1.9 CDTi 280 bhp. - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Tuning & Upgrades Discuss performance enhancements for your Alfa Romeo

Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 79 Old 09-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
1.9 CDTi 280 bhp.

This car has been progressively modified throughout the time my Wife has owned it. When I first visited RS Tuning in Leeds for a rolling road day 5 February 2011 we produced 216 bhp and power output has risen progressively as various different modifications were investigated, culminating in the current 280 bhp/430 odd ft.lbs.



Harvey Smith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: Skunk'd...
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
Clogz's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1405
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 929
Very nice!

What mods have you done to get to this?
Clogz is offline  
Status: off down the shed.
AO Gold Member
 
alfacool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England.
County: Durham
Posts: 6,323
What did you do to the transmission to cope with all that added torque?
alfacool is offline  
(Post Link) post #4 of 79 Old 09-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
The car has an F40 gearbox, single mass flywheel and uprated clutch. Do not use a paddle as these will shock the transmission. The wheels spin in 1st, 2nd and 3rd on a dry road at WOT so that helps save the transmission. It will also help that I don't drive like a boy racer but the car is capable of exceeding 160 mph on the speedo. 5th and 6th gears are relatively high gears so that helps save the transmission and I guess that if I am going to break anything it will be 4th gear.

It has been a continual process of evolution and not everything I have tried has been successful or worthwhile. If you read through a thread I will send a link to along with any relevant links you will see what I have done but to emulate these results would require you to carefully follow the steps I have taken because part of the logic in carrying out these modifications is that all the changes I have made that are still on the car are complimentary to what was already there. Modifying and tuning has to be a joined up process with everything working in conjunction.
When we first got this car (it is my Wife's daily driver) I had no interest in modifying it but then thought a little bit more extra power would be a good thing. Some inconsequential modifications were made but they are all part of the process of doing the ground work and part of the joined up process that has resulted in today's performance.
I started with airbox mod and K+N filter. I doubt the filter or airbox mod made much difference but they are ground work for what was to follow. Then I did the oil breather mod and experimented with the EGR which is now both blanked off and deleted in the ECU to prevent the CEL.
Then came an exhaust system totally decatted. I was surprised this did not show more power but then realised that on a diesel there would be no more power until additional fuel was added. I experimented with a tuning box which cost £89.99 and with the other mods this got me to around 199 bhp.
I was already monitoring air charge temperatures, I sell ACT guages for use on Subarus that I am heavily involved in tuning (£80) so I knew that even on a standard 150 CDTi the intercooler was p155 poor so I custom fitted a Hybrid/HDi FMIC core intended for Subaru STi. I am the Hybrid European Distributor and Technical Adviser and Pro Installer. The new FMIC made a big difference to air charge temperatures and then I started development work on turbos. All the turbos I have ever had on this car were either made by me or on two occasions I was heavilly involved in the specification and always responsible for the fitting and setting up. Turbos that I considered successful were 17/49/56 and various evolutions of 17/56/56. These have done 230 to 270 odd bhp on my spec and the current turbo doing 280 bhp is an evolution of the last 268 bhp turbo. I actually have two turbos for sale, a 17/49/56 and a 17/56/56 left over from my continual development. I also had built a 17/56/60 and although that produced 280 odd bhp on my spec it moved the power band up the rev range and as the car is my wife's daily driver early spool was important so that turbo was discounted. I also tried a series of 17/52 and 17/52/56 turbos all of which I considered a disaster despite the flowery claims by someone on this board to the contrary.
To go from 250 odd bhp to the present setup I had the injectors modified (not renozzled) to flow a further 19% fuel and all mapping since March or April 2011 has been by RS Tuning in Leeds.
These are the basic modifications at present.
Somewhere along the line I also added water methanol injection which on reflection was expensive for the gains achieved. 12-18 bhp subject to mapping.
I also played with the inlet manifold but don't think there was much gained here and the butterfly before the inlet manifold was removed. While neither of these mods would make much difference I do believe every little bit counts and contributes to the overall success.
I am in the process of building another 1.9 engine which will be more efficient than the existing as it is fresher and I have seriously worked the cylinder head so once that is installed in the car I expect to have the same power and torque that I have at present, ie. 279 bhp and 437 lbs.ft in daily road trim but probably achieved at slightly lower boost.
I hope this is of some help to you.

