Want more power.

[Anonymous]

MX-5 is a great little car - but I'm 6'2 and they just come up a tiny bit short for me which is why I ended up at the '2 - but great conclusion it is to be said...the MR2 is about the only one I can fit in - must be the rear engine gave them the extra space I guess...

...not sure what modern cars with a roof there are that have the 2 seater vibe that will fill the whole left by a westy?...

Ever driven a big HP pilgrim AC Cobra replica for fun??

...but if you need a fun trackday car with a roof seriously try a pre '89 911 with a well sorted 3.2 motor....seriously addictive, suprisingly quite frugal on juice relatively speaking, and get a good one they will keep their money well ( as long as you don't blow it up!)

[juansolo]

I have no idea at the moment.  There's some cracking stuff out there.  Something like a 968 ClubSport would probably be a better bet for me.  It seems to tick all the right boxes.  I'd probably keep the MX-5 for the road though so whatever I get can't be too expensive.  I might even finally get around to getting an Elise...

A big V8 kit hasn't been ruled out, though it's likely if I went back to a kit car, it'd be a big engined caterfield again, there's nothing to touch them for fun.

[Anonymous]

84-89 911's are a lot more chuckable than people realise - absolutely 100% a drivers car - very easy to make them sub 1 tonne with some carbon fibre panels then you've basically got a car that's going to perform and feel like a '73 £100K carrera RS...and pretty simple to home maintain...( as long as your engine is GOOD!)...really depends on your budget I guess...

[juansolo]

It's all moot until the end of 2007 anyhow as I haven't the funds to buy anything right now.  Just enjoying running a sports car again.  Even with winter rapidly approaching!

[Anonymous]

back on topic....

it just makes sense to me if you want more power then you ditch the 1ZZ and put in a 2ZZ every day of the week...   s8) s8)

[ChrisGB]

How about PPE manifold / high flow cat and Unichip? Will have dyno results Tuesday for the setup, and am expecing something in the 155-160bhp region.

Group buy for the PPE manifold is on at the moment. No takers yet but if dyno figures are good it may take off.

Chris

[kanujunkie]

back on topic....

it just makes sense to me if you want more power then you ditch the 1ZZ and put in a 2ZZ every day of the week...   s8) s8)

problem is you have to rev the hell out of the 2zz to get any advantages(anything above 6000 rpm basically), whereas turbo will give you power increase from around 2500rpm

How about PPE manifold / high flow cat and Unichip? Will have dyno results Tuesday for the setup, and am expecing something in the 155-160bhp region.

15-20Bhp for £800  s:? :? s:?  

£3000 would give you up to 130Bhp if you go turbo, perhaps even more

simple maths imho

[Anonymous]

Stu - Interesting comment, but what you need to do is state which kit your are talking about, it must be either a C2 or Hass home install?

If you look at a TTE then thats an inprovement of between 50 to 70BHP for a price of £4200 or for a further £2000 you can have an additional 30 to 40 BHP.  s:shock: :shock: s:shock:  

It's all about what you are prepared to pay in one go.   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

Rob

[kanujunkie]

its in my sig bar below

Phils was recorded at 270Hp at the dyno day

[loadswine]

problem is you have to rev the hell out of the 2zz to get any advantages(anything above 6000 rpm basically), whereas turbo will give you power increase from around 2500rpm

PE will give it from 1500 rpm, but you won't get 270 horses out of it!  s:) s:)

[aaronjb]

Stu - Interesting comment, but what you need to do is state which kit your are talking about

Why, the only sane choice, of course  s;) s;)

[ChrisGB]

How about PPE manifold / high flow cat and Unichip? Will have dyno results Tuesday for the setup, and am expecing something in the 155-160bhp region.

15-20Bhp for £800  s:? :? s:?  

£3000 would give you up to 130Bhp if you go turbo, perhaps even more

simple maths imho

Hi Stu

The OP was looking at basic mods and looking for around 20bhp, so I thought  it would be a good suggestion.

IMO to go turbo, you need to be spending money on the turbo kit, bracing and possibly other suspension mods to make it properly sorted. I am already finding on stock power that there needs to be more stiffness in the shell. Then there is setup time on the RR to consider. Going +130bhp will probably need a new clutch as well. So this lot has to be added to the turbo kit cost. Having had a go In Liz's car, I can see the appeal of the turbo conversion though. I was particularly impressed with the surge and peak free delivery and easy to modulate throttle. An expensive but very high quality installation.

