Lancer Register Forum banner
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is there anyone out there who has bought a Warrender 340R tuned EVO 7 - work done by RC Developments??

If so....have the put it on a rolling road recently, and if so what power was produced.

The reason for asking?........

Although something on mine was obviously wrong - producing only 253bhp and only 0.8 bar! There appears to be a problem/argument, with what RC do, can the car produce that much power??

I have just had my car in for some work on this - I have had an apexi boost controller fitted (just in case the mechanical one fails again), also a HKS dump valve, the power boost fuel thingy removed (this was stongly advised and replaced with a modified cosworth one - as apparently it couteracts what the Apexi S AFC does), and re-mapping of the fuel air mixture on the other Apexi, the S AFC, also the car was found to have a cat on it, and the only mods to the exhaust was a new pipe and hybrid back box fitted from the cat (and cut badly)

The end result?? - The boost setting is currently on 1.35bar (as opposed to 1.4bar that rc developments apparently set and apparenlty my car was put on a rolling road by Warrender/RC and produced 349bhp) - BHP at the wheels was 319.45 bhp............this seems starnge, so would like to hear from others, or anyone with ideas etc.

This may open a can of worms - but I believe that we should all know whats what, and who can be trusted.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I cannot comment on the Warrander car but if we compare performance with my Extreme it might shed some light on it. Both were tested by Autocar for performance which gives us a standard reference. the Warrander claims 349bhp at 6930rpm and 313 ft lbs torque at 3700rpm. The Extreme claimes 339bhp at 6396rpm and 350ft lbs at 4306rpm.

The tests showed the followin


Warrander 0-30mph 1.62 seconds 0-60mph 4.3 seconds 0-100mph 11.71
Extreme 1.4 4.2 11.0


I am sure that others have their own views, but in light of the power claims the times seem reasonable to me. Therefore, I think that we can assume that the yellow Warrander car did produce those power outputs. Whether the other cars they have built are built the same way is an act of faith. I will be testing my Extreme as soon as it is fully run in. However, it feels a lot quicker than a standard car to me. Hope this makes some sence and is of some use.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
BTW, after I had ordered my Extreme I was was passing Dudley and popped in to Ralliart for a chat. John and Toney were there and the Warrander car did come up in conversation. Their comments were about how low the torque was compared the the bhp, how the engine might not be strong enough for the mods etc. At no time did they cast doubt over the power figures. Whilst I would take some of what they say with a pinch of salt, it would have been very easy for them to say that the outputs could not be achieved with the mods done. Therefore, I suspect it can be achieved.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for that info Simon.

My car was the Warrender Demo, any apparently there is a dyno read out for it somewhere - giving the car 349bhp, so I am no nearer or clearer as to what happened to my car - even after the extra mods I had done recently, my current figure are still around 30bhp down from what it was supposed to be.

Is there a trick or an unusual setting they are doind on the Apexi S-AFC??

Why have I been told that the fuel pressure regulator should not have been fitted??

Anyone Know?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I'm sure that 319bhp at the wheels equates to much more than 349bhp at the flywheel. Transmission losses of only 8.5% from a 4WD car? I'd be very surprised.

Ian.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Sorry Droid...this is wrong!!

I was sold a car that produced 249 bhp at the wheels on a rolling road, and paid for it.

There was no mention of the power at the flywheel - even if that was the case, and you think that 319bhp at the wheels is a reasonable figure, does that mean that 4 odd grand was spent increasing the power by 9 bhp.......because at the Aldershot rolling road recently standard evo 7's where producing 310bhp.

I have been catagorically told that my particular car produces 349bhp at the wheels - this was with the mods that RC did on the car, the car has now had additional work and is still only producing 319bhp......something is not right!!!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
AntsEvo,

Sorry, I was responding to the following sentence ...

The boost setting is currently on 1.35bar (as opposed to 1.4bar that rc developments apparently set and apparenlty my car was put on a rolling road by Warrender/RC and produced 349bhp) - BHP at the wheels was 319.45 bhp............

Maybe I misunderstood, but if your latest rolling road result showed 1.35 bar and 319bhp at the wheels, you have little to worry about as this suggests around 390bhp at the flywheel. If the car were a true 340bhp car, you would only see around 280bhp at the wheels. Perhaps you used a few too many brackets in your post and I got confused between the past and the present.

Hope this helps,

Ian.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks Droid,

Let me just quickly explain....

I bought the demo car from Warrender, 1.4bar running 349bhp at the wheels on a rolling road.