Last edited by Harvey Smith; 16-06-12 at 17:47.
Harvey Smith is offline  
(Post Link) post #5 of 79 Old 09-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
Harvey Smith is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
wo0dy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cambs
Posts: 760
EPIC!

I remember my old 1.9 8v multijet diesel from my grande punto that was putting out 260ft/lb of torque and 187hp. The amount of torque in the small rev range from 2k-4k was awesome.

Off the mark 1st and 2nd gears werent good with traction and wheel spin and that could wheel spin in 3rd also but the M32 gearbox and dual mass flywheel didnt like it all in the end and after about 20k miles the clutch was slipping and the gearbox on its wayout when I traded it in. After that decided I wouldnt modify the engine on my next car (the mito), but I'm so tempted with the upgrade packages autolusso offer but dont want to **** it up.

Your clearly in the know how and have put alot of work into it, 120K miles on your clock and still going strong
wo0dy is offline  
Status: WINNING!!!!
AO Silver Member
 
Singularity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: -
Posts: 2,036

Member car:

Van & astra GTC

So is this now running more than Karls (Nutrons) vectra?

I know you guys have had a fair few spats on other forums
Singularity is offline  
Status: Skunk'd...
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
Clogz's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1405
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 929
Thanks for the info & link!
Clogz is offline  
(Post Link) post #9 of 79 Old 13-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by wo0dy View Post
EPIC!

I remember my old 1.9 8v multijet diesel from my grande punto that was putting out 260ft/lb of torque and 187hp. The amount of torque in the small rev range from 2k-4k was awesome.

Off the mark 1st and 2nd gears werent good with traction and wheel spin and that could wheel spin in 3rd also but the M32 gearbox and dual mass flywheel didnt like it all in the end and after about 20k miles the clutch was slipping and the gearbox on its wayout when I traded it in. After that decided I wouldnt modify the engine on my next car (the mito), but I'm so tempted with the upgrade packages autolusso offer but dont want to **** it up.

Your clearly in the know how and have put alot of work into it, 120K miles on your clock and still going strong
I am in the process of putting together another 1.9 CDTi engine and that will have a number of advantages over the existing and the overall plan is to make similar power with greater efficiency and less boost. It would have been easy to bolt on a big turbo and achieve this or a bigger power output. In fact, about 10 months ago we had over 280 bhp on a particular turbo but as it was not pulling 1 bar until 2300 rpm it was not suitable for what is my Wife's daily driver.
Harvey Smith is offline  
Status: Suck , Squeeze , Bang , Smoke!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Allerd's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1723
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Netherlands
County: Drenthe
Posts: 770
What did you do to the injectors?
Allerd is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

My only problem with you Harvey is that you say different things every time you talk about it. You stated on Vectra-C that you had change the nozzles and now you state the opposite. Diesel bob can produce 15% uprated nozzles at the moment and are working towards 20% more flow, at which point I shall fit a set.

I found with the turbos, the larger the inducer the higher the spool threshold but a larger exducer tended to help the spool speed when it was past that point. As a result I am trying to get a 60mm wheel reworked to reduce the inducer enough to spool around 1500-1600rpm with a larger cover as the pipework from the turbo is very small.

I'm now making about 215WHP without uprated nozzles, so I am hoping for an equally large jump when I fit uprated nozzles but I'm not going to remove the Daul mass flywheel after concideration and looking at alot of Alfa and Saab gearbox failures post fitting SMFs.

I'm still keen to suggest the external waste gate to work in conjunction as it bumped the figures stright away.

Last edited by nutron; 14-06-12 at 13:13.
nutron is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Derbyshire
Posts: 1,613

Member car:

159 Ti

these figures all seem very impressive, but also seem much more than a vectra fwd can handle.

My experience of the vectra was the poor drive off the line. A 156 has better drive but could not handle 250bhp and associated torque even with a lsd.

to say that you are saving the box by spinning the wheels in the first 3 gears does not seem to be a sensible solution.
Having looked at the maps and torque figures I did wonder if it would be possible to flatten the 2500rpm spike, at least make it smoother and try to add more traction to a car which is not known for its great traction.

