really there in marketing BS). You might gain a bit by remapping with a slightly less conservative ignition map and a tweak at the fuelling at WOT but the cost is likely to make it pointless unless you have an older ECU that can be chipped.
The exception to this is the odd engine, such as the 2.5/2.6, where the engine was probably detuned by fitting quite mild cams to position it in the market, and forced induction engines, of course, where the rules are radically different.
Changing parameters such as injector flow rate and fuel pressure on an original equipment management system just throws away all the work that was put in by the manufacturer to refine the system. You'll just end up with something that does everything badly, IMHO.
-
My opinion - in days gone by you might have found an engine where the throttle body or some other ancillary component was the weakest link.
These days, engine designers have access to much better simulation tools and testing facilities. In addition, emissions requirements force them to keep gas flow velocities high through the throttle, manifolds and ports, so they will tend to design an engine at a particular power output and you'll find everything is sized to top out at about the same level of tune.
This means, IMHO, to get anything significant out of a naturally aspirated engine, you might as well start again with cams, ported head, maybe larger valves, etc. By that time, you might as well replace the engine management with one you can map properly yourself.
The days of bolt on accessories that will give you power increases are gone (they were only really there in marketing BS). You might gain a bit by remapping with a slightly less conservative ignition map and a tweak at the fuelling at WOT but the cost is likely to make it pointless unless you have an older ECU that can be chipped.
The exception to this is the odd engine, such as the 2.5/2.6, where the engine was probably detuned by fitting quite mild cams to position it in the market, and forced induction engines, of course, where the rules are radically different.
Changing parameters such as injector flow rate and fuel pressure on an original equipment management system just throws away all the work that was put in by the manufacturer to refine the system. You'll just end up with something that does everything badly, IMHO.
Yeah, but the bloke down the pub told me his mother's dog's uncle's mate's sister's boyfriend put in a "tuning chip", easy to fit, as it only had 2 wires going to the CTS, and it gave him 50 bhp more, then he fitted an aftermarket turbo from ebay that just needed a 12v, 1a supply, and it gave him more power than a Veyron. Its well wicked, init.
-
Ay boyakasha...
-
My opinion - in days gone by you might have found an engine where the throttle body or some other ancillary component was the weakest link.
These days, engine designers have access to much better simulation tools and testing facilities. In addition, emissions requirements force them to keep gas flow velocities high through the throttle, manifolds and ports, so they will tend to design an engine at a particular power output and you'll find everything is sized to top out at about the same level of tune.
This means, IMHO, to get anything significant out of a naturally aspirated engine, you might as well start again with cams, ported head, maybe larger valves, etc. By that time, you might as well replace the engine management with one you can map properly yourself.
The days of bolt on accessories that will give you power increases are gone (they were only really there in marketing BS). You might gain a bit by remapping with a slightly less conservative ignition map and a tweak at the fuelling at WOT but the cost is likely to make it pointless unless you have an older ECU that can be chipped.
The exception to this is the odd engine, such as the 2.5/2.6, where the engine was probably detuned by fitting quite mild cams to position it in the market, and forced induction engines, of course, where the rules are radically different.
Changing parameters such as injector flow rate and fuel pressure on an original equipment management system just throws away all the work that was put in by the manufacturer to refine the system. You'll just end up with something that does everything badly, IMHO.
As the ex owner of a tuned 2.6 traditional porting and cams did make a noticable difference, I would guess around 20bhp but not more.