The turbo car will be fast, no mistake, but also will have turbo throttle response and the more boost you run, the more the lag becomes noticable. Also, stock rear tyres seem IMO a little marginal for the big power hike, so will need wider rears, that in turn require wider fronts to retain balance, which in turn loses the original feel of the '2, the feel that was the reason I bought one in the first place.

PPE manifold working into the stock cat will make a little added power, 8bhp or so on its own, maybe a bit more with PPE's high flow cat and more still with a decent exhaust. If that is all one is aiming for, I would suggest that the Che manifold giving 147bhp with a sports exhaust is very good value for money.

I will get dyno results before and after Unichip for the PPE manifold and high flow cat for reference.

However, if +20bhp is the goal, the diminishing returns will come into play. To make the best use of the PPE setup, a Unichip or similar will be required. Dyno results show 163 - 167bhp with decat pipes and management changes. The Unichip is generally seen as being a good investment for N/A engines in terms of drivability regardless of breathing mods as well.

Turbo is a good way to go, but surely it is not for everyone? Besides, not everyone can afford it. I can but dont want to. I need a Sunday morning visit from the turbo evangelists  s:D s:D  

Chris

PS Why have you not got +500bhp?

[kanujunkie]

i spent 3 years with the unichip and alike, it never gave enough constant power for burying the cars in and out of the corners and definatley not enough for the straights, the turbo which whilst yes you do get a small amount of lag, but it is tiny, opens up a whole new world of motoring, it'll compete with lot more powerful cars on the straights and thrash the hell out of almost every car on the road in the twisties, perhaps not caterhams or cars of that ilk. As for the mods, i've got tte lowering springs, tte arb's for the suspension, no braking mods, for the engine a new clutch yes you do need one, and a set of kirks mounts, but thats it. You can do all of the important bits for the 3K, thats turbo kit, clutch and kirks. The suspension mods are not essential, adviseable but not essential.
The cost is based on the C2 price at todays exchange rate which is £2,438. Not bad really

as for a visit, let me get the CC and tune done first, she maxes out way short at the moment  s:( s:(  , heat soak is a bitch

PS Why have you not got +500bhp?

because its our only car and my daily drive to work, plus i value my licence too much

[ChrisGB]

i spent 3 years with the unichip and alike, it never gave enough constant power for burying the cars in and out of the corners and definatley not enough for the straights, the turbo which whilst yes you do get a small amount of lag, but it is tiny, opens up a whole new world of motoring, it'll compete with lot more powerful cars on the straights and thrash the hell out of almost every car on the road in the twisties, perhaps not caterhams or cars of that ilk. As for the mods, i've got tte lowering springs, tte arb's for the suspension, no braking mods, for the engine a new clutch yes you do need one, and a set of kirks mounts, but thats it. You can do all of the important bits for the 3K, thats turbo kit, clutch and kirks. The suspension mods are not essential, adviseable but not essential.
The cost is based on the C2 price at todays exchange rate which is £2,438. Not bad really

as for a visit, let me get the CC and tune done first, she maxes out way short at the moment  s:( s:(  , heat soak is a bitch

PS Why have you not got +500bhp?

because its our only car and my daily drive to work, plus i value my licence too much

Hi Stu

I think that I am coming to this from a different perspective. I spent years looking for the fastest car that I could buy for those rare occasions where a race is on. I dont particularly want to spend time competing on track. On the road, since I got the MR2, I have already had one near miss (a mate chasing did not realise what braking is until I left it a little later than ususal into a corner and nearly dropped him in an accident) and one actual off (the driver of the hotted up Fiesta chasing just plain did not make the turn in, no injuries but his car was a write off). For straight line speed, there are no doubt a large number of hot hatches that can go faster than the '2. To address this, the tuning I am doing puts me in the same power to weight ratio region as the corpulent Focus ST, Golf GTi etc. More would be nice, but essentially it is not going to make much difference to the enjoyment of the car. It is not a huge power gain, but it is a light car. It will mean that the '2 will accelerate quicker than my Fabia.

