MG TF 135 on the Dyno - MG-Rover.org Forums
 2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 16:06 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
MG TF 135 on the Dyno

Hi,

I took my TF to the rolling road for the first time today since I got the car a few years ago. Not sure why it took me so long, last time I looked around for a RR nearby I couldn't find any. This time I was luckier. Performance wise the car has a Pipercross panel filter, a ZandF ECU remap and a Piper backbox/downpipe/manifold (Mike Satur's Daytona). It also has 53,000 miles on the clock and it has recently been serviced with new sparkplugs, cambelt etc. For the record, it is a late 2009 TF 135 with the N-series engine and a more restrictive catalyst I believe. As it happens the car is booked for a DVA Power treatment later this May. I don't know what I was expecting but I was roughly hoping that each one of the mods would have added a few BHP. Well... here it is...



Rather confused at this stage. It seems a bit out of puff given the mods, I was expecting more, but is that reasonable? Torque is lb-ft rather than Nt-m. Or to put it another way, all the mods made no difference in terms of peak numbers. I wonder what would the graph have looked like before all the mods.

What do you think?

That said, I took this bad girl for a hand wash and polish afterwards and that surely added 20 bhp at least.

Last edited by nick1981; 05-02-2017 at 10:34.
nick1981 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 17:21
Administrator
 
Chris T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Leicestershire
Car: MG TF 135 Platinum Silver, Skoda Roomster
Posts: 32,594
Garages
Dyno's aren't an exact science and should be seen as an approximation, if you were to get it done again in the summer or another dyno you may well get another set of results. Having said that I suspect that results are about right, it's unlikely that the engine was producing 135bhp in stock form, I've seen a few 160's over the years being tested and producing 135bhp without any modifications.
Chris T is offline  
post #3 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 17:54 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T View Post
Dyno's aren't an exact science and should be seen as an approximation, if you were to get it done again in the summer or another dyno you may well get another set of results. Having said that I suspect that results are about right, it's unlikely that the engine was producing 135bhp in stock form, I've seen a few 160's over the years being tested and producing 135bhp without any modifications.
That is a bit surprising though. I guess that is why Dave Andrews quotes relatively low BHPs for his modifications, the starting point most of the time is not what we think it is. I am curious to see though whether given the car as it is and the results above there is more power to be had without additional modifications, I wonder if there is something holding it back. I'll drop an e-mail to ZandF to see what their opinion is, I did the re-mapping before I added the exhaust/manifold, does it need to be mapped again?
nick1981 is offline  
 
post #4 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 21:22
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,274
What were the results I cant see Once Dave @DVA has finished get a Emerald K6 ecu so you can get it mapped right

Last edited by JOHNDQ; 28-01-2017 at 21:35.
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #5 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 22:48
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Car: MGF + ZR
Posts: 1,818
only way to tell is take all the mods of and get it tested again on the same RR
IanMc likes this.
super_cds is offline  
post #6 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 22:53
Stuck in the 80's...
 
IanMc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Braintree, Essex
Car: Flame Red '95 MGF, 17 Mini Cooper S, 13 VX Astra, 15 VX Corsa & 59 Fiesta.
Posts: 4,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by super_cds View Post
only way to tell is take all the mods of and get it tested again on the same RR
.... on the same day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For .org forum only search results in Google, add "site:mg-rover.org" after your search criteria

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
IanMc is offline  
post #7 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 23:17 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNDQ View Post
What were the results I cant see Once Dave @DVA has finished get a Emerald K6 ecu so you can get it mapped right
128 BHP at 5950 RPM and 170 Nt-m at 3000 RPM... I suppose peak torque at relatively low RPM is down to the manifold which is as expected. BHP was a bit of a bummer.

Regarding DVA I was originally going for the full K05 which includes the Emerald but I decided to be more conservative with cash and go for the cheaper K13 which does without the Emerald. Not 100% decided yet.
nick1981 is offline  
post #8 of 35 (permalink) Old 28-01-2017, 23:19 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by super_cds View Post
only way to tell is take all the mods of and get it tested again on the same RR
That is not possible I'm afraid :-)

I guess the difference between before and after doesn't matter much. The car is modified in a decent way so far. From past experience, would these figures be as expected? And if not then a thought about why and how to rectify would be great
nick1981 is offline  
post #9 of 35 (permalink) Old 29-01-2017, 10:35
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick1981 View Post
128 BHP at 5950 RPM and 170 Nt-m at 3000 RPM... I suppose peak torque at relatively low RPM is down to the manifold which is as expected. BHP was a bit of a bummer.

