Cupra R airflow

[wild willy]

I'm always curious when remapped LCR's pull over 200g/s. I always seem to be putting out the same power levels on R/R's as other people with same mods and software but the max i've seen is 197g/sec. 225 is impressive.
Your torque at 300ft/lbs doesn't indicate extreme boost levels so if you are outputing high bhp levels (incomparison to others which the recent RR indicates) it must be from advanced timing etc. More indepth logs would be interesting.
Just be being a bit blond but are your recent R/R figs ATW or at the flywheel.
What settings do you use your stage 2 at.

 

[bentaw]

for the rolling road he was using B9 T7,

 

[Pabs]

the RR results were at the flywheel.

 

[Mitchy]

Ben, was this thread started out to make a comparison with airflow and bhp?

Because 225g/s does not equal 266bhp so something's wrong i would say. With a genuine 225 g/s he would be pushing around 300.

K04 maxxes out at 285bhp so it's probably impossible to flow a genuine 225 if of course power and airflow are related.

The forge vs pace argument will go on forever, i was just surprised to see martin saying it was the best Quite a bold statement don't you think especially with no proof. (New owners/readers are influenced easily)

Oh and jabbasport told me dual systems were rubbish especially on the LCR setup. I do think they are in a position to make these judgements don't you

Also i mentioned your car being sick as you've had your fair share of running issues which seemed to have cropped up after you had your pace FMIC fitted. Is there a connection, i dont know

 

[bentaw]

I agree with the forge vs pace bit going on forever, i never said jabbasport were not in a position to discuss the dual core, i was just saying how can you say a dual core is rubbish when they have not even tested the PACE one as that is the only twin one out for the LCR.

I have had running issues since day 1 with my car not just after the PACE FMIC, at the end of the day mtich the thread was started by me saying it is possible to get 225g/s on a mapped LCR the word comparison was never mentioned i was just saying i have seen it in black and white now.

If it the Pace one is rubbish why is Ed Jackson at APS running 400bhp through it then, you tell me.

 

[Mitchy]

Sorry dude, i was only going on what jabbasport told me and hence the reason why i went for the forge cooler.

Although i dont know if jabba have had any experience with the pace products or if perhaps they were talking about cheap ebay systems? If the pace coolers have had extensive testing and its been proven that they do not suffer from a large pressure drop then all is good and well.

I was struggling really to find the connection between airflow and bhp as i thought the higher the airflow reading, the higher the bhp reading

Perhaps this thread has pointed out that this is not the case

 

[Ruddmeister]

I wonder who will end up getting banned first

 

[bentaw]

im sorry to lol

no on a more serious note we all have our own opinions and we are entitled to them i can say that the PACE fmic is excellent quality and i would say the forge one is aswell otherwise what would be the point in producing it, i think the probem really stems from Forge being a sponsor for this site and having their own input into the arguement where as PACE are not and therefore you guys are going on mine and Martins expericences so like anyone else we would all listen to the proffesionals thats human nature.

I can assure you though the PACE FMIC is not rubbish it has been tried and tested by them and me for over a year and none of the problems i have on my car have ever been traced back to me having the FMIC.

Going back to airflow who knows it is a mystery but perhaps the turbo can flow that air but realisticaly cant turn that air into bhp, also dyno lottery comes into this again so we will never have a 100% concrete answer to this arguement

 

[bentaw]

i have already been banned for this arguement once before dont plan on getting banned for it again rudd

 

[Ruddmeister]

......dont plan on getting banned for it again rudd

Did you plan it the first time ?

Anyway this is so far off topic........can we talk about MAF readings??

 

[martin CR]

I'd agree with martin - his car is running really well, so doubtful that he has a problem!

I suppose the smoothed MAF housing might have some impact....

Out of interest Martin, i never did get to see, but i assume you're using the standard airbox and filter? Seems to be the only thing missing from your spec that revo recommend for stage 2.... (not saying it would improve things mind... probably lose power from it)

I am using a Neuspeed P-flow filter, it gave 10g/s more aiflow over a smoothed airbox and filter

 

[martin CR]

How do you 'smooth' the maf housing??? And what does it do???

As I am using a cone style of filter I have de-screened the maf, but this leaves a step in the body, glue a piece of tube into the step then machine it to the same ID as the maf, then it will be smooth all the may through, I even put a small taper in the end to help funnel the air in.

 

[J@mes]

225gs is a lot for a ko4! (hybrid yes, OE no!)


it makes me thinks that de-screening the MAF has made it inaccurate?!


would be interesting to see what you would get with another LCR MAF in!


im not having a go at all, but simply find it hard to believe (i believe u saw these results!) but as said, this would mean you had roughly 300bhp, not 260 odd and a REAL 300bhp from a stage 2 k04 is never going to happen unless it is a hydrid!


as it goes i see a healthy 208/210 g/s all day long with my smoothed airbox (102mm cold air feed!) not 225gs!



just my 2p worth!

 

[Feel]

My MAF's descreened, I don't think it's any less accurate* - I still see normal LCR type figures 190-210 depending on conditions.

Unless the inside diameter of the MAF tube changed when it was machined, I don't think it's that either (it would have to decrease for it to increase the flow reading).

Edit: *Unless of course the MAF element gets damaged during the descreening, that is.

 

[martin CR]

REVO ST 1 ONLY
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001

Group A: '002
RPM Load Inj. On Time Mass Flow
TIME
MARKER STAMP /min % ms g/s
0.77 2960 53.4 4.76 32.81
1.77 3240 48.9 4.76 31.11
2.78 3560 45.1 4.08 30.75
3.68 3760 44.4 4.08 32.28
4.59 4160 121.1 12.58 124.94
5.5 5400 188.7 18.36 187.47
6.51 6280 146.6 14.28 183.03
7.61 6120 13.5 1.7 7.11
8.71 5240 177.4 17.68 181.53
9.83 5840 171.4 16.66 186.94
10.93 6320 148.9 14.62 173.97



REVO ST 2 WITH ALL CURRENT MODS
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT G 0001

Group A: '002
RPM Load Inj. On Time Mass Flow
TIME
MARKER STAMP /min % ms g/s
4.29 1400 92.5 7.82 27.83
5.29 1520 97 8.16 30.06
6.4 1680 102.3 8.5 34.22
7.39 1880 111.3 8.84 39.86
8.4 2040 130.8 10.88 56.5
9.51 2360 162.4 13.26 77.5
10.71 2680 183.5 14.96 92.89
11.93 3120 191.7 15.3 116.39
13.04 3480 191.7 16.32 132.17
14.14 3880 191.7 17.34 162.31
15.05 4200 191.7 18.36 172.94
16.15 4600 191.7 18.36 185.56
17.16 4920 191.7 17.68 189.81
18.07 5160 191.7 17.34 200.78
18.97 5400 191.7 17.34 208.25
20.18 5720 191.7 16.66 213.61
21.28 5960 190.2 17.68 218.75
22.39 6200 185 18.36 220.5
23.5 6400 182.7 17.34 224.03
24.51 6600 179.7 16.66 225.78

 

[martin CR]

My MAF's descreened, I don't think it's any less accurate* - I still see normal LCR type figures 190-210 depending on conditions.

Unless the inside diameter of the MAF tube changed when it was machined, I don't think it's that either (it would have to decrease for it to increase the flow reading).

Edit: *Unless of course the MAF element gets damaged during the descreening, that is.

The ID is the same size as a standard maf, when you remove the screen there is a step where it sits in the housing?, that is where I glued in a plasic ring and machined it to the ID size so there is no step for the incoming air to contact

 

[martin CR]

Logs on standard Airbox and Maf body

Just dug out another log, car was pulling 215.31g/s on standard but smoothed airbox, the extra 10g/s came from the de-screen and the P-flow air filter, I get the same results from either of the 3 mafs I have

 

[martin CR]

225gs is a lot for a ko4! (hybrid yes, OE no!)


it makes me thinks that de-screening the MAF has made it inaccurate?!


would be interesting to see what you would get with another LCR MAF in!


im not having a go at all, but simply find it hard to believe (i believe u saw these results!) but as said, this would mean you had roughly 300bhp, not 260 odd and a REAL 300bhp from a stage 2 k04 is never going to happen unless it is

I think the screens are less important when you use a cone filter instead of an airbox, there was a guy in the US that proved this a while ago, he found that in an airbox the air comes into the maf mainly from the bottom side as that is where the filter sits and the air will need to be straightened through the maf to get an accurate reading. In the cone filter he found that the air comes into the maf from all angles so it stays straight on its own. If I was upsetting my maf readings my fueling wouldn't be spot on every time the car is Rolling Roaded

What is the Air Flow to HP Formula?

 

[J@mes]

What is the Air Flow to HP Formula?

... 1.31 * g/sec = HP calculation, or something else?

so 225gs = 295bhp!!!

 

[ibizacupra]

Sorry Bill - I've read this post a good few times and I don't understand...

Are you talking about the 1.31 * g/sec = HP calculation, or something else?

kinda the same thing... scaling in factory ecu's is not the same, so comparisons with x g/s = a power output can at best only be a guide.

internal scaling of maf being different between ecu's, let alone various "tune" ones