Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
sorry, what does EMS refer to?

i also apologise to say this to break your modding spirit but leaving it alone would be the best solution for reliability.

i dont know what EMS refers to but i would say a light mod like remapping would have least strain on your engine and various parts. :rolleyes:

sorry i couldnt be more helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
I don't like chips because unless you have a turbo diesel, there's hardly any difference and the red line always goes up hence the possibility of knackering the engine prematurely.

I think a turbo kit to be reliable should be a low preassure job and same goes with a compressor. You risk sufffering from serious turbo lag on a bolt on kit and the temperatures involved in its use are extreme. Compressors are better and I know of several Novitec compressors being installed in GTA's and one in a 166TS with excellent results and no premature wear. The 166 has done 50k kms with its extra 60 BHP and is perfect. The Novitec GTA's now produce 350 BHP BTW and can hit +300 kph with a longer 6th from a JTD. :eek: A m8 ran a 348 off the Autobahn (well, into the slow lane) in one. The Ferrari must have been shocked to see an Alfa 147 pass him at 300 kph!!! :D Novitec spend thousands on R&D and produce 600 BHP F430's so they know what they're doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,002 Posts
I assume EMS is engine management system? I think chipping / EMS is OK for reliability if you use it to get rid of the manufacturer "lean" points where they are trying to improve fuel consumption at the 56 and 75(?) MPH points. I agree that just increasing the rev limiter is a risky way to go. Some allow you to get more power by tuning for 98RON, but then you must use it.

I suspect turbos / superchargers have their good and bad points for both reliability and performance. Turbo; easier installation, more lag, more efficient, probably more options. Supercharger; more like a big engine, noisier, higher fuel consumption. Either turbo or supercharger = big money compared to chipping. (personally I quite like the whistle, whoosh kick in the backside of a turbo). Might want to see what Alfadublin has to say, I guess he went through the same thought process with his 147.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
mave said:
Might want to see what Alfadublin has to say, I guess he went through the same thought process with his 147.
:cheese: :cheese: .Thanks,but these thoughts never even crossed my mind.I wanted a Turbo and that was it,no thought or deciding process.

The only thought that goes through my head each time I rebuild the engine,or change Turbos and Omex engine management mappings/settings is-"This is fast/powerfull now but I still want more Power. :lol: :D

Turbocharging a twinspark is easy enough,and can be 100% reliable,but you have to run very low boost(6-8 psi boost maximum) on a standard/unmodified twinspark engine to keep it 100% relaible.

If you want to run over 10 psi boost then you have to start modifying/tuning the engine itself.Also turbo/supercharging an engine isnt cheap and will cost alot of money(whether its a low boost turbo kit or a full on race spec engine build and turbo setup).

Trust me on this one.Been there,done it and got the T-Shirt. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
alfaSA, before embarking on any mods, u need to know what ur looking for. if u have a hp/torque goal to hit, that will determine ur modding path.

redd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,591 Posts
I would certainly be considering how I was going to use the car. Unless you use a low pressure turbo then you will experience lag which is unpleasant in city driving

I have a preference for Supercharging, but it is a really a personal thing so-to-speak
 
P

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Allthough i have the highest regards for tuners like Novitec, it does seem that the Turbo driven 2.0's made back in 99-2000 are now starting to cause grey hairs and finacial ruin to their present owners.. We have quite a few 156 novitec turbo's here in Denmark, and from what i heard recently, they are not cheap to keep on the road!

The point is, that unless you are willing to go all the way like AlfaDublin did on his engine, then it's probably not a good idea to put forced induction on the TS engines. They don't seem to able to hold up to the stress without expensive maintenance.

If you really want power, then You'd be better of trading your 147 TS to a 147 GTA.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
Stori said:
I would certainly be considering how I was going to use the car. Unless you use a low pressure turbo then you will experience lag which is unpleasant in city driving

I have a preference for Supercharging, but it is a really a personal thing so-to-speak

Turbo Lag is determined by the size of the turbo and the exhaust side fan blades/turbine,and not the amount of boost pressure that you run.

You can and will still get lag on a low compression turbo conversion if the size of the turbo does not suit the engine itself.

