MG-Rover.org Forums banner
801 - 820 of 823 Posts

·
Registered
rover_600
Joined
·
173 Posts
I will confess that I used to be over in France at least once a year for a period of 12 years up 2008 when due to my health I had to give up my side business. I used to stay at a farm house at Mone about 12km from the Le-Mans track. I used to run Hospitality for around 300 camping guests and 100 4 star accommodation guests. Latterly I also paid host to two race teams. I remember in 2008 I was taking some early guests around Le-Mans itself there were only eight of us. I took them up to see the Cathedral, as we rounded the corner up at the back there was a lovely Le-Mans Green 2.5 V6 75 parked with all the extras on it. The car was registered in area 72 which I understand is the numeric code given to Le-Mans, so it must have been a local car, her lovely Green paint work was polished to a mirror finish. That year I had gone over in a Moonstone green Cdti the front of which had more wild life splattered over it than would just wash off, it really put my car to shame. I have to say it was in beautiful condition though probably only 4 years old at that time. I saw another few in the car parks around the track but they were all British registered.
It is so sad that such an iconic Marque is no longer with us. Bad management was to blame plus the interference of BMW during their period of ownership.
I consider my-self very lucky to have been at the Circuit when MG, Rover and XPart were racing. But even luckier as a young man to have been at the circuit when Rover ran their first Le-Mans in the paraffin powered gas turbine car which due to the Regulations had to run under the number 00. It finished the race and if it had been competing would have finished fifth overall. I am sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.
Take care
Alan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #802 ·
I'm impressed @alanaslan by your fond memories of Le Mans circuit. I haven't the same knowledge about it and never attended any race in my previous life. It would have been a fantastic experience to be one of your guests.
Mind that my LR Performance garage is located at 32 rue de Magny-Cours, Montans, Tarn, which is another French circuit!
Hence dice is cast, deal is done and appointment in due on Thursday the 22nd of July next at 9. It will last a great part of the day and I'll get back my 75 before 5 p.m. In the meantime they'll lend me a car for nearly peanuts, 10€ (£8.56) for the whole day without any km limit. You bet that the biggest chunk itself is the full remap service for 600 € (£513)!
But they look skillful and every question I made got a clear, comprehensive & satisfactory answer. They don't look at all swindlers or racketeers like those you may encounter in that kind of business. Being one of the main actors on the circuit looks in itself a guarantee. Besides they didn't promise me swingeing results, just reasonable ones, like around + 10 to 15 Nm (7.37 ft-lbs to 11.06) torque improvement and mainly in the low revs, plus eventually a slightly better consumption. Regarding the bhp it'll be likely better but that's not really the main purpose. Every little helps as one says...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #803 ·
In anticipation of the remap, here are the original power & torque curves when the car was new:

136825


Normally with the modified air inlet & derestricted exhaust SS line improvements, as well as the use of E85 (octane 105), I hope the first graphics would be as good as the one above, and maybe a smallish tad better in the first bench test on the 22nd next...
Hope springs eternal... ;)
 

·
Registered
rover_600
Joined
·
173 Posts
Love the graphic, takes me back to my crewing days in the eighties, whilst this was not my day job, it was something we took very seriously. I am surprised that there is a drop at low revs. The middle of the power curve up to the top end follows what I would expect. Though I would of expected it to be 15% higher. My guess at the reason for it being lower is drive-ability below 2200 RPM. When remapping an engine, you have to take in to consideration how the ICU will behave at all driving conditions, when mapping for pure track use you are only interested in the peek power when the engine is in full turbo boost conditions. When mapping for Fast road use you still have to take into account that the car will be used in the town, and you have to ensure that the ICU will not be lumpy below 2500 RPM. The map shows that this has been taken into consideration.
I hope you enjoy your new found power, I suspect that in normal use you will use less fuel.
Look forward to hearing how you enjoy the improved car
Alan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #805 · (Edited)
If everything's fine I'll be able to show two more graphics as usual, before and after the remap.
They told me they need time to test every combination until they're satisfied with the result.
As expected low revs are not performing very well since VIS motors activate around 3,5k revs.
But when cruising with the auto box - that's the main part of my journeys - I'm roughly between 1,5k and 2,5k revs, unless I can't help myself with some kick down!
Then I hope the ECU keeps a good room for improvement (25% for torque I'm told by zeperfs website, and the KV6 engine has an efficiency of 72% only). Indeed I'm not expecting huge improvements, a good margin should be kept for security.
Moreover TBH I avoid driving in crowded areas and specially with the V6, and most of the time I don't need to. The favourite play ground for the V6 is motorways and large roads. For a nice drive in the region i take the more economical cabby that loves hilly and twisted country roads.
 

