150 bhp

18th August 2008, 21:49

I want my car to be running at 150bhp and i'l be happy at that.

I have a 2000 saxo vts, planning to put induction kit, full exhaust system, Head gas flowed, Cams, Chipped or Remapped.

Reckon this will do 150bhp?

18th August 2008, 21:52

get it remaped properly and a decent set of cams and should be around that mark

19th August 2008, 00:44

dont need the head work doing, worth it if your going to go further with it, but dont just take it to anyone to get it done

i have 4-1 gmc btb mani, btb exhaust, bmc induction kit, catcams 708s and its just under 150

19th August 2008, 10:29

same as yates headwork isnt nessecry

bmc induction
newman ph3 cams
piper 4-1 mani
supersprint centre
piper backbox

152 @ chipwizards

19th August 2008, 17:26

That power tested on a dyno or guessing?

Cams cheaper than head work then? which give best performace

19th August 2008, 17:27

done on a dyno as they have had there cars mapped at chipwizards.
cams before headwork imo. i wouldnt even bother with headwork till your going past cams

19th August 2008, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex-VTS

same as yates headwork isnt nessecry

bmc induction
newman ph3 cams
piper 4-1 mani
supersprint centre
piper backbox

152 @ chipwizards

How much in total did that set you back?

19th August 2008, 22:23

somewere in the region of 1000-1200 i think
never really kept track

i think anyway

19th August 2008, 22:26

so it'l cost me about 1k to get 150bhp.

Is that all brand new? i hoping for some ebay bargins

19th August 2008, 22:27

yea all new
but the cams were off here cheap unused

19th August 2008, 22:28

manifold - 150
bmc - 80
cams - 250 or so
remap - 450
unsure on exhausts mine cost me 300

guestimate prices

19th August 2008, 22:32

Yes 150bhp is easily achieveable,

I run a similar setup to the guys above and got 153bhp when mapped.

I wouldnt buy a bmc though, Iv heard a lot about them being restrictive. Im using the green enclosed atm, but have ordered the Raceland kit with the biggest green filter you can get from kam-racing.

19th August 2008, 22:38

not arguing about the filter

but is raceland the one thats attached to the slam panel? surely thats more restrictive?

in all fairness never heard anythin bout them being restrictive...but when camming i cant see any filter making too much of a difference

19th August 2008, 22:41

Quote:

in all fairness never heard anythin bout them being restrictive...but when camming i cant see any filter making too much of a difference

Heard it from a few people recently, including Alex (Alex-vts) They had to take it off to map his car as with it on it was only reaching into the 140's, they took it off and it was in the 150s so they mapped it without the filter.

19th August 2008, 22:43

mine was running at 148 constantly with the bmc
took it off 154
got up to 157
put it back on 152

just wasnt getting enough air through it
im currently looking into a better 1 (procomp would be nice)
but ill hack th slam panel to make space for airflow

20th August 2008, 01:33

10bhp from a filter

never tried another so wouldnt know, well had an open stickin out headlight so that felt better but it was in the cold air lol

20th August 2008, 01:58

does anyone notice vts temperatures rise quite quickly when giving it welly? lol

20th August 2008, 02:06

one of my mates goes up fast if hes doing 90+ compared to strolling around,but saying that my other mates vts isnt as bad probs coz its standed

20th August 2008, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yates

never tried another so wouldnt know, well had an open stickin out headlight so that felt better but it was in the cold air lol

same here not tryed another filter but had a bit of a feed to it and it seemed better (im working in a headlight intake for mine to use on trackdays)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Vts

does anyone notice vts temperatures rise quite quickly when giving it welly? lol

mine wast too bad tbh
only ever went about 2/3 of the way up the guage
and that was absolutely raping it tbh

20th August 2008, 12:53

when was your air feed on the BMC filter??

20th August 2008, 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by makaveli144

Heard it from a few people recently, including Alex (Alex-vts) They had to take it off to map his car as with it on it was only reaching into the 140's, they took it off and it was in the 150s so they mapped it without the filter.

Its not the filter that is restrictive its more a case of where the pipe takes air from the front of the car that is an issue. It needs to be place in a high pressure area and with minimum piping. Often this requires some hole cutting.

20th August 2008, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

when was your air feed on the BMC filter??

Where*

20th August 2008, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

Its not the filter that is restrictive its more a case of where the pipe takes air from the front of the car that is an issue. It needs to be place in a high pressure area and with minimum piping. Often this requires some hole cutting.