A Garrett T 25 sized turbo is ideal for a turbo conversion on a standard 1.6 litre twinspark.Its smallish in size has small compressor and exhaust turbines/fan blades,and this means the the turbo spools up faster therefore reducing lag to a minimum.It will boost away with no real lag at 6-8 psi boost but is also cabable of about 250-260bhp at 1 bar boost.

You can still get lag on a turbo,regardless of whether you run low boost(6-8 psi) or highish boost(12-23 psi boost).Every turbo(regardless of size or spec) will give some lag,some give more than others.

The only proper way to completely eliminate all lag is to use an Anti Lag System on the car.

This system cuts the ignition spark to the engine and directs fuel vapour onto the hot blades of the turbo,this results in the turbos fan igniting the fuel vapour and the resulting combustion keeps the turbo blades spinning/spooling and this eliminates all lag,as the turbo is already spooling/spinning away as you launch/accelerate.

This system also spits flames out of the exhaust from the fuel vapour igniting from the hot turbo and this gives a loud whistling and popping noise form the turbo and exhaust .

That is what anti-lag is and does to a turbo and car.You can get an anti-lag system as part of a stand alone/aftermarket engine management systems.Once you drop the clutch and accelerate the ignition spark re-engages and ignites the fuel vapour in the engine instantly for maximum power/acceleration.

The other option to eliminate lag is to fit a Launch Control System(Race Logics system is one of the best systems on the market) in the car.This is a system that keeps the cars revs at around 4-6000 revs as you sit ready to accelerate in 1st gear,as you accelerate the cars revs are so high up that the turbo doesnt bog down,as its already spooling away due to the high revs of the car.

Launch Control usually comes/is incorporated with Traction Control systems that some WRC and Group N rally cars have installed in them.

The launch control causes the car to accelerate at full revs,while it combined with the traction control system keeps the cars wheels from spinning up from high revs and sudden power from the engine.Therefore you get a very fast/smooth launch,but with no lag and no wheel spin either.

I have both the Anti-Lag system(fitted with to the Omex 700 engine mamagement) and Race Logic Traction and Launch control systems fitted to my car.These are very expensive systems to have installed and set up on any car.Hope this explains about lag and anti-lag,as some people have asked me before what anti-lag is and how it works
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
YEs EMS Refers to engine manegement system.The thing is that at the moment i would like the power if i need it !If i want to put my foot down on 2000 rev it should go!!! AS i understand Chip is the cheapest way to GO EX.Unichip ...EMS is more advance but more expensive..Now between the turbo and supercharge people said that supercharge is more realiable?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
A supercharger would probably be the simpler option - there are plenty of brand new eaton sc available from mini coopers. Getting someone to make the mounting brackets and pulley would be your only difficulty. It would however require either a serious remap or probably and aftermarket ECU solution. Possibly new injectors (what will the stock ones do Pat?).
To be honest - turbo charging isn't much harder :eek:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
daveg360 said:
A supercharger would probably be the simpler option - there are plenty of brand new eaton sc available from mini coopers. Getting someone to make the mounting brackets and pulley would be your only difficulty. It would however require either a serious remap or probably and aftermarket ECU solution. Possibly new injectors (what will the stock ones do Pat?).
To be honest - turbo charging isn't much harder :eek:
The standard 147(1.6 litre) injectors are multi squirt/flow 177cc injectors and these combined with a decent remap will be good enough to flow enough fuel for about 190-200bhp,after that 200-210 bhp you really need to upgrade to 201cc injectors with the remap,and after that 210-300bhp you need a piggy back ecu or stand alone engine management and race/hi-flow injectors and fuel pump system.

My car runs full Omex 700 stand alone engine management system with R.C Engineering Race/Hi-Flow single squirt injectors.Also I run with a BMW Motorsport M5 intank fuel pump,Bosch Motorsport external fuel pump,bigger fuel lines,a 5 bar adjustable fuel pressure regulator and a hi-flow billet fuel rail.This has 2 fuel hose inlets(1 at each end).This distributes the fuel more quickly and evenly to the injectors.