·
Registered
rover_600
Joined
·
173 Posts
Just after the launch of the V8 I was doing some consulting work for two companies one in Germany two sites and the other was in Austria. So I treated myself to A Rover 75 rear wheel drive a fast Road remap mustang V8. My only complaint was I could empty the fuel tank very quickly. If I kept the speeds below 120MPH I could coax 17 mpg if I got a heavy right foot she would sit at 155mph on the button and still have grunt to give on kick down. She almost took 40% off my autobahn time. I can understand how the company took the world land speed record in the MG tourer in 2002 for the fastest production estate car. A record still held by the car today. I think the engine used in the land speed record car was the 6.2 V8 on full race map and every surface polished that any gasses flowed over.
I am told that the MG in question was a bitch to try to drive on anything but the salt flats.
Our cars are very underrated and we’re well ahead of their time. The V6 2.5 is by any standard in full race tune right on the limits for a Front Wheel Drive Car indeed it is over the accepted limits. As you quite rightly say it will when set up be a much more efficient car when driven with restraint.
I can fully see why you prefer to take its little sister out with her roof down on the twisty mountain roads. I miss that kind of driving.
Sadly today at my age and with my health. And the current restrictions thanks to COVID-19 my days of these things are past.
Alan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #807 · (Edited)
TBH and a bit out of topic I'm not that keen on the V8: not a British made engine (I may look more royalist than the Queen! ;) ), I've never driven a propulsion engine and given the power it may not be spontaneous, I deeply dislike the look of the facelift and last but not least the mpg is appalling... Too many drawbacks... And I'd forgotten: very scarce on our part of the Channel then often found as RHD... Otherwise a handful of LHD cars hence very pricey! 😱

Anyway while restlessly waiting for my next appointment, I've found in the States one essential bit of my JATCO autobox that may be very useful in the future because of not infrequent a failure: the Electronic Pressure Control solenoid (n° 9 or 93 according to the brands - VW, Jaguar, Rover or Land Rover) which Land Rover ref. is THT500080.