I've got mine coming out my passenger fog light myself, i aint no whizz kid but i heard heat rises, therefore the cold air should be low down. Cant say i've noticed a difference since fitting it apart from the sound.

20th August 2008, 15:36

gmc 4-1 manifold
throttle bodies
exhaust system

147bhp at fly

20th August 2008, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket_Rocket

I want my car to be running at 150bhp and i'l be happy at that.

I have a 2000 saxo vts, planning to put induction kit, full exhaust system, Head gas flowed, Cams, Chipped or Remapped.

Reckon this will do 150bhp?

PH3's
ECU
Exhaust Manifold/System
Induction

= Yes.

20th August 2008, 15:57

I'd go for

Raceland manifold
Raceland ram air with green filter
Catcam 708s
Re-map.

That should see you between 155 and 160bhp.

Wayne does wonders with the standard ecu's on Saxo's.

20th August 2008, 16:56

with the above youll be full chat gauranteed

20th August 2008, 17:00

Yep most Saxos seem to make What george has said

I said most there are a few that aint made that.....must be something down to the crap map..

20th August 2008, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullit

with the above youll be full chat gauranteed

LOL, very cryptic! I like it.

20th August 2008, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

LOL, very cryptic! I like it.

thought youd like

20th August 2008, 17:17

Most people think I'm a newbie.

20th August 2008, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex-VTS

mine wast too bad tbh
only ever went about 2/3 of the way up the guage
and that was absolutely raping it tbh

hmmm

mines round the same lol just that the vtr temp even wen i raped it completly didnt go over half lol

20th August 2008, 17:58

well the one time i proper raped it was at mallory
and it never went below about 4500 for the time it was running
it went to around 2/3

thats what i mean by raping it
on road use i never really got above half

20th August 2008, 18:50

the thing is 150 bhp is just a number, its how it gets used on the road

my vts has everything listed above apart from cams and re-map, it is currently running 135bhp

now my bro's 106 gti was running everything mentioned above plus mocal oil cooler (not that it will make diff to the power i know)

Anyway his was mapped at chipwizards at 152bhp

Now when we had a play around on our private test track the difference 17 bhp makes is not noticable at all, maybe pull away a couple of inchs a second

this has totally put me off wasting 900 quid getting my car on cams, keep it cheap and cheerful imo

If anybody else wants to shed any light on the difference they think cams made go ahead but this is just our personal experience

20th August 2008, 18:54

Hmmmmm my cammed 16v makes ALOT less power then 150 but i beat my 1/4 mile time by 6 tenths, and im half a second quicker than a type r I know over the quarter

20th August 2008, 18:57

Well there's something a miss then. My vts went from 0 - 100 in 22 seconds to 16 seconds after the cams.

20th August 2008, 19:02

george wasnt your old set up on 52s?

20th August 2008, 19:11

Yer the 0-100 is a shed load better! My map and graph is excellent and smooth, but the rr figure is extremely low!

Goes bloody well though, my mate just spent 10k on a type R, then we took our cars for a quarter sprint, and I was loads quicker than him all day

20th August 2008, 19:48

that on the 285s colin?

20th August 2008, 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris205

the thing is 150 bhp is just a number, its how it gets used on the road

my vts has everything listed above apart from cams and re-map, it is currently running 135bhp

now my bro's 106 gti was running everything mentioned above plus mocal oil cooler (not that it will make diff to the power i know)

Anyway his was mapped at chipwizards at 152bhp

Now when we had a play around on our private test track the difference 17 bhp makes is not noticable at all, maybe pull away a couple of inchs a second

this has totally put me off wasting 900 quid getting my car on cams, keep it cheap and cheerful imo

If anybody else wants to shed any light on the difference they think cams made go ahead but this is just our personal experience

on the road or private test track .. whatever you want to call it that 20bhp difference is not that noticeable because you cannot drive the car like it should be.

Get both cars on a proper track and things will be a lot different as its not just the gains in peak power but the extra shove from the midrange that really gets you going

20th August 2008, 21:21

BMC ind kit
raceland mani
magnex decat
magnex system
newmans ph3
remap at chipwizards
=155.7bhp

As said thats justa number but the car pulls like a train now and contrary to what else was said is a lot quicker than standard s' - you would notice a difference

20th August 2008, 22:12

Thats not a bad power figure. I've noticed in general the 708s produce a drop more power than the ph3.

Ryan, I never timed it with the 52s. That was with piper 285s and a hiflow head. 165bhp, 133ftlb.

20th August 2008, 22:16

ah remeber you had some pt 52s just didnt know when and where lol.