When you look at the ttid torque curve, its so flat for a lot of its rev band you could almost play bowls on it. Manufactures work hard to produce flat torque lines, (bmw m3 etc) and whilst the ttid twin turbo may be limited to protect a weak box, its limited also to produce a nice drive.

we all know the usual suspects for building cars with spikey outputs (ford, vw, seat 130/150pd and early 170bhp diesels, although not so much of late) and all know the manufacturers with humble outputs yet quicker cars that put the power down so much better, even with the same engine (jaguars version of the 2.0d, peugeots twin turbo version of the jv 2.2 ford unit, bmw diesels but esp. the 2.0 and 3.0 twin turbo) which goes to prove how sensible mapping and linear, controlled and tractable power delivery produces a real drivers car that won't send you into a ditch every time you press the loud pedal near a corner.

What you have done is very respectable, producing a large amount of power from a small displacement unit.

As for reliabilty, I see your claims and that you don't drive fast, you or your wife.
I do serious trackdays, where the car spends most of its time on either wot (5-7k rpm) or seriously hard braking, I am not sure I would trust such a highly strung unit as this in track car for fear of it not lasting the day, never mind its lack of driveability.

The bmw btcc car uses a fairly standard off the shelf turbo on its 2.0 petrol unit, I was surprised that the turbo should last the life of the engine with the boost it runs, but then the life of the engine is only 2500miles or so, and giving the beans to such a highly strung unit as yours pulling near 2 bar boost, surely the turbo and engine would not be capable of the same level of abuse you could potentially give a car that was not tuned in this way?

Impressive what you've done, but serious questions over long term reliability.
jasons is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

Well mine is only running about 245-250bhp but I drove to Frankfurt and back in it this year and pushed to just under 160mph on the clock before having to slow for traffic and it was still happily accelerating. So it is possible to produce a high power reliable 1.9CDTI engine.

I have a face lift where as Harvey has the pre face lift. The pre facelift was not very good at putting down power and so had traction control on most models. The face lift is alot better at getting traction off the line and in corners (I have owned both from factor new) but I still opted to have TC and electronic stability program (upto three wheel braking in corners) to improve traction and safety.

I have not tried recently as I don't like to shock load the transmission with upto 395lbft (thus keeping the DMF and having a kevlar clutch rather than paddle) but previously I have achieved 0-60mph in 6.5 seconds using the performance box. I was running around the 220bhp mark at that point.

Having said all that, if there is any water on the motorway I can break traction in a straigh line at 65mph in 4th. So I agree that 430lbft may be more than is actually useable on the road in this chassis but the power is not an issues as the torque is much lower at peak power.

Last edited by nutron; 15-06-12 at 08:21.
nutron is offline  
(Post Link) post #14 of 79 Old 16-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allerd View Post
What did you do to the injectors?
I calculated I needed 15% more flow from the injectors but when I looked in to this I concluded that re-nozzling the injectors was neither necessary nor adviseable for my purpose so the injectors were overhauled and modified by a Bosch specialist without changing the nozzles and the measured flow increase was 19%.
Prior to this the car was already achieving 250 odd bhp on the RS Tuning rollers which some say read modestly but I have used consistantly since early February 2011. Remember however these figures took in to account the benefit from water methanol injection.
Harvey Smith is offline  
(Post Link) post #15 of 79 Old 16-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron View Post
My only problem with you Harvey is that you say different things every time you talk about it. You stated on Vectra-C that you had change the nozzles and now you state the opposite. Diesel bob can produce 15% uprated nozzles at the moment and are working towards 20% more flow, at which point I shall fit a set.

I found with the turbos, the larger the inducer the higher the spool threshold but a larger exducer tended to help the spool speed when it was past that point. As a result I am trying to get a 60mm wheel reworked to reduce the inducer enough to spool around 1500-1600rpm with a larger cover as the pipework from the turbo is very small.