Diminishing returns apply to turbo power as well. Going from 138 to 160bhp is 16% or so. The stock TTE kit on the original SP cars made what 182bhp? So for a further £3000 I get a further 14%. There are of course cheaper turbo kits making more power. Also, the amount faster that the car goes is not linear with power hike as at higher speeds, aerodynamic loads blunt the performance of all but the most brutal of engines. Fact is that each incremental hike of say 20bhp becomes ever less noticable and an ever smaller percentage improvement. Having said that, the '2 and a turbo make for an economically astute way to go beating machinery costing LOTS of money. Take my Fabia. The 60bhp advantage over stock is seriously noticable if you were chasing in a standard car. The next stage of mods would be to get a bigger turbo and a bigger intercooler. This would yield around 230bhp, but the difference for over £2000 would not be hugely noticable on road. Next step is uprated injection volume for maybe 260bhp, loads more money, smaller subjective gain still. If I really craved that accelerative hit, I would go back to bikes. It took a lot of willpower to not get a two wheeler.

The challenge I prefer is that of driver, car and road. For this, I want to retain the tactility and balance of the original to a large extent, even improve it if possible (hence my imminent investment in a lot of bracing). As an example, today I was out for an hour or so, and came across a couple of empty roundabouts where I was able to corner hard enough that full throttle in third would have overcome the back end grip. The sensation of hoiking the car in, then balancing the grip against the throttle and holding an oversteer attitude, steering the car with the right foot through the corner right on the limit was great fun. More power would not make it more fun. Turbo lag would make it less fun, no matter how little lag there was.

I think it is great that we have the choice of what to do, and the base car for some very serious performance if we want it. Some want monster performance, others want the nimble and accurate driving experience and are not bothered about being ultimately faster than anyone else. Still it would be fun having people trying to persuade me to go turbo  s:D s:D

On the licence thing, I value mine a bit. Being an ADI, if I am banned, I am out of work for the duration of the ban plus four years. Suicide would be a viable alternative to going back to PAYE 9-5 for me. It was one factor that made me get the '2 as opposed to the numer of 350-400bhp cars that were on my original shortlist.

Chris

[Anonymous]

problem is you have to rev the hell out of the 2zz to get any advantages(anything above 6000 rpm basically), whereas turbo will give you power increase from around 2500rpm

how is that a problem?

  s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:  

(the car is still a LOT quicker anyway!)

[Anonymous]

Stu - Interesting comment, but what you need to do is state which kit your are talking about

Why, the only sane choice, of course  s;) s;)

OK   s:D s:D    s:D s:D    s:D s:D    s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[kanujunkie]

More power would not make it more fun. Turbo lag would make it less fun, no matter how little lag there was.

think you need to read up more on how turbo's work, a turbo doesn't have to give you more power, its variable from nowt to a given amount, it depends on how your driving at the time. As for the Lag, well that comments bollocks, the point i was trying to make is that there is none above 3000rpm, and i doubt that a spirited drive will be below that.

try getting your hands on a copy of Corky Bells book on Turbochargers

btw what the hell does ADI stand for?

problem is you have to rev the hell out of the 2zz to get any advantages(anything above 6000 rpm basically), whereas turbo will give you power increase from around 2500rpm

how is that a problem?

  s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:  

(the car is still a LOT quicker anyway!)

fair enough  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  , below the point where the lift kicks in its barely quicker than the 1ZZ, have a search on here and you'll find the comparison dyno plots on both of them, until 6k theres nothing in it.

a turbo or supercharged 2ZZ though  s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:

[ChrisGB]

More power would not make it more fun. Turbo lag would make it less fun, no matter how little lag there was.

think you need to read up more on how turbo's work, a turbo doesn't have to give you more power, its variable from nowt to a given amount, it depends on how your driving at the time. As for the Lag, well that comments b***ocks, the point i was trying to make is that there is none above 3000rpm, and i doubt that a spirited drive will be below that.

try getting your hands on a copy of Corky Bells book on Turbochargers

btw what the hell does ADI stand for?

I know how a turbo works (and multi / sequential / VNT turbos too), and because of this I know that ultimate throttle modulation, particularly at part loads, which is where you are when cornering hard, is never as accurate with a turbo as it is with an N/A engine. Superchargers are better, but still not perfect. Main problem areas are tubine inertia and intercooler fill time. Both are more of a problem at part throttle. I know this through my own experiences, and it is common knowledge. The best automotive development brains in the world are agreed on these facts. These tradeoffs will always be down to personal choice.

ADI = Approved Driving Instructor. If I get banned, the DSA (Driving Standards Agency) would revoke my authority to teach for four years from the date of the end of the ban.

Supercharged 2zz does sound strangely alluring though  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

Chris

[kanujunkie]

because of this I know that ultimate throttle modulation,

bloody hell you like useing confusing words, i'd just say that i put my foot down harder or less, still i'm only the simpleton that fixes this technology  s:roll: :roll: s:roll:

[filcee]

The challenge I prefer is that of driver, car and road.

