Never timed myself! But felt quicker! My suspension setup was much better than previous efforts on standard. Which is probably where I made most of my time up, especially around the old hair pin!
-
Hey Guest one of our sponsors Progressive Parts is running Black Friday and Cyber Monday offers - more details here
Hybrid K04 Turbo Discussion
- Thread starter J@mes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion hybrid k04 turbo
Bugger, just get some high temp sealant and reseat it.
I had boost issues recently and found the tip/ turbo clip needed tweaking.
what airflow you managing to record on the hybrid?
(just cos I logged a local LCR with unknown code and saw 235g/s out of it, and also timing pull of 11's, and a/f no richer than 0.91 - Well dodgy tuning but flowed a lot)
(just cos I logged a local LCR with unknown code and saw 235g/s out of it, and also timing pull of 11's, and a/f no richer than 0.91 - Well dodgy tuning but flowed a lot)
225 g/s with my hybrid max. That was on a cold night also.
Saying that i do believe if you de screen the MAF it does read higher. Martins standard K04 reading 225g/s for instance.
I would suspect his maf if his is reading 235g/s. Something dodgy going on there or he has a different turbo in it
I do believe anything under 14 degrees timing pull is safe as thats what the ecu can compensate for.
IHI is only 245g/s is it not?
Sie's MAF only reads about 180ish but he has a larger MAF in there and i believe scottys is similar to mine around the 225 mark.
Normal stage 2 car 210g/s
Normal remap car 195g/s
Saying that i do believe if you de screen the MAF it does read higher. Martins standard K04 reading 225g/s for instance.
I would suspect his maf if his is reading 235g/s. Something dodgy going on there or he has a different turbo in it
I do believe anything under 14 degrees timing pull is safe as thats what the ecu can compensate for.
IHI is only 245g/s is it not?
Sie's MAF only reads about 180ish but he has a larger MAF in there and i believe scottys is similar to mine around the 225 mark.
Normal stage 2 car 210g/s
Normal remap car 195g/s
Last edited:
225 g/s with my hybrid max. That was on a cold night also.
Saying that i do believe if you de screen the MAF it does read higher. Martins standard K04 reading 225g/s for instance.
I would suspect his maf if his is reading 235g/s. Something dodgy going on there or he has a different turbo in it
I do believe anything under 14 degrees timing pull is safe as thats what the ecu can compensate for.
IHI is only 245g/s is it not?
Sie's MAF only reads about 180ish but he has a larger MAF in there and i believe scottys is similar to mine around the 225 mark.
It was a very high number! never seen an over reading MAF..
pulled 254bhp @ Westec the other day apparently.
timing was too much... 11CF is asking for trouble, as is fueling at only 0.91 max rich (the 2 are linked and not going to be good for long term reliability)
3" DP, exhaust and induction mods on it.
James at CC told me the ECU can compensate for upto 14degrees timing pull. To me surely that means the pull is within limits of capability and is not going beyond its safe limits?
I say over reading as im using martins thread about 2 months ago with his readings of 225 as a reference. Im sure de-screening the MAF messes up the airflow readings??
225 means around 300bhp with the normal calculations, but his car only produced 265-270bhp when tested. Maf figures didn't correspond to the power figures he was getting.
The same 265-270bhp figure was being produced with much lower maf figures of 200-210 on other cars
Either that or there is no link at all between maf figures and power outputs?
0.91 isn't overly lean is it, or did his readings not go below this at all? Again i thought anything over 1.0 was dangerous?
I know CC mapping compared to jabba mapping is very safe. The fuelling stays rich throughout and im sure that effects overall performance? I personally think their mapping is too conservative and safe. As you'll probably know jabba maps run quite lean, however i was mapped with them over 2 years and it had never done my engine any harm
If airflow logging was linked to bhp figure output then i would assume his k04 turbo at 235g/s was running around 310bhp which of course is not possible.
So i personally think x g/s = x bhp is a lot of bollocks
I say over reading as im using martins thread about 2 months ago with his readings of 225 as a reference. Im sure de-screening the MAF messes up the airflow readings??