285s are what PP suposedly make over 180bhp with in the longmans engines.

20th August 2008, 22:28

They must be using a true 285 profile. I had the piper 285s which are more like 265. My PT52 engine never really ran right mate. In fact it smoked like a trooper. 158bhp @7800 rpm. Fucked bottom end in other words.

20th August 2008, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex-VTS

well the one time i proper raped it was at mallory
and it never went below about 4500 for the time it was running
it went to around 2/3

thats what i mean by raping it
on road use i never really got above half

i get over half on the road...

hmmm maybe coolant or sumthing is going wrong ... hmm its ok though when im not driving it ''rapist''

20th August 2008, 22:36

As long as the red light isnt on your safe imo.

20th August 2008, 22:40

Fitting a digital guage is the only accurate way of telling tbqh.

20th August 2008, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

on the road or private test track .. whatever you want to call it that 20bhp difference is not that noticeable because you cannot drive the car like it should be.

Get both cars on a proper track and things will be a lot different as its not just the gains in peak power but the extra shove from the midrange that really gets you going

In all fairness though ive drove the cammed gti and it feels a lot more responsive than my vts, seems to pick up through the range better, just when they're head to head the difference is marginal (sp)

20th August 2008, 22:54

depends on the remap then?

20th August 2008, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Vts

depends on the remap then?

was done by chipwizards mate

21st August 2008, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

They must be using a true 285 profile. I had the piper 285s which are more like 265. My PT52 engine never really ran right mate. In fact it smoked like a trooper. 158bhp @7800 rpm. Fucked bottom end in other words.

you know what colin is like, but dan dodsons never made near 180 on the rollers, so many still think its just standard 285s plus forgies and head work to make them about 165-170.

is that the bottom end that you had all the probs with? or is that a different one (one that went to qep iirc)

21st August 2008, 00:25

it also down to the rr imo, mines under 150, pretty much same as sam cooks, but it drivers awesome cant complain at how it goes at all, very very happy certainly better than a standard vts by a mile, same specs different rr and different results one road you may get over 150, others you may not

21st August 2008, 09:48

Yep the PT52 engine was bought from a robbing git in Scotland through TMS. I then sent it to QEP and they basically scrapped it.

21st August 2008, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

Hmmmmm my cammed 16v makes ALOT less power then 150 but i beat my 1/4 mile time by 6 tenths, and im half a second quicker than a type r I know over the quarter

Nice to see you're still kicking about Colin.

When are you going to invite to one of your 1/4 mile trips? I'd really like to have a bash. Our cars should be similar...

You say you car has less than 150bhp... But that's down to the RR we all went to a Northampton Motorsport where we got REAL figures. None of this 165bhp malarky people seem to get from other RRs.

21st August 2008, 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

Yep the PT52 engine was bought from a robbing git in Scotland through TMS. I then sent it to QEP and they basically scrapped it.

Ouch, that doesn't sound nice at all. TMS went belly up didn't they?

21st August 2008, 13:31

They did mate.

I might take mine down to Northampton Motorsport and see how accurate there rollers really are.

21st August 2008, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toad

Ouch, that doesn't sound nice at all. TMS went belly up didn't they?

yes late lastyear/early this year.

a certain car has been rumoured to have been some of the cause.

21st August 2008, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

yes late lastyear/early this year.

a certain car has been rumoured to have been some of the cause.

Let me guess who's car?

21st August 2008, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

They did mate.

I might take mine down to Northampton Motorsport and see how accurate there rollers really are.

They were pretty brutal the day myself and a load of other SaxP members went down there...

21st August 2008, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaRiO89

Let me guess who's car?

eggs and one basket.

21st August 2008, 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

yes late lastyear/early this year.

a certain car has been rumoured to have been some of the cause.

What's this about a car then?

21st August 2008, 18:45

I'm not sure it was to do with that car tbh.

What was the highest figure on Northampton Motorsports rollers on the day?

21st August 2008, 18:55

wide thing iirc ryan

21st August 2008, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

They did mate.

I might take mine down to Northampton Motorsport and see how accurate there rollers really are.

was that the place where I saw the pics where they were havign to get blokes to sit on the front of the cars to keep them on the rollers? if so can hardly be that accurate if thats needed to measure 150 odd bhp

22nd August 2008, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

I'm not sure it was to do with that car tbh.

What was the highest figure on Northampton Motorsports rollers on the day?

JPSaxo made the highest. I *think* he made 119 atw, but I can't be 100% sure on that. I think I made 115 atw, so not that far behind. Not bad considering JP's on bodies and hi comps... I think most of the other cammed Saxos made around 110 atw, and one or two made much less.