In order to get anywhere near 200bhp on a standard 1.6 litre engine,then you need to be running 13 psi boost on a Garrett T-25 sized Turbo,you may also need to skim/machine the standard piston head/crowns to lower the compression ratio a bit so that you can run 13 psi and reach 200bhp.Running 13 psi boost constantly on a standard twinspark engine is not a good idea. :tut: Sooner or later you will pop the head gasket,melt a piston or even throw a conrod.This means a full and complete engine rebuild.This can be mega expensive. :eek:

Also regardless of whether you supercharge or turbocharge the engine,I would seriously advize you to install a Front Mount Intercooler on the car in stead of a small and crap side mount intercooler from the 147/156JTD engine.

The side mount intercooler is too small and is a piece of plastic/aluminium crap.The front mount intercooler will cool the intake temperature of engine down alot,resulting in colder,denser air and more power from the engine.

It will also allow you to run the car at a constant 8-10 psi boost on a standard engine,without having a very high intake temp,and therefore heating the engine up alot and melting pistons or blowing a hole in the engine block.

1st pic compares a side mount intercooler to a front mount jobbie.

2nd pic shows the Pace front mount intercooler on my car,and the new and even bigger intercooler thats about presently being fitted to the car.

3rd/4th pic shows the fuel pressure regulator and the billet fuel rail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,002 Posts
AlfaSA said:
Now between the turbo and supercharge people said that supercharge is more realiable?????
I don't think anyone said that..... the reliability of the turbo / supercharger is only as good as the installation itself. I suspect the main issues you will get are the resultant reduction in reliability of the basic engine. Simply put, irrespective of whether you supercharge or turbocharge, you get the same reduction in reliability for the same gain in power. If you want the reliability, you need to spend £££ to get the basic engine up to scratch.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
mave said:
I don't think anyone said that..... the reliability of the turbo / supercharger is only as good as the installation itself. I suspect the main issues you will get are the resultant reduction in reliability of the basic engine. Simply put, irrespective of whether you supercharge or turbocharge, you get the same reduction in reliability for the same gain in power. If you want the reliability, you need to spend £££ to get the basic engine up to scratch.
Exactly.I couldnt have said it better myself. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
All of the bolt on turbo and SC stuff seems to have originated in the states. They have big lazy oversize engines to start with. They quite happily have 4.7 litre engines that only put out 220BHP (jeep cherokee)- there's obviously scope from improvement. European stuff (especially BMW *spits*) seem to really get there moneys worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,215 Posts
:rolleyes:

Yup let's just ride that big and lazy American stereotype a little further down the road. Giddeyup.

Yes there are big, freeflowing American engines in large cars and trucks. There are also small compact powerplants stuffed under the hoods of small cars. Or maybe the Cobalt SSSC (supercharged 2.0 litre 205 horsepower) or the SRT4 (turbocharged, 2.4 litre 230 horsepower) sitting on dealer lots are figments of my imagination.

(Please note: I'm not saying either one of these are perfect cars, let alone super cars. I'm just trying to point out that saying "all American cars" is about as useful as saying "all European cars.")



Acceleration.........Cobalt............SRT4
(mph)
0-30.................. 2.2 sec...........2.4 sec
0-40...................3.5.................3.8
0-50...................4.8.................4.9
0-60...................6.1.................6.0
0-70...................7.9.................7.8
0-80...................10.2................9.7
0-90...................12.6................11.8
0-100..................15.4...............13.8
Passing 45-65 mph..2.7................2.7

1/4 mile.......14.4 sec @ 99.3 mph...14.4 sec @ 100.8 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph...113 ft.............118 ft
600-foot slalom....67.2 mph avg...... 65.9 mph avg
Lateral acceleration..0.88 g avg......0.88 g avg
MT Figure-eight...26.0 sec @ 0.69 g avg... 25.9 sec @ 0.69 g avg
1.6-mile Road-course lap..97.2 sec....97.4 sec
Top-gear revs @ 60mph...2300 rpm....2200 rpm

For additional stats and full review please see:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0505_joysticks/index5.html

Now back to discussion.
--Toronto (who really, really wishes the minds behind AO would come up with a way to make tabs word :D )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Toronto Spider said:
:rolleyes:

Yup let's just ride that big and lazy American stereotype a little further down the road. Giddeyup.