When going from one gear to another becomes harsher you know it's time to swap that solenoid for a new one.
Why from the States? Because it's far cheaper: less than £30 when it's £75 at Rimmer's and hardly a tad less everywhere on the continent! o_O Even nearly doubled by shipping & custom fees it remains more interesting.
I may add that even Rimmer's wasn't able to tell me which was the exact reference of that precise solenoid: in the first place I thought it was the THT500090 and they told me they thought it was the right one but they weren't 100% sure... Then I started poking around and found the exact reference thanks to a precise sketch of the JATCO box figured within my 'new' heavy documentation and a French MG Rover forum thread. Thus don't rely too much on the so called experts... :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
rover_600
Joined
·
173 Posts
Thanks for that very useful bit of information, I shall be getting one to put on the shelf, you never know when you will need one, and when you do finding one is not easy.
Back in late March I made the decision to replace the brakes and the suspension parts not already done on the spice Tourer. I thought I had made a full list of every part I might need. Including new subframe and retaining bolts also all hose clips and a fuel tank strap as I was sure it would not take kindly to being dropped for the new brake lines and the under floor rust treatment.
Once I had everything off at the back I discovered that all 6 of the trailing arm bushes were in need of replacement. As suspected not easy to source. My thanks go to Scott at DMGRS who provided me with all six bushes, one pair were made in the USA, I have to say the American bushes were made to a much higher standard compared to the other two sets. Not a job I had considered before I started. Due mainly my age the whole job took me longer than I had considered and not just because of jobs added on, due to my list not being comprehensive enough.
Although the work was preventative and not essential. Everything feels much tighter, not the correct word but the best I can come up with she handles much more like a new car.
I have to agree with you the original car looks much better than the Facelift. I just wish BMW had not shortened the car from Duncan’s original drawings and mock-up. For a car that appeared on paper back in the eighties it was another of Duncan’s master pieces. Just a shame that when it came to build BMW saw the car as a direct competitor to their 5 series so made some rather drastic changes to the original drawings.
I am hoping that with all the work I have done and intend to do to the Spice Tourer that she will see me through till I am too old to drive anymore. I think any more big jobs will have to be done by a garage as the March work only just went on to show me that whilst I can still do it it takes too much out of me. Hopefully our two should last another 30 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #809 ·
I thought the original R40 (Rover 75) design was due to Richard Woolley... But who's that Duncan you are talking about?
I'll be glad to know and to learn every day something new... at last for me!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #810 ·
Following a fussy thread on the 75 & ZT Owners Club about which should be the right temperature when the thermostat housing is opening, I can't understand why it's a matter of debate.
The opinion of the majority being that about the coolant temperature the hotter the better!
Some telling that the old OEM TH is to open around 88°C, which is absolutely true, as stated in the Rover 75 comprehensive workshop guide, but that new TH such as the one sold by the excellent DMGRS was opening at 82°C and that could be damaging for the system!
I don't understand. 🤪

During decades in the 60s, 70s & even 80s lots of cars were suffering of too hot coolant temperatures, so much that lots of mods had been done to allow more fresh air from the outside or swapping the radiator for a bigger one to improve the cooling system, unless that misfortune had led to a general failure of the engine.

And now lots of 75 / ZT owners are complaining that slightly lower temperatures could be damaging??!! o_O
Filling up my tank with full E85, having put a slightly thicker radiator, and allowing more air coming into the throttle thanks to a K&N filter and several additional round holes in the low part of the air box, I can tell that temperatures, according to a lot of parameters (outside temp, car speed, revs, landscape, you name it...), are according to Torque Pro 'normally' moving between 70 and 90° (more when the traffic is jammed or car on standstill as expected). I'm chuffed when they are in the mid 80s or even slightly below. The system is working fine in my opinion, even with a TH which looks likely to be the original one. And my car is working like that since the end of 2017, that is 3 years and a half, without - so far - the faintest problem...
So what? :rolleyes:
I fear that may be another useless controversy such as the one about E10 damaging the engine... Nonsense! 🤪
 

·
Registered
rover_600
Joined
·
173 Posts
Following a fussy thread on the 75 & ZT Owners Club about which should be the right temperature when the thermostat housing is opening, I can't understand why it's a matter of debate.
The opinion of the majority being that about the coolant temperature the hotter the better!
Some telling that the old OEM TH is to open around 88°C, which is absolutely true, as stated in the Rover 75 comprehensive workshop guide, but that new TH such as the one sold by the excellent DMGRS was opening at 82°C and that could be damaging for the system!
I don't understand. 🤪

During decades in the 60s, 70s & even 80s lots of cars were suffering of too hot coolant temperatures, so much that lots of mods had been done to allow more fresh air from the outside or swapping the radiator for a bigger one to improve the cooling system, unless that misfortune had led to a general failure of the engine.