Regarding DVA I was originally going for the full K05 which includes the Emerald but I decided to be more conservative with cash and go for the cheaper K13 which does without the Emerald. Not 100% decided yet.
Good choice i went for the K06 (Parts only) for my track car makes 181bhp but thats with no head mods and standard exhaust but ive since put on a Janspeed manifold and race exhaust so need to get back on the rollers for a tweek on the map
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #10 of 35 (permalink) Old 29-01-2017, 11:50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Darlington
Car: MG TF
Posts: 60
Manufacturers Max output figures are just that. What a well set up good engine will produce on a good day. Virtualy no production engine will match it. Many will not get within 10% of it.

Filter, exhaust and a standard remap will only add a few BHP each. Different rolling roads will give different results, some measure bigger horses than others, some are ponies, some are Clydesdales. Even on a different day the same road could give different results.
Optimising timing and fuel mixture could give good results, did you get a mixture graph done? Matching of individual components is also important some complement each other better.

So, disappointing? Yes but not entirely unexpected. If you know someone with a standard car and did them back to back that is about as good a comparison as you are going to get. Will be interesting to see how it goes in the future.
Steve_G is offline  
post #11 of 35 (permalink) Old 29-01-2017, 12:07 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_G View Post
Manufacturers Max output figures are just that. What a well set up good engine will produce on a good day. Virtualy no production engine will match it. Many will not get within 10% of it.

Filter, exhaust and a standard remap will only add a few BHP each. Different rolling roads will give different results, some measure bigger horses than others, some are ponies, some are Clydesdales. Even on a different day the same road could give different results.
Optimising timing and fuel mixture could give good results, did you get a mixture graph done? Matching of individual components is also important some complement each other better.

So, disappointing? Yes but not entirely unexpected. If you know someone with a standard car and did them back to back that is about as good a comparison as you are going to get. Will be interesting to see how it goes in the future.
Understood MOT is due next week so I might have a chat with the garage to see what they think. In any case not too frustrated, just curious.
nick1981 is offline  
post #12 of 35 (permalink) Old 29-01-2017, 13:07
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Car: MG TF
Posts: 400
RR have been debated in many threads, their figures are often not accurate.

New engines, once run in, have nowdays to deliver what they promised, +-5% as per homologation, but well.

This RR values mean sadly nothing in isolation. Perhaps your engine is a good one and you don't know it, perhaps it is worn or has a sensor prob and you are down on power, who knows...

As of "engine enhencement", I recommend indeed DVA's excellent K13a. That's the best VFM IMHO for a non VVC engine. However, with the kit comes a choice of cams, and in your particular case you can save some money over the regular K13a by keeping your excellent 135 cams and going just the head porting route.

Explanation: in our Elises it makes sense to go for wilder cams than std with K13a, such as 633 (that's the wildest you can reasonably run satifactory on the road) or somewhat more low down torque orientated options. We liked the 633 together with other torque enhencing mods. BUT your car is a 135TF: that comes already with VG cams re power/torque delivery, fitting different torque orientated cams (usual Pipers etc.) would be a waste of money IMHO as very similar to what you already have. And going for wild cams la 633 is IMHO a mistake in the heavier MG for R & T use, as the MG needs bottom torque, far more than the Elise (unless it is a pure track toy, but then there are other cars for that IMHO).

In short, I would recommend you:
- decide on what you want exactly re power delivery as nothing comes for free
- talk to Dave as he is an excellent bloke who knows all that by heart
- consider going for just a mild head porting (especialy around the valve seats) while keeping the rest as it is. You will see +20hp (with all the goodies you have) at the end over a std 135 while having a very enjoyable R&T car. Oh, and no downside re power delivery, the same of what you have but a bit more everywhere from 2500 to 7200 rpm (with your ECU mod).

Just my 2ps

Claude
BTW, that's exactly what we did with our TF135...
Chris T likes this.
claude111 is offline  
post #13 of 35 (permalink) Old 29-01-2017, 16:10 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by claude111 View Post
RR have been debated in many threads, their figures are often not accurate.

New engines, once run in, have nowdays to deliver what they promised, +-5% as per homologation, but well.