I'm now making about 215WHP without uprated nozzles, so I am hoping for an equally large jump when I fit uprated nozzles but I'm not going to remove the Daul mass flywheel after concideration and looking at alot of Alfa and Saab gearbox failures post fitting SMFs.
I'm still keen to suggest the external waste gate to work in conjunction as it bumped the figures stright away.
Your first sentence is insulting. I have given a very clear account, historically of what I have done, consistantly on several forums including the link above.
Quote:
You stated on Vectra-C that you had change the nozzles
Link please.
Nutron :
Quote:
I'm now making about 215WHP without uprated nozzles,
Previously did you not state 235 WHP? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Previously you told me I had wasted my time with hybrid turbos and they had been done to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron
As I said, the reason I think you wasted time with the turbo is that the standard turbo will produce 30% more boost pressure than standard upto near the redline. You aren't likely to ever want to run more than 2.2bar of boost.
My polite response :
Quote:
Thanks for that but your approach is a bit different to mine. There is no right or wrong but what you are aiming for and what I want to achieve may be considerably different. The 1749 turbo is not designed to run at 2.2 bar of boost and operating well beyond its efficiency zone, it will be making a lot of heat.

2.2 bar sounds like a lot of boost for an engine which in standard form probably operates at 1.4/1.5 bar.
What is regarded as the safe boost level for these engines?

When I started playing with this turbo I realised it had a lot of potential but I was also concerned that it would overspeed badly and I also believed that operating within the efficiency range, with a larger compressor wheel would be kinder on both the turbo and more importantly the engine.

Unless others share their knowledge with me I am in uncharted waters as I have no idea what these engines may be capable of or what the weak areas may be but I would guess that 250 bhp and somewhere well past 360 lbs.ft has to be on the cards. A bit more fuel and boost and I am sure it is already very close but I want to do it without leaving a smokescreen.
That was my position then and my historic posts show how critical you have been of everything I have done. They also show that I have consistantly followed the route I set out with in the first place although there has been a lot of evolution and I have come from 216 or 217 bhp at RS Tuning with water methanol to 284 bhp/437 lbs.ft without water methanol and now running 279 bhp or some such similar figure with water methanol on a clean engine and my aspirations are to maintain that power level with further reduced boost.
I think the 1.9 CDTi community has moved on a long way in a relatively short space of time and I am sure others share that view.

At some point you changed your view. Perfectly understandable in view of what was happening.

Nutron :
Quote:
Well I shelled out a tonne for a second hand turbo and I'm going to see if there is anything to be had from modifying. I shall take it to a company with all the kit though and test the flow before and after modification rather than just changing bits and putting it in the car to see what happens.
What boost have you been running? You are critical of what I am doing but do not publish your rolling road graphs openly as I do showing boost, AFR, WHP, torque and BHP.

Quote:
I'm still keen to suggest the external waste gate to work in conjunction as it bumped the figures stright away.
An external wastegate on a conventional turbo will not add significantly to the power. To do that you need a redesign of turbo exhaust housing. What the external wastegate can do is make boost control that much easier and more accurate.
After your mapping session you were very critical of how little power you had picked up and actually said you were reverting to your tuning box and previous turbo. Anyway if you want to put time in to that good luck with it. Should be interesting.
Harvey Smith is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

On Vectra-C you stated you changed the nozzles, that is not an insult, it is what you wrote.

235WHP on NOS at a Vectra-C rolling road day on a standard turbo, as I have also told you before.

Yes, I was wrong about the hybrids. You'll note as is always the case with MYSELF, that I admit when I am wrong.

I was critical of you saying you would come and run 250bhp+ and then ran just under my figures and failed to respond when approached, something not just myself commented on.

I was very dissapointed with the figures from the RS remap to start with and even more disappointed that I got pulled by the police for smoking doing 30mph. RS resolved this soon after and I have run 246bhp on RS tunings rollers without the water/methanol as I was having a sensor problem.

Alot of what you did I did years ago, like the crank breath venting and EGR, water/methanol. The hybrid turbos were not available until recently, I tried for four years to get one and managed finally to get Turbo Technics to make one last year. I was plesantly surprised with the results and educated myself in the manufacture of these turbos so I could start having experimental items made.

The waste gate idea came to me first as a way to control the overboost spikes. On fitting I found possitive gains in output too.

The next turbo I am hoping to try is an alternative 59mm wheel hopefully. having modified 702549-0008 (59.5mm exducer, 44.4mm inducer, 5.9mm tip, 32.4mm wheel height) I found no difference in spool threshold when that wheel was milled down to a 56mm exducer and only minimal improvement due to inducer reprofiling. There may be a 59mm wheel with a 42mm inducer available though which I would expect to spool around 1700-1800rpm before reprofiling.

