Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[minifreek]

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 original was 143 

and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp

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

[cem_devecioglu]

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 original was 143 

and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp

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..

[minifreek]

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

[Nick W]

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.

[minifreek]

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....

[05omegav6]

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.

[minifreek]

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...

[Nick W]

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.

[henryd]

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 original was 143 

and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp

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

[05omegav6]

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

[minifreek]

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 original was 143 

and also witnessed 150 hp so called cars getting 130 hp

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

It was - thankyou

[minifreek]

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...... 

[2woody]

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

[cem_devecioglu]

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..

[Marks DTM Calib]

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