This RR values mean sadly nothing in isolation. Perhaps your engine is a good one and you don't know it, perhaps it is worn or has a sensor prob and you are down on power, who knows...

As of "engine enhencement", I recommend indeed DVA's excellent K13a. That's the best VFM IMHO for a non VVC engine. However, with the kit comes a choice of cams, and in your particular case you can save some money over the regular K13a by keeping your excellent 135 cams and going just the head porting route.

Explanation: in our Elises it makes sense to go for wilder cams than std with K13a, such as 633 (that's the wildest you can reasonably run satifactory on the road) or somewhat more low down torque orientated options. We liked the 633 together with other torque enhencing mods. BUT your car is a 135TF: that comes already with VG cams re power/torque delivery, fitting different torque orientated cams (usual Pipers etc.) would be a waste of money IMHO as very similar to what you already have. And going for wild cams la 633 is IMHO a mistake in the heavier MG for R & T use, as the MG needs bottom torque, far more than the Elise (unless it is a pure track toy, but then there are other cars for that IMHO).

In short, I would recommend you:
- decide on what you want exactly re power delivery as nothing comes for free
- talk to Dave as he is an excellent bloke who knows all that by heart
- consider going for just a mild head porting (especialy around the valve seats) while keeping the rest as it is. You will see +20hp (with all the goodies you have) at the end over a std 135 while having a very enjoyable R&T car. Oh, and no downside re power delivery, the same of what you have but a bit more everywhere from 2500 to 7200 rpm (with your ECU mod).

Just my 2ps

Claude
BTW, that's exactly what we did with our TF135...
Thank you Claude - very interesting. I sort of wanted to avoid installing an Emerald ECU with the DVA conversion in order to keep the costs down. In some sense I would rather spend any money I can get together for this project on what is DVA's core skill i.e. working around the engine. An Emerald ECU can be fitted later by pretty much anybody without a 2 year waiting list. So with the exotic ECU out of the way I assume replacing the cams and adding vernier pulleys isn't meaningful either even if I wanted to replace them (which after what you said Claude, I don't). In my mind this is also something that can be done by any garage later (correct me if I am wrong please). So with that in mind maybe do the best possible port & polish suitable for later upgrades and maybe put some forged pistons and rods while at it (depending on costs again).

What is confusing me again a bit is that the car has the N-series engine. My understanding is that it uses a different gasket and that there is a few other tweaks as well. I wonder what would the impact be in the tuning process in terms of suitability of new materials etc.
nick1981 is offline  
post #14 of 35 (permalink) Old 29-01-2017, 17:51
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Car: MG TF
Posts: 400
Can't comment on your engine, but the usual tricks required for that power/torque level on K engines and derivatives are pretty straight forward and well known now.

Emerald : IMHO really no need unless you go for individual throttle bodies. OK, I know some people who fitted an Emerald because they fitted somewhat wilder cams than 633, say 1320... And having driven many Elise like that back to back it is a lot of money spent for +5hp and a marginaly sharper throttle response (that is already tuned on your car). Either you optimize the existing and go to 160hp ish, or you go all the way but then you have to be consistant and that is bottom end, race engine, 1444 or wilder cams, ECU, etc., reliability and service alteration - not your point IMHO.

Cams can indeed be fitted later with verniers to provide perfect timing - any good garage can do that afterwards and provided you keep it reasonable no additional head work is needed. But again, IMHO ne need in a R&T MG to go wilder than 135 (you can go somewhat wilder if you start from scratch, but with 135 you have already 95% of that optimum for free vs cams+verniers).

Talk to Dave, he is very neutral and goodwilling in his comments. Just mention you have a MG : tuning the K for a 400kg special with no flywheel etc. isn't exactly the same as what the engine tune you need for your everyday shed with 1000kg+

Have fun

Claude
claude111 is offline  
post #15 of 35 (permalink) Old 30-01-2017, 18:14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Car: CityRover
Posts: 7
Hi biggest problem with the LE500 is the pre-cat and the single exhaust down pipe. You can retrofit the original MGR manifold and twin down pipes as these will meet up with the main catalyst and back box. I found the difference to be significant. The engine felt far happier to rev and the acceleration appeared to be improved. All the parts to do this are readily available from breakers.




Cheers Paul.
Paul Mad is offline  
post #16 of 35 (permalink) Old 31-01-2017, 07:24
Supporter
 
lolsteve98's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Manchester
Car: ZR VVC
Posts: 246
If it's got a precat and more restrictive manifold (probably for emissions reasons) then wouldn't be too surprised.