I have the remote tuning unit from RS now, had some issues with the PC software to start but the newest version is working fine. I am hoping RS will be able to find and rescale the 3.5 bar bosch sensor I have fitted.

Last edited by nutron; 18-06-12 at 09:46.
nutron is offline  
(Post Link) post #17 of 79 Old 19-06-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
[

As I clearly stated, traction in the lower gears is an issue. I have already made some improvements in this area but my particular interest is seeing what this engine is capable of. The handling of the Vectra as I have it is good but obviously with 430 odd ft.lbs it is time for 4 wheel drive but that is not practical on this chassis/floor pan nor does it make sense financially.
Spinning the wheels is not a sensible solution ??? Who said it was a solution?
I use my right foot to control the power to the wheels and do not deliberately spin tyres. Such behaviour is infantile. However in the wet or on rough surfaces it is possible to be caught out and the fact that the tyres lose adhesion before full torque is achieved obviously helps the gearbox. I am certainly not advocating spinning tyres.
What would you suggest to flatten the torque curve? The torque is very useful in higher gears where gearshifts become less necessary.
This is work in progress as it has been for less than 2 years. The graphs you have seen are the latest rolling road runs from a further development of this particular turbo so there is lots of room for improvement so please do not be critical. It is a process of evolution.
I am not interested in what the manufacturers do. If I was I would have a standard car and not have the curiosity to find out what works and what does not work. Is that not what this forum is about. The previous torque curve was not peaky and this torque curve will improve with information gained.
I have already greatly improved traction over standard and may improve it further but it is not such a big issue with sensible use of the right foot that it is a big problem.

Quote:
we all know the usual suspects for building cars with spikey outputs (ford, vw, seat 130/150pd and early 170bhp diesels, although not so much of late) and all know the manufacturers with humble outputs yet quicker cars that put the power down so much better, even with the same engine (jaguars version of the 2.0d, peugeots twin turbo version of the jv 2.2 ford unit, bmw diesels but esp. the 2.0 and 3.0 twin turbo) which goes to prove how sensible mapping and linear, controlled and tractable power delivery produces a real drivers car that won't send you into a ditch every time you press the loud pedal near a corner.
This has nothing to do with me. You have lost me here. I havn't driven any of the cars you are referring to or even know what they are and this is our first small diesel. It certainly doesn't head for a ditch with WOT near a corner.

Quote:
As for reliabilty, I see your claims and that you don't drive fast, you or your wife.
I do serious trackdays, where the car spends most of its time on either wot (5-7k rpm) or seriously hard braking, I am not sure I would trust such a highly strung unit as this in track car for fear of it not lasting the day, never mind its lack of driveability.
Now you are talking rubbish. I am not a boy racer but where did I claim not to drive quickly. Just where does this come from? Top speed in excess of 160 mph and still climbing, bigger circumfrence tyres so the speedo may be close to accurate, 250 miles last Thursday in not a lot of time. How about Szolnok, Hungary 10:00am to Darlington 03:00 the following morning and there was a stretch of water to cross that affected average speed. Work it out for yourself. I guess this car has done over 100 rolling road runs at RS Tuning alone so think what you like about reliability and if you think I am a slow driver I don't know where you got that from. You are inventing something I have not said. Perhaps you could clarify. Not with this particular vehicle I have done many track days, former winner of the annual Scooby Shootout event, seperately, timed at 186 mph at Elvington and 194 mph at Bruntingthorpe, past European truck driving champion, to name but a few so I might know a little bit about driving and speed. Thanks for sharing your track experience with us but again not relevant as this is not a track day car. I do have a 500 odd bhp car, 4WD, smaller and lighter but that is not relevant either.
What I am doing quite deliberately is increasing the performance of this diesel road car to suit me. What is this bit about driveability. The car has a wider rev range now than it did as standard and I havn't heard my wife complain about a lack of driveability. The average driver would not know this car was other than standard until they put their foot on the floor. The area under the torque curve is substantial compared with the car in OE spec. Have an opinion by all means but do not invent slow driver and lack of driveability and remember I am doing this because I want to and if it doesn't suit you it doesn't matter as you can go off and do your own thing whatever that might be and I have no reason to be critical if you choose an entirely different passtime.
What have 5000 or 7000 RPM limits got to do with me? This is a diesel with a redline at 5000 and best progress is made with upshifts before that point. Petrols, BMW, BTCC, none of this has any relevance to what I am doing.
Did you actually read what I said? I plan to produce the same power give or take a little with less boost. That seems like a step in the right direction to me. How much do you know about turbos? Properly built 2 bar is no big deal for the right turbo and engine but that is a concern to me, the internals because I am in unchartered water but other poeple can learn from what I am doing if they wish. I am heavily involved in specifying and building turbos and I have a fair understanding of what works and what does not, reliability, longevity and so on. I have a record of success.
Like I said I enjoy doing this. It is a voyage of discovery with continual refinement. If it is not something you want to do, do your own thing and enjoy that.