Why not leave it bone stock then?  The one thing that continues to amaze me about the '2 is its ability to provide instant feedback about your driving - get it right, it feels fantastic.  get it wrong, and boy-oh-boy, you know right away.  As an example, I do a regular run through the Cotswolds to Oxford, including Fish Hill, which is a great hill climb.  I braked too early for the first hairpin yesterday - like about 20m or so too early - and as soon as I pressed the pedal I knew I was going to enter the corner too slow.  After driving an over-weight, over-assisted turbo'd hatchback all weekend, the '2 had again highlighted my inherently lazy driving style!  s:-D :-D s:-D

For this, I want to retain the tactility and balance of the original to a large extent, even improve it if possible (hence my imminent investment in a lot of bracing).

Yes, I keep thinking about this, but I'm finding it just too hard to spend cash on a depreciating asset.  After 4 years of ownership, I must have pretty much the least modified car here  s:-D :-D s:-D

[ChrisGB]

The challenge I prefer is that of driver, car and road.

Why not leave it bone stock then?  The one thing that continues to amaze me about the '2 is its ability to provide instant feedback about your driving - get it right, it feels fantastic.  get it wrong, and boy-oh-boy, you know right away.  As an example, I do a regular run through the Cotswolds to Oxford, including Fish Hill, which is a great hill climb.  I braked too early for the first hairpin yesterday - like about 20m or so too early - and as soon as I pressed the pedal I knew I was going to enter the corner too slow.  After driving an over-weight, over-assisted turbo'd hatchback all weekend, the '2 had again highlighted my inherently lazy driving style!  s:-D :-D s:-D

For this, I want to retain the tactility and balance of the original to a large extent, even improve it if possible (hence my imminent investment in a lot of bracing).

Yes, I keep thinking about this, but I'm finding it just too hard to spend cash on a depreciating asset.  After 4 years of ownership, I must have pretty much the least modified car here  s:-D :-D s:-D

Hi Phil

I did want to leave the car standard, but with familiarity there are certain things about it that I felt could be improved.

Shell rigidity is one area. The standard shell moves about a lot and at the limit, it can compromise mechaical grip and make for confusing communication. I fitted a front strut brace last night and the front end is much more accurate in its responses than it was previously. Also, the tramlining (normally attributed to the Bridgestone RE040s) is alomst completely eliminated. This makes hard braking on rutted surfaces feel a lot more secure. Having driven a car with the TTE mid brace on, I can only say that it is a must have for me. So I am ordering an extensive (and expensive) bracing kit, Front Memeber, Midship Member and Rear Member brace set on the Corkys group buy. If the effect from the Strut brace is indicative of what the bracing will do for the rest of the car, then I will be a very happy bunny. I also drove a car with a breastplate mod and that felt significantly stiffer in structure than my later 03 rev car. Once it is all done, I hope it will be the car I expect. Besides, if I dont like it, I can just unbolt the goodies and go back to stock.

Engine wise, more HP and more Torque without compromising drivability and response is nice. I dont want to go for big increases, so am having PPE manifold and high flow cat fitted today with a Unichip to provide it the corret diet of fuel and advance.

The thing that continually entertains me about the '2 is the fact that it is a challenge to drive right. It seems that nowdays, most cars are set up to flatter the driver and smooth out the errors. The '2 makes you work for the result, but get it right and it feels great to know it is all your own work.

Chris

[Kool PT]

yes, though the knack is not to go too light I found the RPS to be the perfect balance

too light and you will keep stalling it when pottering

Two questions

1. Do you recall the weight of the RPS flywheel? I'm looking (very very casually, considering fitting at SOME point in my life) at the Cusco one, which is about 200 quid and would like one that's still driveable around town.

2. Does a flywheel suffer from wear in its life like a clutch does, or is it just there to provide a 'counterweight' of sorts?

[muffdan]

Flywheel doesn't wear, its just a spinning weight.

[SteveJ]

Flywheel doesn't wear, its just a spinning weight.

Hmm - an interesting statement!

Yes - the surface of the flywheel will wear down (just nowhere near as quickly as the clutch plate), which is why some of the aftermarket ones are "rebuildable" with removable friction surface segments.

The chances of wearing out a flywheel before the engine dies (on a purely stock car) is pretty slim, but has been known to happen.

[muffdan]

 s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  my mistake, I should have said doesn't significantly wear. I've never known a flywheel on any car to require replacement, even ones that have had 250k put on them.