We've found on the dyno that a remapped ZS 120 with stock 120 airbox and precat system became choked at about 130hp even with the 135 cams.

Ditching the crappy spec airbox rose the power to ~135hp.
With the airbox back on and the precat removed it also rose to ~135hp
With box the airbox and the precat fixed and a slight fueling tweak to the mapping it was at 142hp.

Dynos are also very fickle things, so you can take it from that one to another one and get a different reading (for better or for worse).

SAWS Tuning - MGR Remaps
Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/SAWStuning/
Website - https://www.sawstuning.co.uk/
lolsteve98 is offline  
post #17 of 35 (permalink) Old 31-01-2017, 10:02 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Mad View Post
Hi biggest problem with the LE500 is the pre-cat and the single exhaust down pipe. You can retrofit the original MGR manifold and twin down pipes as these will meet up with the main catalyst and back box. I found the difference to be significant. The engine felt far happier to rev and the acceleration appeared to be improved. All the parts to do this are readily available from breakers.




Cheers Paul.
Thanks - I was about to write that after digging around I read that the N-series TFs have a pre-cat in order to meet Euro 4 emission standards. All the work I've done to the car has been carried out by MG specialists and although not always happy with their attitude I would hope that they know what they are doing. With that in mind, I would assume that the down pipe was replaced when we fitted the Piper/Daytona system (4-2-1 manifold/downpipe/backbox). Assuming that this is the case and that this part of the system is without issues then maybe the pre-cat is holding the car back. I wonder if it can be removed without failing MOT. I would like to keep the car MOT worthy and also rather civilised, my understanding is that de-cating it makes it terribly noisy and not in line with emissions regulations. So this thought is just for the pre-cat. I'll ask about the single exhaust downpipe when I take the car to the garage for the annual MOT this Saturday.
nick1981 is offline  
post #18 of 35 (permalink) Old 04-02-2017, 16:16 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
MOT day today and everything was fine apart from two advisories. One of them was some small crack in the exhaust, or something along these lines, that was allowing for exhaust gases to escape. They fixed it temporarily with some sealant until I get it sorted out at a later date. Oddly enough, and I am not sure if this is the placebo effect, the car definitely sounds better now (less boy racer roar and more like a sophisticated burble) and just maybe it drives better too?
nick1981 is offline  
post #19 of 35 (permalink) Old 04-02-2017, 16:47
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Car: MG ZS
Posts: 451
Remember there is a difference between peak power and overall torque on the graph.

It could well be an improvement on the mid range.

I can't see the photos you've posted so I have no idea if any difference was made

Might I suggest whacking them on imgur.com instead?
Stargatemunky is online now  
post #20 of 35 (permalink) Old 05-02-2017, 19:44 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Car: MG TF
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargatemunky View Post
Remember there is a difference between peak power and overall torque on the graph.

It could well be an improvement on the mid range.

I can't see the photos you've posted so I have no idea if any difference was made

Might I suggest whacking them on imgur.com instead?
Can you see the graph now? For some reason it disappeared from photobucket. Unfortunately I don't have a pre- graph so I don't know what things were looking like before the mods.

I am contemplating the idea of adding a sports catalyst to get rid of the cat/pre-cat LE500 setup. I understand that it makes no difference but most of the discussions on the topic are based on the old TF. Maybe the impact is higher on the Chinese TFs. That said, if I were to go ahead, the old catalyst will be going to the bin since I have zero storage space. Which means that if the car fails MOT then I am screwed.

There is also the ethical aspect of it, the catalyst is there for a reason.... (but lets ignore that for the time being)

On a slightly different note I read somewhere, probably MG TF related but I can't remember, that cars lose 5bhp every 10,000 miles and that in the TF at around 50,000 the injectors should be replaced. What do you reckon?

Last edited by nick1981; 05-02-2017 at 23:07.
nick1981 is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MG-Rover.org Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
120 with 135 cams dyno results lolsteve98 MG ZS / Rover 45 & 400 3 03-08-2016 20:09
Dyno. coalman Rover 600 3 07-12-2013 00:23
MG TF 135 cams with 135 ECU, matching alarm unit and fob James420SDi For Sale 6 28-06-2011 08:19
my dyno Torkenstine Diesel Forum! 25 08-05-2007 08:31

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

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