Some photos from my workshop at home this evening.










Last edited by Harvey Smith; 19-06-12 at 02:35.
Harvey Smith is offline  
Status: Bavarian
Admin Team
 
bobda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
County: -
Posts: 15,172

Member car:

Not a GT

If you're both just here to argue then this thread will be closed. Keep the insults & petty squabbling to the Vauxhall forums please.
bobda is offline  
(Post Link) post #19 of 79 Old 08-07-12 Thread Starter
Status: Every day is alearning day
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Durham
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allerd View Post
What did you do to the injectors?
Allerd : Specifically I did a lot of research and was informed by a very knowledgeable guy that the spray pattern was critical. I already knew this on much larger units from my marine engineering background. I also knew that the 120 Vectra injectors are a different spray pattern to those of the 150. I was therefore advised against changing the nozzles if it could be avoided and eventually I sent my injectors to United Diesels who said they would increase flow 20%. (01939 291155). They actually increased by 19% and this must be a good option for anyone looking for more flow without new nozzles which may have associated risks. They actually have a set of my injectors there now.

Nutron :
Quote:
Your first sentence is insulting. I have given a very clear account, historically of what I have done, consistantly on several forums including the link above.

You stated on Vectra-C that you had change the nozzles
Link please.
If that is the case send me a link as I have already asked. Here is what I said as far as I know :
Quote:
Mapping can deal with injector timing and pulse width but 19-20% is available on the injectors without renozzling. The main consideration at present is that mapping will take care of the overboost.......
The first rolling road run at RS produced 216 bhp, another Vectra running more boost produced 217 bhp but substantially less torque. The graph also shows the progress made over the following nine months.



Turbo in use at the time (February 2011) was a 17/49V Saab turbo which I think I paid £77 for. This is exactly the same turbo as the GM unit. The front cover was removed and the local machine shop profiled the cover to suit a 56 wheel I already had. I then experimented with various turbo configurations most of which I put together myself. With the assistance of my friend Tim Waterson of Turbo Solutions here in Darlington we built a 17/56/60. This was the OE 17/49 turbo originally on the car with a BMW front cover (56) machined to take a BMW 60 wheel. This was a fantastic performer with over 280 bhp but less torque (for understandable reasons) and my measure of spool, 1 bar in 4th on a level road, was 2300 RPM for this turbo. It went very well but as this is my wife's daily driver I wanted to greatly reduce the spool point. I then went back to a 17/56/56 which performed very well to 275 bhp but 268 bhp in road trim. I then collaborated with Adam Davidson of TDi Turbos and we modified one of the previous existing which is now on the car running 279.3 bhp and 437 ft.lbs in road trim but it did produce 284 bhp on the rollers
I have further developments in hand and the objective is to produce the same power but at reduced boost which will give the engine an easier time. This engine has had a very hard life and I suspect I am close to the limit to what this engine can do structurally. In the early days I did run up to 2.3 bar of boost but that has progressively reduced as the breathing of the engine has improved and it is currently around 1.9 bar or just over but I think that will reduce closer to 1.8 bar for engine logevity. Incidentally the car has something like 120,000 miles on the clock. MY06 and it is a Facelift model not a pre-facelift as alleged but handling will be of little interest to Alfa owners.
As the 1.9 Fiat engine is common to Alfa Romeo as well as Saab and GM, I hope this is all of interest to Alfa owners.