Yes there are big, freeflowing American engines in large cars and trucks. There are also small compact powerplants stuffed under the hoods of small cars. Or maybe the Cobalt SSSC (supercharged 2.0 litre 205 horsepower) or the SRT4 (turbocharged, 2.4 litre 230 horsepower) sitting on dealer lots are figments of my imagination.

(Please note: I'm not saying either one of these are perfect cars, let alone super cars. I'm just trying to point out that saying "all American cars" is about as useful as saying "all European cars.")
Acceleration.........Cobalt............SRT4
(mph)
0-30.................. 2.2 sec...........2.4 sec
0-40...................3.5.................3.8
0-50...................4.8.................4.9
0-60...................6.1.................6.0
0-70...................7.9.................7.8
0-80...................10.2................9.7
0-90...................12.6................11.8
0-100..................15.4...............13.8
Passing 45-65 mph..2.7................2.7

1/4 mile.......14.4 sec @ 99.3 mph...14.4 sec @ 100.8 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph...113 ft.............118 ft
600-foot slalom....67.2 mph avg...... 65.9 mph avg
Lateral acceleration..0.88 g avg......0.88 g avg
MT Figure-eight...26.0 sec @ 0.69 g avg... 25.9 sec @ 0.69 g avg
1.6-mile Road-course lap..97.2 sec....97.4 sec
Top-gear revs @ 60mph...2300 rpm....2200 rpm

For additional stats and full review please see:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0505_joysticks/index5.html

Now back to discussion.
--Toronto (who really, really wishes the minds behind AO would come up with a way to make tabs word :D )
i agree tat there are stereotypes... BUT maybe the cause of the stereotyping is the exact reason why u see the cobalt & SRT4s still sitting at dealerships as u mentioned! :D

anywys, i jus feel its simply a combination of culture, current laws, environment, trend and history... which shapes how and what type of cars are available/popular in each specific country or continent...

it sure aint a crime for Americans to love & drive big escalades and hot rods as if their life depended on it. Its simply AMERICAN to do so... :D and it sure makes things easier for us to stereotype..

jus lik when ppl stereotype the "riceboys" wit their teeny weeny engines that go wee wee wee unlike big momma mustangs.. its all in the name of fun & attitude. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,215 Posts
I've seen riced out Mustangs and Chevs and every other marque out there. "Ricing" is more about a decorating style (I won't say tuning style, because most of the cars are more show than go).

As for the cars sitting on the dealer lots, nice try. :D The Cobalts are brand new. Dealers are just starting to take delivery of them. :p ;) As to whether they'll stay on the lot depends a lot on how much people are willing to pay for them. Honestly to my mind they're over-priced (especially versus the stock Cobalt or the stock Cobalt SS) but then again, I'm apparently not the target market. :rolleyes: (Plus I'm cheap. :D )

Actually the other day I was joking with my brother about the supercharged Cobalt. I said I'm almost tempted to walk into a dealership and say "I'm interested in an SSSC, but I want one without the (standard) ugly hoop spoiler and the (tacky) wheels and the rest of the ricer-targetted styling touches." I'm sure it would cause the salesman to throw a fit. :D

As for stereotypes, I really don't see the point. I mean it's just as easy to talk about Europeans puttering around in strange, boxy looking, 1 litre diesels, but we all know that's just one aspect of European motoring, and not the full picture.
--Toronto
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter2.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_2_184/ai_n6075268
These aren't the best sources I could find but they'll be close enough.

Average engine size for U.S engines - 3.2l (it'd be nice to think they all had GTAs!)
Average engine size for Western Europe - 1.8l

I think my point was fair. No offense was intended ;) Although I'm sure you've upset a lot of Americans by suggesting they'd drive anything with less than 8 cylinders and 400 Cu :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,215 Posts
Maybe they would have been a decade ago. ;) (The U.S. article's most recent figures were from 1994.)

It wasn't so much that I took offence. It's just that I get tired of hearing the same old stereotype again and again and again here, especially since so few AOers have any real experience in the U.S. (or Canadian which is very different) auto market, and every once in a while I feel the need to bark back. I guess I just expect a little more from this crowd than to buy into every old wives' tale out there. ;)
--Toronto
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top