View Full Version : Williams vs Megan engine build
If you were going to get one or the other engine for a full engine rebuild ITBs 200 plus hp which would it be and why ??
Justin..
21-05-2009, 20:32
megane F7R 714
because
chain driven pump, bigger flywheel for bigger clutch and the flywheel has a better trigger pattern for aftermarket management, engine is more likely to be found and more likely to be cheaper
Justin..
21-05-2009, 20:34
chain driven oil pump i meant
The King
21-05-2009, 20:50
You told us you dont need ITBs for 200 bhp+?
Headwork and cams you said.
Changed your mind then?
I thought you might.
714 because the crank is forged steel and thus lighter, total weight saving of the 714 is 16kg iirc.
200bhp is possible on standard cams and standard inlet for cheap. I'll prove it. :wink: I would definately say a 714 bottom end will help though.
The King
21-05-2009, 21:04
714 because the crank is forged steel and thus lighter, total weight saving of the 714 is 16kg iirc.
200bhp is possible on standard cams and standard inlet for cheap. I'll prove it. :wink: I would definately say a 714 bottom end will help though.
Define cheap and proof on an engine dyno not a rolling road please. :D
well my engine is already 150lb/ft and 180bhp with minimal work, so I only need to improve that by 20bhp :wink:
I won't be putting it on an engine dyno (to expensive), so it'll have to be a rolling road.
cheap? not sure really, much cheaper than a turbo or itb's... hundreds rather than thousands.
714 because the crank is forged steel and thus lighter, total weight saving of the 714 is 16kg iirc.
200bhp is possible on standard cams and standard inlet for cheap. I'll prove it. :wink: I would definately say a 714 bottom end will help though.
Define cheap and proof on an engine dyno not a rolling road please. :D
BTW I think you know it's possible and I know you know what I have in mind :wink:
The cranks from either are cast, not forged.
Either will/do yield good results, but as with anything it depends hugely on the quality of workmanship.
Either engine will give 200+bhp with a moderate set-up.
aye there certainly not bad engines
You told us you dont need ITBs for 200 bhp+?
Headwork and cams you said.
Changed your mind then?
I thought you might.
Spongenob
Not changed my mind at all plus I said 190hp and was correct. You were wrong. Chin up.
Time to retire to the crustycrab.
sideways danny
21-05-2009, 23:49
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
would you not be able to achieve the same using std ecu and the same cams?
sideways danny
22-05-2009, 01:47
No, no way. Some people struggle to make these cams work even with standalone, on the stock plenum
what does the omex allow you to control that the standard ecu doesnt? which results in the better mapping for thes cams?
No need to use a MAP sensor, so the load is based purely on throttle position. So load signal isnt going to be influenced by high duration/overlap.
There is still alot of reversion and charge robbing on a single throttle plenum with wilder cams, hence the rally-esque borble.
What spec cams were those Dan? What torque did it make?
The King
22-05-2009, 11:23
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
Please post the dyno results.
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
Please post the dyno results.
lol, here we go...
post your rally car ones too while your at it, you said it was 175bhp... I want proof :lol:
The King
22-05-2009, 11:38
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
Please post the dyno results.
lol, here we go...
post your rally car ones too while your at it, you said it was 175bhp... I want proof :lol:
No, i qualified my statement by saying it was around 170-175 bhp. I also stated that it was a guess. Plus i dont make engines for a living and so have nothing to gain by lying.
If someone claims to be able to get 185 from a megane engine with just cams and omex, then prove to us all you can. Especially as that person is in the business of selling products to WC member.
If you cant i will go around claiming 195 bhp from the same modifications and claim to be able to extract more bhp than GDI.
Dont bopther posting rolling road results, they are as accurate as a drunken piss in a rugby coach.
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
Please post the dyno results.
lol, here we go...
post your rally car ones too while your at it, you said it was 175bhp... I want proof :lol:
No, i qualified my statement by saying it was around 170-175 bhp. I also stated that it was a guess. Plus i dont make engines for a living and so have nothing to gain by lying.