Last edited by Harvey Smith; 13-07-12 at 12:43.
Harvey Smith is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

I almost saw it run over 280 but the smoke was too thick lol.

I can't send you a link because as you know you are now on my ignore list in Vectra-C and I can't see your posts.

I would have gotten my injectors done up there too but you would not tell anyone where you got them done until now, so I went to Diesel Bob, who have now completed modification and also claim a 20% increase on the bence from them without changing the nozzles. They are hoping to test them in one of the Vectras they have in regually during the next week or two before they make them available. I expect the cost to be around £450 for modifying four nozzles supplied to them.

I was able to get a modified 44/59mm to spool under 2000rpm and make over a bar before 2000rpm in a machined standarded cover but was still unhappy with that threshold. I have now modified a 44/60mm wheel down to a 41/60mm wheel with a very different profile and am waiting on a housing from a 52 or 56mm comp wheel unit to be machined to fit. I expect the spool threshold for that to be below 2000rpm based on the tests with 40/56, 42/56 and 44/59 wheels.

If that does not get the required spool I want, I will cut and weld a flange onto a standard manifold to accept a GTB unit. I have already tested welds on a manifold and they are holding fine, so I believe that to be a viable option.

As I said else where, I'm glad you came alone and eventually surpassed me, now I have something to aim for again. I got a bit bored some years ago when I was running 235whp on NOS and none of the petrol or diesel Vectras were making anything like as much. Alot of progress has come from wars, I wouldn't say this was a war but I'm keen to see 300bhp without smoking heavily and this engine has been tuned heavily for all of it's 85,000 mile life with little complaint thus far. I recon she will make the mark.
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Smith View Post
Turbo in use at the time (February 2011) was a 17/49V Saab turbo which I think I paid £77 for. This is exactly the same turbo as the GM unit. The front cover was removed and the local machine shop profiled the cover to suit a 56 wheel I already had. I then experimented with various turbo configurations most of which I put together myself. With the assistance of my friend Tim Waterson of Turbo Solutions here in Darlington we built a 17/56/60. This was the OE 17/49 turbo originally on the car with a BMW front cover (56) machined to take a BMW 60 wheel.

I have further developments in hand and the objective is to produce the same power but at reduced boost which will give the engine an easier time. .
If you want the same power at reduced boost you should try a complete bigger turbo.
Now you are creating massive backpressure with a standard turbine. You can mount a 56 or 60mm compressor to it, but the balance turbine-compressor is totally gone.
I bet, if you put a GTB2056v to it, power goes up right away at the same boost.
Also it will be much healthier for the engine.

In my case, the GTB2056v added 8% power over the OEM GT1749v without any change in software !
JS JTD is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

I would agree, which is why I have an external waste gate operating above 15psi inlet manifold pressure to reduce exhaust manifold pressure and I have seen increases of about 5% with that.
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron View Post
I would agree, which is why I have an external waste gate operating above 15psi inlet manifold pressure to reduce exhaust manifold pressure and I have seen increases of about 5% with that.
An external wastegate only cures overboost.

Still, without overboosting you have too many backpressure with such a turbine.
The small turbine wheel has to power the big compressor wheel which result in a very small VNT opening to get it going.

This is like feeding the engine with a fire hose and let the exhaust breath out through a straw.
JS JTD is offline  
Status: Suck , Squeeze , Bang , Smoke!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Allerd's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1723
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Netherlands
County: Drenthe
Posts: 770
I've got a gtb2056v for sale.
[email protected]
I could also supply a 156 jtd16v exhaust manifold, but I'm afraid the Opel turbo is mounted the other way around.. Is your compressor inlet facing the gearbox or the timing belt?
Allerd is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

I understand what you mean but there is a reduction in pressure in the manifold from the waste gate at high boost all the time, not just over boost.

The Vauxhall 1.9CDTIs have the compressor inlet on the timing belt side (drivers).

I am going to try the 60mm wheel before looking to aquire a gtb unit and I have spare manifold.

I did try a gt2556 by machining the manifold and reworking the vnts but the spool threshold on that was far too high up the range.
nutron is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Tuning & Upgrades

Tags
280 , bhp , cdti

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome