FTO AUSTRALIA

aza013 wrote:Hope you get some high numbers but not to high
Can't have you going past me JK.

Haha I can't see anyone beating you

I8A4RE wrote:^^^^ agreed, I havent tested mine yet but I doubt I would be that fast.

Manual would put him in the 4 second barrier!

SG wrote:Sounds great make sure you get a figure i'd be really interested, having said that its a dyno so all those things vary. But i'd still be interested... If it does a low 14 someday when you get it right, i'd be savin up.

Hasn't someone done a low/mid 14 already in Perth?

payaya wrote:

aza013 wrote:Hope you get some high numbers but not to high
Can't have you going past me JK.

Haha I can't see anyone beating you

Lol there will be as it's only time befor a number of car get more power out of a NA FTO than I can.
With some luck Valandis91 will be one of them.

aza013 wrote:Hope you get some high numbers but not to high
Can't have you going past me JK.

im not sure if my total power will be higher but torque figures should be off the show!
and thats what i want

Shane001 wrote:Val, show em what that emanage can do mate

Fingers crossed all the issues are now sorted and you get a clean run on the dyno.

im hoping so too shane, if i get any errors ill actually cry. im pretty sure everything is good to go. fingers crossed times infinity!
the emanage is amazing

aza013 wrote:

payaya wrote:

aza013 wrote:Hope you get some high numbers but not to high
Can't have you going past me JK.

Haha I can't see anyone beating you

Lol there will be as it's only time befor a number of car get more power out of a NA FTO than I can.
With some luck Valandis91 will be one of them.

um soooo. about this. i just did a drive through the rev range on the highway and at 8250 rpm my injectors are at 100% duty.......

this could be a bit awkward.

but it is running a bit rich...

hopefully playing with timing will sort everything out!

payaya wrote:

SG wrote:Sounds great make sure you get a figure i'd be really interested, having said that its a dyno so all those things vary. But i'd still be interested... If it does a low 14 someday when you get it right, i'd be savin up.

Hasn't someone done a low/mid 14 already in Perth?

I dont know about a low 14 but i can do a 14.7... but my car has no engine mods just air filter and extractors and some drive train mods plus crank pully if you count that as a non engine mod. A man with a cc lancer and 180hp at the hubs does a 14.0 iirc, we used to have identical 1/4 times so want to catch up to that a bit while keeping 2l/na if i can.

What drive train mods do you have? Also 180HP at the wheels is a lot for a Lancer.

ok, so.

just got back from dyno.

interesting to say thhe least.

ignition timing map had minor values added by autocraft, these were 0'ed

suprisingly it ran best with no change to timing. we tried 5 advance and rtard and they both lost torque.

for some reason, we checked the timing with a timing light, and mechanically it is already advanced 5 degrees.

could this be a timing belt stuff up?

we ironed out a massive lean sppot around mivec as well

end result is.

116.4 kw at the front wheels

and....

274 NM OF TORQUE AT THE WHEELS

an extra 20 from before.

also confirmed that autocraft is a massive fail as the front head bolts werent even tightened properly. they suck.

Val, post up u're torque & kw curves.

Most engines, actually probably all engines run with a certain amount of advance, and this will change naturally throughout the rev range. All you are doing when you add or remove timing with the emanage is adjust this. So you might start with say 5deg at 1000rpm, and by adding 5 in the emanage you now have 10deg.

With the head bolts did u follow the instructions in the manual for torquing these. Some cars do require re torquing after a run in, not sure about the FTO.

Edit: If you're not sure, I'd recommend checking your timing belt positioning. These engines are interference which means if this is out it can cause massive engine failure. I'd expect it would be running like a bitch if it was out by even a tooth though.

i just change new head bolts and i ask the same quesitons, he said our engines do not require re torque after run in.

Shane001 wrote:Val, post up you're torque & kw curves.

Most engines, actually probably all engines run with a certain amount of advance, and this will change naturally throughout the rev range. All you are doing when you add or remove timing with the emanage is adjust this. So you might start with say 5deg at 1000rpm, and by adding 5 in the emanage you now have 10deg.

With the head bolts did you follow the instructions in the manual for torquing these. Some cars do require re torquing after a run in, not sure about the FTO.

Edit: If you're not sure, I'd recommend checking your timing belt positioning. These engines are interference which means if this is out it can cause massive engine failure. I'd expect it would be running like a bitch if it was out by even a tooth though.

i will scan them tomorrow and post them up for you!

no i mean its mean to be 3 degrees BTDC i think and there was an extra 5 degrees at idle.

No its actually just lack of brains from mechanic.

well maybe its not out by a tooth then...

How do you know the head bolts weren't tied down right? Usually head bolts from the engine I've worked on aren't tight by my standard of tight anyway. Usually you tighten to a specific torque, let the bolts rest and do an extra half turn etc.

Pain in the arse to align a timing belt with the four cams, but you will notice it being a tooth out on a specific cam. The best way is to draw a line down side of belt onto cam gears and I'm guessing in your case new gears? Mark the new gear in the exact same spot and take belt off and mark the new belt at the exact point the old belt is, and install new belt aligning the marks. Same for the bottom pulley. Make sure it's tensioned right as well.

Valandis91 wrote:
116.4 kw at the front wheels

and....

274 NM OF TORQUE AT THE WHEELS

an extra 20 from before.

that is still a top result
Are you happy with it?

aza013 wrote:

Valandis91 wrote:
116.4 kw at the front wheels

and....

274 NM OF TORQUE AT THE WHEELS

an extra 20 from before.

that is still a top result
Are you happy with it?

Yeah the overall power isnt anything special but im loving the torque. have to take it to the track to really spread its legs

but after the tune all the niggeling issues i had were sorted and it runs smooth and more power.

I think you should have said stretch it's legs not Spread It's legs
Well unless you wanted it to have your kids

From the manual;
Cylinder head bolt 20Nm + 120deg + 120deg
Full details on page 1-37 of the manual.

It's good to hear it's running much better, but I'm surprised it's not putting out more power. Very keen to see the graphs.

From memory did you install aftermarket adjustable cam gears?

payaya wrote: The best way is to draw a line down side of belt onto cam gears and I'm guessing in your case new gears? Mark the new gear in the exact same spot and take belt off and mark the new belt at the exact point the old belt is, and install new belt aligning the marks. Same for the bottom pulley. Make sure it's tensioned right as well.

That's exactly how I do it, much easier especially with the FTO with the cams loaded up...

aza013 wrote:I think you should have said stretch it's legs not Spread It's legs
Well unless you wanted it to have your kids

ah yes thats what i meant hahahaha

Shane001 wrote:From the manual;
Cylinder head bolt 20Nm + 120deg + 120deg
Full details on page 1-37 of the manual.

It's good to hear it's running much better, but I'm surprised it's not putting out more power. Very keen to see the graphs.

From memory did you install aftermarket adjustable cam gears?

oh tightened them up a bit. how much would 20nm be? i need to buy a torque wrench.

the torque figure is very impressive i thought?

i do have the cam gears.... but they werent installed as autocraft are retarded

$800 for nothing

I think 156ish hp at the wheels is pretty good but who knows how much power it has its a dyno figure...

The FTO has about 200nm at the fly when new that usually means a pretty efficient engine as 2.0l = 200nm, 3.5l = 350nm etc ordinarily and here you have 274 * 1.3 ish to get about 356nm at the fly or equiv to the pulling power of a 3.5l 350z at low revs or in its torque band... Having said that i think the torque band in those things are very short. But it is a dyno figure anyway.

payaya wrote:What drive train mods do you have? Also 180HP at the wheels is a lot for a Lancer.

I have a lightweight flywheel + crank pulley, and lsd.. its a manual too. Also have 235 street tyres the width might help, 5k f 4k r coils rear tighened up, air pressures .. 5.5k launch

The lancer has a 1.8l proton block bored to 1.9, mivec 1.6 top end, high compession etc although he says a little too high .. and i think a twin throttle body set up but im not sure.. he's put a lot of work into it.

SG wrote:who knows how much power it has its a dyno figure...

Very true!

Val I think you're making good progress but to be getting such a high torque figure I would have expected a higher kw figure also. This suggests it is dropping away significantly at higher revs? Remember power (kw) is merely a calculation of torque x rpm. What rpm is peak torque?