If someone claims to be able to get 185 from a megane engine with just cams and omex, then prove to us all you can. Especially as that person is in the business of selling products to WC member.
If you cant i will go around claiming 195 bhp from the same modifications and claim to be able to extract more bhp than GDI.
Dont bopther posting rolling road results, they are as accurate as a drunken piss in a rugby coach.
You dont make engines full stop. A rolling road is more accurate than you saying you think your car is around 'x' bhp too ;) There's no way your valver is 170+bhp anyway, 137bhp as standard. Old tired valver engine will make about 125bhp tops, so 50bhp from breathing mods? A Superflow is more accurate than the plucked from thin air Barrington RR method I'd say, plus who has their car put in a dyno cell other than people that race competatively? Think you should perhaps try living in the real world little Bobby
The King
22-05-2009, 11:58
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
Please post the dyno results.
lol, here we go...
post your rally car ones too while your at it, you said it was 175bhp... I want proof :lol:
No, i qualified my statement by saying it was around 170-175 bhp. I also stated that it was a guess. Plus i dont make engines for a living and so have nothing to gain by lying.
If someone claims to be able to get 185 from a megane engine with just cams and omex, then prove to us all you can. Especially as that person is in the business of selling products to WC member.
If you cant i will go around claiming 195 bhp from the same modifications and claim to be able to extract more bhp than GDI.
Dont bopther posting rolling road results, they are as accurate as a drunken piss in a rugby coach.
A rolling road is more accurate than you saying you think your car is around 'x' bhp too
No it isnt.
Yes it is, your claiming near 50bhp from breathing mods on your valver, no chance from a 1.8 lol
Besides, being all about the science an RR similates as close to real world as it can, again, more accurate your hate filled conjecture based opinion ;)
The King
22-05-2009, 12:28
No
aww bless :lol:
well, in fairness saying less makes you appear less dumb. Congrats
what the **** is wrong with you two??? I want to bash your heads together :twisted: ****ing girls...
anyway back on topic... dan can you post some graphs to satisfy Rob if you have them?
The King
22-05-2009, 16:02
what the f**k is wrong with you two??? I want to bash your bishops :twisted: f***king T-girls...
:shock:
sideways danny
22-05-2009, 20:45
It's on the Dyno PC and i'm off work for a week now. Jon, can you ask andy for the graph
CATcams 213s
Rolling roads (when they measure losses as ours does) are far more representative of how a car will actually perform than an engine dyno.
The King
22-05-2009, 21:51
Dyno only please.
Justin..
22-05-2009, 21:53
Not everyone can have what they want!
sideways danny
23-05-2009, 05:00
Dyno only please.
dont look at it then. Feel the care
We've just done 185 on a megane engine with nothing but cams and Omex. That's still using a valver ex manifold too.
Please post the dyno results.
lol, here we go...
post your rally car ones too while your at it, you said it was 175bhp... I want proof :lol:
No, i qualified my statement by saying it was around 170-175 bhp. I also stated that it was a guess. Plus i dont make engines for a living and so have nothing to gain by lying.
If someone claims to be able to get 185 from a megane engine with just cams and omex, then prove to us all you can. Especially as that person is in the business of selling products to WC member.
If you cant i will go around claiming 195 bhp from the same modifications and claim to be able to extract more bhp than GDI.
Dont bopther posting rolling road results, they are as accurate as a drunken piss in a rugby coach.
A rolling road is more accurate than you saying you think your car is around 'x' bhp too
No it isnt.
Yes it is so stop being a mong...
95% of all tuners will use a RR for mapping there engines and this is a very good indicator for what hp. A good setup will have there dyno calibrated so it should be there or there abouts.
What your saying is that your hp guess is as good as good as APD/GDI or other tuners....are you saying there hp claims are rubbish.
Rolling roads (when they measure losses as ours does) are far more representative of how a car will actually perform than an engine dyno.
:?: If these losses arent there in the first place, then thats not a much better solution for measuring output?? The only function a rolling road can offer over an engine dyno in terms of how a CAR will perform is simulated accln runs for e.g 1/4 mile . not a massive deal though!
An engine dyno is the only way you will accurately determine and ENGINES performance and characteristics. An engine dyno cell is a far far far more controlled environment as compared to an engine bay, with a transmission attached, and tyres, and rollers etc etc
A chassis dyno is really only suitable for engine tuning and engine fault diagnosis under load in the
car. But everyone wants to measure power on a chassis dyno as its mmost convenient.
Theres NO WAY that ANY rolling road system from ANY manufacturer measures or can calculate the VARIATION in losses between tyres/rollers, how this changes with temperature, power/torque input, speed, strap down method etc etc Both transmission and tyre losses change hugely with the torque transmitted and operating speed in a non linear way, and to put it simply, no rolling road monitors these.
What they do do, is to APPROXIMATE these with fancy algorithms to give a realistic flywheel figure, but not a calculated one. But to say they are more representative than an engine dyno is total nonsense.
The King
23-05-2009, 11:35
pwned
:lol:
hardly owned Spongenob, in REAL LIFE cars actually have the gearbox etc attached... fancy that hey?
I see Stans point, but it's a mute one imo. One measure the engines power with nothing attached and of course there will be losses from the fly... horses for courses. Who actually cares, neither will give you 100% accuracy for what a cars putting out on the road, but it's an educated guess rather than just a guess
The King
23-05-2009, 12:05
Stan has forgotten more about car engines than you have ever known.
But the fact is, what are you trying to measure?? Its always ENGINE output. This is the raw data.
No matter how you dress it up, this is what it boils down to...nothing more, nothing less.
In real life they do have gearboxes, and tyres, etc etc....but people still try to measure FLYWHEEL figures with a chassis dyno....see where im coing from?? An engine dyno removes these constantly transient variables.
The mute point of view is the classic "but thats what it puts on the road"...rubbish imo, the engine is the power source, what it puts ont he road is a direct factor of what it produces at the flywheel. THE single contributing factor is ease of use and commercial viability.
Companies will earn a far faster quick buck from power runs and tuning on a chassis dyno as its quicker and easier--but those keen on proper engine development use engine dyno's due to the controlled environmenet and lack of variables. This is fact.
That's fantastic Rob. Common sense tells me that RR's and dyno's are used for different purposes. RR's with trusted ops are good enough for myself and most people. General public wont really care one way or the other, so it's no cost effective. Again, this is common sense imo, else everything would be done for free, which dont get me wrong, would be lovely.
Yes agreed ^^
As I said, its easier and a faster money earner with a chassis dyno, thats why they are so popular. Quick and easy to use in comparison to an engine dyno set-up.
Like you say Jon, horses for courses.
To say they are a better tool for measuring power though is just not true.
How many Formula one teams do you see using a rolling road?
The King
23-05-2009, 12:14
Measuring engine power with a dyno is like trying to measure how tall you are by taking a tape measure and measuring it.
Measuring engine power with a rolling road is like trying to measure how tall you are by measuring your leg length, multiplying it by a 'total body factor', dividing by shoe size and adding the 'body length constant'
Thats not a bad anology :lol:
The King
23-05-2009, 12:16
Tuners use rolling roads to measure BHP because people pay for it. Not because its accurate or representitive.
As stan said its good for diagnosis, but tuners have created a saturday morning industry of extorting money from gullible people who stand around in the cold thinking they are getting somthing meaningful out of the experience.
The King
23-05-2009, 12:16
Thats not a bad anology :lol:
Thats why i am a teacher :P
I never said they were better, simply pointing out they are used for different things and an engine dyno to power run the general publics cars is simply non cost effective. Again, to me that's called common sense, so Rob will never ever in his life see a power figure from any tuner than he will deem accurate. So if he does bring you his car for the love of god dont give him an RR print out, just guess, it's more accurate apparently ;)
The King
23-05-2009, 12:27
I never said they were better, simply pointing out they are used for different things and an engine dyno to power run the general publics cars is simply non cost effective. Again, to me that's called common sense, so Rob will never ever in his life see a power figure from any tuner than he will deem accurate. So if he does bring you his car for the love of god dont give him an RR print out, just guess, it's more accurate apparently ;)
Im not interested in a power figure i can band around a forum to give me some kind of perceived status.