225 means around 300bhp with the normal calculations, but his car only produced 265-270bhp when tested. Maf figures didn't correspond to the power figures he was getting.
The same 265-270bhp figure was being produced with much lower maf figures of 200-210 on other cars
Either that or there is no link at all between maf figures and power outputs?
0.91 isn't overly lean is it, or did his readings not go below this at all? Again i thought anything over 1.0 was dangerous?
I know CC mapping compared to jabba mapping is very safe. The fuelling stays rich throughout and im sure that effects overall performance? I personally think their mapping is too conservative and safe. As you'll probably know jabba maps run quite lean, however i was mapped with them over 2 years and it had never done my engine any harm
If airflow logging was linked to bhp figure output then i would assume his k04 turbo at 235g/s was running around 310bhp which of course is not possible.
So i personally think x g/s = x bhp is a lot of bollocks
Last edited:
dont go there... please
this is an unknown mapped car... unknown by current owner (of a couple months)
scaling across models is'nt valid no.. said this previously myself. but across the same model vehicle it should be comparible. (other scaling aside)
Im not going to say who as i dont know if its true or not, im only going on what ive been told/read.
Hs it had any other mods? De screened MAF etc?
Hs it had any other mods? De screened MAF etc?
James at CC told me the ECU can compensate for upto 14degrees timing pull. To me surely that means the pull is within limits of capability and is not going beyond its safe limits?
I say over reading as im using martins thread about 2 months ago with his readings of 225 as a reference. Im sure de-screening the MAF messes up the airflow readings??
225 means around 300bhp with the normal calculations, but his car only produced 265-270bhp when tested. Maf figures didn't correspond to the power figures he was getting.
The same 265-270bhp figure was being produced with much lower maf figures of 200-210 on other cars
Either that or there is no link at all between maf figures and power outputs?
0.91 isn't overly lean is it, or did his readings not go below this at all? Again i thought anything over 1.0 was dangerous?
I know CC mapping compared to jabba mapping is very safe. The fuelling stays rich throughout and im sure that effects overall performance? I personally think their mapping is too conservative and safe. As you'll probably know jabba maps run quite lean, however i was mapped with them over 2 years and it had never done my engine any harm
If airflow logging was linked to bhp figure output then i would assume his k04 turbo at 235g/s was running around 310bhp which of course is not possible.
So i personally think x g/s = x bhp is a lot of bollocks
It never ran more than 0.91 lambda under boost at any load/rpm - lean to me.
timing pull of 11CF is not something James @ CC would want to see I know. way too high... ECU pulling that amount of timing out with shoot egt's high, and when it runs out of pull, then what? pink propper, detonation uncontrolled? Remember this is cold weather, imagine what its going to be doing in the hot weather (we might have this year again)
My JS map ran leaner than the CC one does (tuner preference), but EGT control with CC is sub 950'c max now tops, where it was >1000'C. (caused issues)
cars deffo not 300bhp car, but its mapping (who's ever it is) has convinced the ecu its seeing that high a signal.
weird one.
CF's concern me along with the 0.91 fueling (LBT is 0.86 from memory) and you would add more for cooling down to low 0.8/0.78 typically.
Hes not bought our Turbo has he!
lol, not knowingly.
254bhp I doubt it, but that was Westec RR the other week. Not sure how that compares to others.
Yes my own car doesn't pull any more than 3.0 which im happy with. However because James has tuned the car for nitrous, i was seeing some 7.0's when it was activated. Not something im worried about tbh.
When they did take the turbo off and inspect it, it was clear the turbo was running extremely hot with the jabba mapping as it was pink and it had cracked in 2 places around the wastegate flapper.
Maybe a superchips map, that fools the ecu into thinking its seeing more airflow doesn't it?
When they did take the turbo off and inspect it, it was clear the turbo was running extremely hot with the jabba mapping as it was pink and it had cracked in 2 places around the wastegate flapper.
Maybe a superchips map, that fools the ecu into thinking its seeing more airflow doesn't it?
Similar threads