I have had the car about 3-4 months - took it on SAS Aldershot Rolling Road - it produced 247bhp - obviously there was a problem - they sorted it - removed the pressure regulator (apparently this should not have been fitted as it would cancell out what the Apexi S-AFC does - don't fully understand that bit??), fitted a Apexi boost controller - found a cat on the car, then adjusted the Apexi Fuel/air mixture controller - put it back on the rolling road - could only raise the boost to 1.35 bar before the car started cutting out, and only produced 319bhp at the wheels not 349bhp.

So could it be that RC Developments had a trick up their sleeve with the S-AFC settings that other tuners do not know about?

Or should I just get rid of it and get an Extreeme?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
AntsEvo,

Are you sure you're not confusing at the wheels with calculated at the flywheel ? The reason I ask is that I very much doubt a car with 1.4 bar boost will develop 349bhp at the driven wheels. I'd go further than say very much doubt and say think it would be impossible . This would be equivalent to around 430bhp at the flywheel. That's a lot of power from 1.4bar I'm sure you'll agree!

It would seem to make more sense if the 1.4bar car made a calculated 349bhp at the flywheel. Note that rolling roads only guesstimate the flywheel power and often get it wrong (depending on the car and method of measurement/estimation).

Ian.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Firstly, Pluto!

I was told by Japanese Tuning, that this should not have been on the car as this is cancelling out the work done by the S-AFC - the correction never rose above 6% - where I was told it should be around 17%.....maybe I have been misled...by I have been assured that it was totally incorrect to have the pressure regulator fitted, this was told to me by Tim, I know that everyone has different ideas - but he said it was all a shoddy job (his words not mine...sorry tim)

As regards to Droid....
The car was put on a roling road by Warrender, they said it produced 349bhp at the wheels with the mods done and 1.4 bar of boost, they said thats why it's called the 340...are you suggesting that they have called the car the 340, because that is the power at the flywheel?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Fuel Regulator....

Just a quite note Droid, I was advised that the fuel regulator HAD to be removed...although I still dont really understand why?? - anyone explain why it shold or should not be there - bearing in mind it is working alongside the S-AFC?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I don't think in all the reports that I have read that anyone has quoted a modified RC developments car has produced 349BHP 'at the wheels'.
Like previous comments say that would equate to over 400BHP at the flywheel !!
I would check with Warrenders
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Peely, forgive me for being stupid, but are you saying that I have paid ove £4000 for an 9bhp power increase, a fancy little screen, lowered spring, uprated brakes, a wiring mod to the fuel pump and a fuel pressure regulator mounted on a small steel plate in the engine bay??

HEEEEELP!

Maybe I out to contact Trading Standards for mis-reprentation.

So can anyone tell me what bhp at the flywheel a standard EVO 7 would make

also why does a standard evo 7 make 303 to 310bhp (maybe just a air filter change) on a rolling road
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
are you suggesting that they have called the car the 340, because that is the power at the flywheel?

In short, Yes. When manufacturers quote power output, they're almost always referring to engine power (i.e. flywheel) rather than power at the driven wheels.

Ian.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
also why does a standard evo 7 make 303 to 310bhp (maybe just a air filter change) on a rolling road

The ONLY way to measure power at the flywheel is to put the engine on a bench and actually connect it up. The flywheel power outputs you hear quoted from rolling roads are always from estimates based on the calculated transmission losses and they're exactly that, just estimates/guesses. For example, some rolling roads guess transmission losses during overrun ... however, this method will always lead to very optimistic flywheel power estimates due to the fact that the transmission losses under full power will almost always be MUCH higher than those during overrun.

Mitsubishi quote a standard Evo 7 as having 276bhp (or 280PS). They will be referring to the power at the flywheel here. Normal manufacturing tolerances will lead to variations in this, and I'm sure Mitsubishi will want those variations to go up rather than down so it's quite likely that many cars develop around 300bhp.

Ian.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Below is the link to my exact car bought from warrender -feature in Autocar

http://www.warrender.co.uk/afc_0013.htm

Briefly they wrote...... (backed up by Warrender)

Modesty, it seems, is also alive and well in the North-west of England because the 340 branding actually undersells the car. According to the dyno print out, this warmed-over Evo kicks out a scintillating 349bhp at 6930rpm.

That's a significant increase over the standard 276bhp, but thanks to the inherent tunability of modern Japanese turbo-charged engines, this one didn't require major bottom-end surgery. Nor, in all honesty, is it quite the huge leap in power that it appears on paper. Fact is no Evo leaves the factory with 276bhp at the wheels: think just the tasty side of 300bhp and you'll be closer to the real power figure.

There....over 300bhp standard at the wheels.

I saw the evo 7's on the rolling road, they were producing 303 to 310, I was definitely told 349bhp on mine at the wheels - I have spoken to Clive at RC and he confirmed the fact, and said there must be something wrong (obvious really!)

So are you saying that the evo 7's I saw were modified, because they produced 303 to 310 at the wheels on a dyno at Japanese Tuning, could not possibly produce that at the wheels - only the flywheel.

The point of the matter is, that is RC and Warrender claim that this car has (had) 349bhp at the wheels with 1.4bar - how do I reproduce it, without travelling 300 odd mile up to them and loosing my car for a few day, also are what Japanese Tuning saying is wrong, I think not, they seem to know what they are talking about...........any help please anyone!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
and amp;gt; Fact is no Evo leaves the factory with 276bhp at the wheels: think just the tasty side of 300bhp and you'll be closer to the real power figure.

and amp;gt;There....over 300bhp standard at the wheels.

No. Sorry. Standard Evo 7s do NOT leave the factory with 300bhp at the driven wheels. They probably leave the factory with 300bhp at the flywheel. I'm getting bored of saying that now. That statement in Autocar is, at best, poorly worded and at worst, incorrect (my vote is for poorly worded).

I saw the evo 7's on the rolling road, they were producing 303 to 310

... not at the driven wheels. The rolling road kit was estimating the flywheel power.

I was definitely told 349bhp on mine at the wheels

Then you were being misled or lied to ... or your car was producing around 2.2bar (and had a magically strengthened turbo) rather than 1.4bar.

So are you saying that the evo 7's I saw were modified, because they produced 303 to 310 at the wheels on a dyno at Japanese Tuning, could not possibly produce that at the wheels - only the flywheel

Either they weren't producing 303/310 at the driven wheels or they were very modified. As I said, the 303/310 figure is likely to be the calculated flywheel figure generated by the RR computer.

The point of the matter is, that is RC and Warrender claim that this car has (had) 349bhp at the wheels with 1.4bar

I'm sure that statement was a mistake or had been misunderstood.

Trust me ... an Evo 7 engine with 1.4bar of boost DOES NOT GIVE YOU 349bhp AT THE DRIVEN WHEELS. Anyone else care to back me up on this?

Ian.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I don't want to have a huge argument about this all, and all your comment Droid are very helpful, but let me see if I have got this right...that is on a dyno printout I am holding in my hand.

(this was the original printout when there was something wrong with the car)

norm power (in red) 246.0 bhp to din 70020 (the evo7 7 I say had 303 to 310 at this part)
engine output (in puple) 237.50 bhp
wheel output (in light blue) 145.5 bhp (ooops - is this what you are refereing to, if so, let me re-word evrythin eith NORM POWER OUTPUT, IN OTHER WORDS MY CAR SHOULD BE PRODUCING 349bhp ON NORM POWER OUTPUT)
drag output (in green) 92.0 bhp
Torque - 242 lbf-ft
Air pressure - 1002 mbar
Pressure 1 - 785 mbar

Sorry if I have go this all wrong, so let me re-phrase again - why is my car now only producing 319bhp NORM POWER, instead on (I assume) 349bhp NORM POWER - and how do I get the car back to this level?

I am the first to admit that I am by no means a specialist at any of this stuff, so that is why I am enquiring and trying to find out all the info, my evo 6 was never tuned (apart from exhaust and air filter, and all my previous cars have be pre-modded escort cosworths and rs turbos - sad that really...thinking about it)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Why are you having the argument on here. I take it you have talked to RC about the problems you feel you have. I had the Apexi boost controller fitted by them, No probs cars now running 1 bar after orginally being around .6 standard (GSR 1800) 0-60 standard around 7 seconds, mine did it in 5.7 with a bad start.
Only other thing done is HKS Super flow air filter. Done 3000 since it was done and ive had no problems (touch wood) apart from faulty HKS spark plugs, which they are changing. Now needs new fuel pump and regualtor and may be a new intercooler for a christmas present. The fuel pressure regualtor should has be REPLACED and upgraded to allow higher pressure, if it is taken out the pressure regulator pressure will then be regualted by the fuel pump. Bad idea as then their is no real control over the pressure so if the pump gives a varying pressure (Which it will as the power to the pump will peak and drive when turn lights and A/C turned off and on) not really good for engine as the pressure to the rest of the fuel system past the regualtor is not really desgined for high pressure. This is why lots of cossies died when chiped as fuel pipes not changed to meet new pressure.

Just to put my pennys worth in I also assume that quoted power figures are flywheel and not wheels due to the reading not being accurate enough. Wouldnt trust rolling roads either as I bet different days and different machines give different figures. the best way of testing a cars true power without dynoing the engine is do a 1/4 mile.

Cheers
Al
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top