sideways danny
23-05-2009, 12:33
so an engine in a dyno cell without the exhaust that will be on the car, without the rad in the bay causing higher intake temps, and without the PAS system attached will tell you how the car will perform, better? LOL!!!!!!!! Engine dynos are great for certain things, but they wont tell you how a car will drive. We've recently had a TVR in for mapping and ECU fitting with the primary task of improved drivability. Things like reduded drivetrain shunt can ONLY be be tuned out in the car
You are one up on the F1 teams then.
As said, a dyno cell is a more controld environment. If you want to test the ambient temp to 30degC you can, if you want to test at 15degC you can. If you want to run a PAS system you can.
As for transmission shunts and drivability, not heard of an AC engine dyno?
You really think that Ford, etc etc etc test on rolling roads?? They dont, they use AC engine dyno's for road simulation runs.
sideways danny
23-05-2009, 12:44
We're not a multinational vehicle manufacturer though. Neither are you. We both tune CARS.
Comparing to F1??? Ideas above your station much?
The King
23-05-2009, 12:45
so an engine in a dyno cell without the exhaust that will be on the car, without the rad in the bay causing higher intake temps, and without the PAS system attached will tell you how the car will perform, better?
No it will tell you the power of the engine more accurately, and if you repeat the measurments, more precisely.
Do you ever perform any simple statitiscs on your engine power figures?
No, I dont tune CARS, I tune engines.
CAR tuning would be suspension and handling, aerodynamics etc.
Engine tuning i.e getting the desired output and characteristics from an engine, can only be achieved through testing the ENGINE. Having a transmission bolted on the side, then tyres deforming against a steel roll, then measuring a wheel torque and calculating back via ratio's and approximated corrections is great.
But for ultimate proven testing, you cant beat an engine test cell.
I really cant see whay you are arguing that?? other than being defensive over your equipment. But I wasnt slating what you use? just pointing out dont over-sell or over-believe in something for the sake of ownership.
For what its worth I will have my chassis dyno up and running in a month or so, it will have its uses, but I wont for one isecond be using it to prove my engines, thats what the engine cell is for.
each to their own i guess.
We're not a multinational vehicle manufacturer though. Neither are you.
thats as maybe, but you cant help but try to follow their trends in terms of testing, no matter on how small of a scale that may be.
Same with F1, they set the path in terms of engine developments and testing...why wouldnt you want to try and follow their steps.
sideways danny
23-05-2009, 13:00
ok, in the simplest terms i can think of, how often do you drive an engine out of the car? A chassis dyno lets you know what the package is doing, all together
Think some of you are losing sight on the fact these are Clio's, not F1 cars and with all due respect the only F1 methods I bet shared are how tea and coffee are served lol
ok, in the simplest terms i can think of, how often do you drive an engine out of the car? A chassis dyno lets you know what the package is doing, all together
Try going simpler for me, try and define "A chassis dyno lets you know what the package is doing, all together". "All together", what exactly are you measuring with the dyno to test this??
So just to keep it simple for me, as you can guess im struggling with this one, your telling me that you believe a chassis dyno is better for engine testing, data gathering, performance analysis, than an engine dyno test cell. is this what you are saying? A nice simple yes or no will suffice.
Think some of you are losing sight on the fact these are Clio's, not F1 cars and with all due respect the only F1 methods I bet shared are how tea and coffee are served lol
What does it matter if they are clios or F1 cars??
The principal of data gathering and testing is the same?? Why try and do yourself (as an engine tuning company) the injustice of settling for lesser methods, less repeatability etc etc. Im not implying my facilites are near their standards, but trying to aim towards that is surely better than just settling for what everyone else does???
As for F1 methods and tea/coffee...well yes to an extent, but alot of their trends are well publicised in periodicals, agreed without specifics, but trends are trends. And for testing methods, theirs plenty out there on the internet.