And now lots of 75 / ZT owners are complaining that slightly lower temperatures could be damaging??!! o_O
Filling up my tank with full E85, having put a slightly thicker radiator, and allowing more air coming into the throttle thanks to a K&N filter and several additional round holes in the low part of the air box, I can tell that temperatures, according to a lot of parameters (outside temp, car speed, revs, landscape, you name it...), are according to Torque Pro 'normally' moving between 70 and 90° (more when the traffic is jammed or car on standstill as expected). I'm chuffed when they are in the mid 80s or even slightly below. The system is working fine in my opinion, even with a TH which looks likely to be the original one. And my car is working like that since the end of 2017, that is 3 years and a half, without - so far - the faintest problem...
So what? :rolleyes:
I fear that may be another useless controversy such as the one about E10 damaging the engine... Nonsense! 🤪
I can't Understand why anybody would be worried about the engine temperature being cooler, back in my childhood days I was taught that a cooler engine gave more power whilst a hotter engine gave better fuel economy. this was why we fitted large water radiators, and Large oil coolers to our sports cars. Thermostats if fitted at all were in a range between 72 and 92 degrees. then in the early sixties a group of Engineering students at Glasgow University took a roots group imp and drained the fuel system flushed it all through with alcohol then filled the fuel tank with alcohol primed the fuel system and started the car. goodness me a car that runs on sugar beat Alcohol, to be fair they did retard the timing slightly to stop the engine pinking. they then went on to play with LPG and hydrogen. I think the adjustment to run on LPG was to invert the float chamber of the carburetor. there was a thesis produced on the subject which I think I read bits of in Race car Engineer. But it is so long ago.
I am unsure which country it is though Cuba keeps coming to mind where in the sixties and seventies petrol engines were run on Alcohol, as spirit was cheaper and in plentiful supply, whilst petrol was expensive and hard to get hold of.
You Sir are so right with your comments. It makes me wonder what they teach at Uni these days. A storm in a tea cup.
 

·
Registered
rover_600
Joined
·
173 Posts
I thought the original R40 (Rover 75) design was due to Richard Woolley... But who's that Duncan you are talking about?
I'll be glad to know and to learn every day something new... at last for me!
Duncan Lang one of the Chief design engineers who worked for BL and later Austin Rover Duncan served his time in the drawing office of Bradford before moving to BL, probably his best unknown design was the mid engine metro rally car which followed him into retirement as they gave him one when he retired. that car sat in the Barn at the back of his house. Just prior to his retirement he had been asked to design a car for the future and that design and clay mock up went on to be mucked about with by the design team over the years until it became the car we know and love today.
Sadly these old gents from the drawing offices of our old car companies are almost gone. the only one I know of who is still alive is Dick Watson who must be due a letter from HRH soon. He served his time with HRG. when I last met him he had just bought a Reliant Kitten estate which for some reason he loves. He was still looking after her majesties RRs though his son is now helping him. That was the back end of the year before Covid. I wish I knew where he got the energy from.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #813 ·
Thank you very much @alanaslan for your shrewd and comprehensive comments.
We are singing from the same sheet, and I do testify so far that fuelled up with E85 (85/75/65% ethanol according to the seasons) all my three Rovers are driving better, with better smoothness and nonetheless better response of the throttle.
The only obvious downside is a lower mpg (hence lower autonomy) but more than largely balanced by ethanol price: 0,70€ /L instead of 1,53€/L in my area: even if it's € & L instead of £ & gallon, you can easily deduce the bargain from the proportion!
To make it clearer, here I need around £11 to cover 100 mls when fuelling up with E10 I would need more than £24 for the same 100 mls! Mind that in that calculation I've taken into account the consumption difference since the E85 needs around 25% more fuel for the same distance due to different stoechometric values (9.7 vs 14.7) as you know.
And none of my hoses are eaten and cylinder head, pistons, valves, you name it, are absolutely clean as noticed on my 25 1.4 last year (when the high engine was taken apart and gaskets swapped for the first time after 18 years!) after 3 years of E85 fuel ups.
Hence fuelling up in the UK with E10 instead of E5 will be a doddle, a walk in the park.
Most of the people ever dislike changes... and my first interventions on the other forum were like a preach in the desert.
I know for sure I'm not at all a petrol head but as a pragmatic lad I'm keener to rely on honest experiments and skillful advice rather than theories and ideological assertions based on web gossips! Am I wrong? Future will tell...
 