Failling that I could arrange some more tours round some of the "big boys" test facilites. which incidentally were all engine test cells.
Stan your engine bhp claims on this forum are these done using a dyno or RR ??
Example:- You said you expected 220 for Cliolords engine build and it made 217 are we to belive this as you state RRs are totally unreliable, was it measured on a dyno ?
I think this thread has turned into a tit for tat so let get back to topic.
Advantages in using a Megane engine:-
Flywheel pattern
33mm inlets
Dizzyless
Newer
More readily available
Whats are the willams advantages?
You really think that Ford, etc etc etc test on rolling roads?? They dont, they use AC engine dyno's for road simulation runs.
Ford VW Renault PSA FIAT GM etc
They all use dynos to initally map there engines but dynos are also and mainly used to durability testing. We have 25 engine dyno rooms in one of our facilities in France and used to have 10 in the UK but they are now closed and set up in China..!
They then have a series of testing with development cars which employees run which have their mapping tweeked to ensure the smooth drivetrain engagement, iron out any querks etc. Regards RRs then all the OEMs have RRs in there development facilities...FACT i have seen them. But to measure HP then it will always be the dyno figure.
RR's are essential for mapping as we dont take out engines out of the car or the expense of dyno mapping then having to tweek it on the RR.
I never said anything about r/r's not being used for mapping, thats one of the uses I stated "steady state tuning". Of course its more convenient.
My point was you cant rival an engine dyno cell for controlability, accuracy, and repeatability.
Anyway, back on topic, who is building your engine? Why not ask them about the best route to go down?
I never said anything about r/r's not being used for mapping, thats one of the uses I stated "steady state tuning". Of course its more convenient.
My point was you cant rival an engine dyno cell for controlability, accuracy, and repeatability.
Anyway, back on topic, who is building your engine? Why not ask them about the best route to go down?
A guy near where i live looks after the car he does loads of cars last 2 engine builds where 1600's saxo and Ford Sigma engines (both over 210hp-8.5k screamers) My current engine im trying to find out spec of spider parts at the mo but current engine will just be top end rebuild and refit.
Im thinking about buying an engine and doing a proper ITB build or just selling the car and get a 172 cup car at the moment.
Stan your engine bhp claims on this forum are these done using a dyno or RR ??
Example:- You said you expected 220 for Cliolords engine build and it made 217 are we to belive this as you state RRs are totally unreliable, was it measured on a dyno ?
I never stated rolling roads to be "totally unreliable". Please read all my posts to gather an informed picture of my statements.
The engines I have built TO DATE have been calibrated on a rolling road. These figures however are not ones I make "claims" with particulalrly. I have no reason to doubt there in a region of accuracy, but personally I wont be claiming any figures until they have been proven on the engine dyno.
Thats why im holding off with advertising the engines as packages, as I havnt dyno-proven them yet. Once I have, I will be in a better position to make "claims".
A guy near where i live looks after the car he does loads of cars last 2 engine builds where 1600's saxo and Ford Sigma engines (both over 210hp-8.5k screamers) My current engine im trying to find out spec of spider parts at the mo but current engine will just be top end rebuild and refit.
Im thinking about buying an engine and doing a proper ITB build or just selling the car and get a 172 cup car at the moment.
Well with the cup racer you will have the advantage of the sequential box, potentially better suspension. but its swings and roundabouts, it wont be long before your thinking of tweaking the 172 engine!
Keep the Mk1 :)
Stan your engine bhp claims on this forum are these done using a dyno or RR ??
Example:- You said you expected 220 for Cliolords engine build and it made 217 are we to belive this as you state RRs are totally unreliable, was it measured on a dyno ?
I never stated rolling roads to be "totally unreliable". Please read all my posts to gather an informed picture of my statements.
The engines I have built TO DATE have been calibrated on a rolling road. These figures however are not ones I make "claims" with particulalrly. I have no reason to doubt there in a region of accuracy, but personally I wont be claiming any figures until they have been proven on the engine dyno.
Thats why im holding off with advertising the engines as packages, as I havnt dyno-proven them yet. Once I have, I will be in a better position to make "claims".
So i think we agree it does have a good level of accuracy not the finger in the wind levels like SpongeNob is claiming.
You should get these packages on the website and just put indicative figures. Remeber you can get the same argument with one dyno vs the other, is it calibrated / what where the charge temps / did you used intended cars the exhaust and airbox, still lots of variables. Lots of cars dont make the same power on the RR as the dyno as the packaging of the engine in the bay can constarin airflow etc.
Anyways just gets these packages up on the website.. :wink:
A guy near where i live looks after the car he does loads of cars last 2 engine builds where 1600's saxo and Ford Sigma engines (both over 210hp-8.5k screamers) My current engine im trying to find out spec of spider parts at the mo but current engine will just be top end rebuild and refit.
Im thinking about buying an engine and doing a proper ITB build or just selling the car and get a 172 cup car at the moment.
Well with the cup racer you will have the advantage of the sequential box, potentially better suspension. but its swings and roundabouts, it wont be long before your thinking of tweaking the 172 engine!
Keep the Mk1 :)
With the 172 i would just bolt on ITBs. Sequential / 200+hp / 900kgs would be a good car and newer...Adam Gould won the Pirelli star driver in a 172 and now has a fully sponsored drive for the year.!
We will see anyhow as the pink car is great and there is certainly a lot more development in her yet. Really enjoy driving it to be honest....
Just want to know the spider specs (head / cams) nobody seems to know.. anything
Stan your engine bhp claims on this forum are these done using a dyno or RR ??
Example:- You said you expected 220 for Cliolords engine build and it made 217 are we to belive this as you state RRs are totally unreliable, was it measured on a dyno ?
I never stated rolling roads to be "totally unreliable". Please read all my posts to gather an informed picture of my statements.
The engines I have built TO DATE have been calibrated on a rolling road. These figures however are not ones I make "claims" with particulalrly. I have no reason to doubt there in a region of accuracy, but personally I wont be claiming any figures until they have been proven on the engine dyno.
Thats why im holding off with advertising the engines as packages, as I havnt dyno-proven them yet. Once I have, I will be in a better position to make "claims".
So i think we agree it does have a good level of accuracy not the finger in the wind levels like SpongeNob is claiming.
You should get these packages on the website and just put indicative figures. Remeber you can get the same argument with one dyno vs the other, is it calibrated / what where the charge temps / did you used intended cars the exhaust and airbox, still lots of variables. Lots of cars dont make the same power on the RR as the dyno as the packaging of the engine in the bay can constarin airflow etc.
Anyways just gets these packages up on the website.. :wink:
New website currently under construction :wink: :P
A guy near where i live looks after the car he does loads of cars last 2 engine builds where 1600's saxo and Ford Sigma engines (both over 210hp-8.5k screamers) My current engine im trying to find out spec of spider parts at the mo but current engine will just be top end rebuild and refit.
Im thinking about buying an engine and doing a proper ITB build or just selling the car and get a 172 cup car at the moment.
Well with the cup racer you will have the advantage of the sequential box, potentially better suspension. but its swings and roundabouts, it wont be long before your thinking of tweaking the 172 engine!
Keep the Mk1 :)
Just want to know the spider specs (head / cams) nobody seems to know.. anything
head is standard.
Tbh, im pretty sure the cams were std williams.
A guy near where i live looks after the car he does loads of cars last 2 engine builds where 1600's saxo and Ford Sigma engines (both over 210hp-8.5k screamers) My current engine im trying to find out spec of spider parts at the mo but current engine will just be top end rebuild and refit.
Im thinking about buying an engine and doing a proper ITB build or just selling the car and get a 172 cup car at the moment.
Well with the cup racer you will have the advantage of the sequential box, potentially better suspension. but its swings and roundabouts, it wont be long before your thinking of tweaking the 172 engine!
Keep the Mk1 :)
Just want to know the spider specs (head / cams) nobody seems to know.. anything
head is standard.
Tbh, im pretty sure the cams were std williams.
Where does the 30hp come from then as they were stated 180hp from renault in the race series.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.