  • Like
Reactions: nOw2

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #814 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #815 · (Edited)
So the remap was done yesterday but here lies my big disappointment.
They tested the car twice on the bench, before and after, as usual.

They gave me the curves and for my 175 bhp & 177 ftlb car, they found only at the first time:
140bhp and 146 ftlb!!!

And after the remap in the end: 146 bhp & 146 ftlb (with a slight improvement in the 2k/3k revs and a smoother curve).

Hence very oddly the same 17/20% loss in each case! Utterly umbelievable!
You can see these weird results on both sheets.
136907


136908

You can notice in the latter sheet (couple = torque) 2 slight depressed area (2750 & 4250 revs) which shouldn't be. They told me the curve is actually more regular but those apparent weakness appear because of an automatic change of the gearbox they couldn't help happening. Thus the curve is effectively more regular and smoother.

Indeed I wasn't expecting a huge improvement: around 5 to 10 bhp & 10 ftlb, but the shock happened at the first exam as if my car had lost allegedly a big chunk of its genuine power & torque when it drives really fine, is very responsive and accelerate easily even loaded and going uphill on hard slopes, the more spectacular being the kick downs when you actually feel like a kick in the ass going up to 6666 revs (my 'best'!) when very powerfully overtaking the car ahead of me.

I do notice a real even huge discrepancy between those bad results on the paper and the actual feeling and big satisfaction when I drive the car. Yes I know: feelings are worth nothing for sure, but my three and a half years on the road with the car leads me towards an opposite conclusion. You can't fool a real experiment in live situation. It was better after the E85 conversion and when going back home from LR Performance I felt a slight improvement and a better smoothness when accelerating.

So those result don't seem to me very reliable. I know what one may say that I can't face the evidence. No I'm not such a man: I just ask for the truth whichever it may be but in this case I'm not at all convinced because information here looks conflicting.

Nonetheless they told me they found the car in very good nick, perfect order & very well maintained for its age.

They began to diagnose the car for possible flaws in the system: they found none but the well known problem on the third speed of the radiator fan. But - breaking news - a verification I've just made with TOAF gives me the evidence that all the three speeds are working fine, and a second evidence is I can hear them all! So I suspect the guy was fooled by his own software, then it's another discrepancy...

Otherwise they noticed the carburation is very fine and perfectly within the legal mandatory bracket.

But they told me they had difficulties to test the car because of the auto box: I bet they aren't very well used to auto box...
The reason they gave me is that every time they push on the pedal the auto box system was very willing to downgrade in gear to give more punch, which is what it does very well every time when needed. And despite putting the lever in a particular gear (4,3,2) even in that case the box was downgrading to the gear immediately below (I'm amazed: I thought it wasn't possible when stuck in a precise gear, am I wrong?) hence making tests difficult. Hence they slightly and progressively push on the pedal to prevent that phenomenon and then only they could take measures & statistics.

Thus I think the measures were skewed, even the curves are very dissimilar to the original Rover ones.
All that could be done in that car had been done:
  • new platinum spark plugs
  • throttle body cleaned
  • both VIS motors swapped for brand new ones
  • every service done when needed including the auto box fluid as required and oil & filter once a year
  • all belts, pulley & pump swapped last year
  • and many other interventions to increase the reliability I've told here in my previous posts.

So what?
Why so pitiful an apparent result?
Did you hear of such a weird loss in a V6 power & torque in so good a condition after years?
Thank you for your skillful advice and wise suggestions about such a gap between the reality on the road and the results on paper. It looks absurd and preposterous...
Those mechanics look very experienced and praised but in race sports, recent and/or powerful cars with the stuff which comes with it (software & hardware) but I'm doubtful they may be as efficient with older cars and some devices (auto box) which never appear in race course.

I'm befuddled and helpless... but I've faith in my good car and I'm always chuffed when driving it: that's the point!
 

·
Registered
MG ZT, Rover 25
Joined
·
5,748 Posts
I wouldn’t worry if the test did not factor in drivetrain losses. The original bhp curve would have been measured with the engine on a bench from the flywheel. What you measured on your car is the wheel horse power which would be expected to be 15-20% down due to drivetrain losses. The losses are probably nearer to 20% as your car has an automatic transmission. Add 20% for unavoidable drivetrain losses to you figures and you will see your engine is in good condition (near 175bhp). What is important is how the remap feels in real driving conditions...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #817 ·
Thanks a lot @gnu! You save my day!
I was totally aback & stunned when they gave me the sheets!
Thanks to your astute comment and those as well I've got on the other forum, I begin to understand better the question.
But you know I wouldn't live either relying on false evidences... I want the truth.
Things are getting a bit clearer now and you're perfectly right and I quite agree: the point IS the driving conditions.
Anyway on that sunnier side of the problem, I'm over the moon (no pun intended...)! 😜 :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #818 ·
TBH I knew since the beginning that power & torque increase would be very limited. Actually they are rather mean and yet less than expected.
But on the positive side, I'm chuffed that independent & very professional eyes found the car and the engine in pretty good condition.
That was what I thought but after all that was only my maybe biased opinion.
Moreover in the first place the man began to tell me - after my explanations about my ethanol mod - they were unsure that the car was ready to go & fit for a remap. If not I would be committed to put it back in its first condition (taking off both resistors) in order to go ahead.
Hence I wasn't very cocky while waiting for their verdict... 🤪
Thus I'm very pleased & happy they - if I may say so - 'validated' my mod, because they are also specialized in E85 mod but by software (modifying the ECU program).
To end with, despite its lot of emotions, it looks a rather interesting experience even not a cheap one, but I don't mind talking trifles... after all as they say, it's only money... ;)
Likely a small gain in bhp (at least 6 guaranteed, possibly a few more according from what was said above and in the other forum) and possibly a very few in ftlb with a better curve and smoothness in the low revs, which was initially the main purpose, and maybe a small gain in mpg provided I drive like a senator... probably the toughest side of the trial! :LOL:
I now know that my pride & joy could never drive better, I've done all my very best! :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roverlike and gnu

·
Registered
rover_25
Joined
·
324 Posts
to be fair, most of the k series and kv6 engines didn't come from the factory with the stated power figure and now the engines are old they have lost a few ponies, i bought the last outright vvc engine from rimmers, it made 151hp at the crank and that was brand new, and a few of my friends see around 140-150 on low mileage VVC engines, i think 140 hp from a old kv6 is ok, id would start with a compression test.

after modding the head, inlet and throttle body, playing with the timing, some mike satur cams and a janspeed exhaust with a k maps remap the vvc lump made 188hp, that was 5 years ago, i had it tested again last winter and it made 186hp after 20k miles, 3k mile oil changes I think help, 10w40 oil and a mgr filter are so cheap it seams wrong not to.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #820 ·
Thank you for shedding light on those mechanical mysteries for me. It's now much clearer. I now know the loss is very sensible from flywheel to wheels and particularly with an auto gearbox.
BTW does it exist a (professional) way to get measures from the flywheel otherwise than taking the engine off?
Anyway I'm pretty chuffed by the driving: even before the so called remap and thanks to my previous mods allowing a full ethanol working, the engine looked rather very reactive, responsive and in in good health,
I'm indulging myself in a 5 days holidays in France in the middle of nowhere (or nearly!) so I'll have enough time to test the car and collect some new impressions (unfortunately feelings only and no scientific figures), helped by my Torque Pro monitoring. I'll tell you.
 
801 - 820 of 823 Posts
Top