Interestingly, nearly all of the stock (bar exhaust changes) VTRs made expected figures, it was just the higher powered / modified cars which didn't seem to get the figures.

22nd August 2008, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxo_ron

was that the place where I saw the pics where they were havign to get blokes to sit on the front of the cars to keep them on the rollers? if so can hardly be that accurate if thats needed to measure 150 odd bhp

I don't know, but at Northampton Motorsport they had to sit on mine, as it kept spinning up on the rollers. My car is very light that's why.

22nd August 2008, 09:18

It won't be any lighter over the front end than any of the other Vts/Gtis though will it?!

119 ATWs is low for Js car, but its fair to say its consistant with the other cars on the day then. Peak power isn't the main advantage of ITBs, its the mid range and the torque. So for him to make more power with the same cams as others on single throttlebody shows its a strong engine.

I'd like to see upto 155-160 ATWs from mine.

22nd August 2008, 09:41

George

Do you have you engine running Yet>?

Sure you aint

Must be coming on about 15 years or something now lol

22nd August 2008, 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

It won't be any lighter over the front end than any of the other Vts/Gtis though will it?!

119 ATWs is low for Js car, but its fair to say its consistant with the other cars on the day then. Peak power isn't the main advantage of ITBs, its the mid range and the torque. So for him to make more power with the same cams as others on single throttlebody shows its a strong engine.

His power and torque curve was like spaghetti though, all over the shop, lol. I wonder if he ever got to the bottom of this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

I'd like to see upto 155-160 ATWs from mine.

Not on their rollers. I believe they had a Clio sport on there the same day, and it was running race cams, bodies, the works, and I think it only made 140 atw.

22nd August 2008, 10:20

My engine is running, just not in my car!

As for the clios, they don't tend to respond to tuning that well, unless they are done properly. I know breaking the 200 barrier can be a missions sometimes. Even so 140atws sounds low.

22nd August 2008, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

My engine is running, just not in my car!

As for the clios, they don't tend to respond to tuning that well, unless they are done properly. I know breaking the 200 barrier can be a missions sometimes. Even so 140atws sounds low.

Fair point. I don't think the owner was too impressed, as it was apparently a 230bhp engine...

We discussed this RR visit for quite some length of time. A lot of disappointed owners wanted to blame the RR for the low figures, but we didn't have a leg to stand on because of all the near-standard VTRs making what they should. There were a few near-standard VTS's there too, and they made really low atw figures, but normal fly figures IIRC. Something like 90 atw and 120 fly...

22nd August 2008, 10:52

Maybe their gearbox calculations were wrong for the vts? Either way it all ounds a bit odd.

22nd August 2008, 16:31

You know the good think abouut George

Is that he tries and tests thinks and a lot of thought process and research is done to find the best suit parks for his car

Alot of that goes out the window these days and people just jump in head first

22nd August 2008, 20:41

Sounds to me like that RR couldnt measure higher powered cars

22nd August 2008, 21:59

look into brakes and suspension as well if your going for cams, im sure damp cave will tell you that i spent months emailing him about spec of the suspension, ryan, alexr and williams can probs also tell you the same, as leeroy said about george, well worth looking into it all before you spend your money and just buy what ever...

if you track it, the suspension and brakes will give you alot more advantage in corners

decent gearbox doesnt go a miss either

23rd August 2008, 18:34

I do lots a of research Leeroy, then a do a bit more, then I make the plunge.

24th August 2008, 04:54

Here's the link from the RR day,

http://www.saxperience.com/forum/sho...=139765&page=3

As already said the Vtr's seemed to make near enough what they should. However a completely standard vts (even standard induction, mani and exhaust) only made 88 atw, but 120 at the fly - which doesnt sound right at all, imo.

But there again the results seemed inline with spec. Toad as G said yours should be nigh on what mine is as you have BV head, I have standard head with high comp pistons. So the only difference being the TB's which wont effect the top end power as such with 708's.

Here's the list with rough specs

1. Cooper - 70 @ wheels - vtr
2. Scott Ford - 78.8 @ wheels - vtr, induction kit & exhaust
3. Josh Preston - 119 @ wheels - vts,708's,tbs,high comp pistons, BTB exhuast and mani, etc, standard head
4. Luke Neal - 100 @ wheels - vts, exhuast, mani, induction kit
5. jayBiss - 75 @ wheels - vtr, exhaust
6. Colin - 110 @ wheels - vts, 285piper cams, remapped, mani and group n exhuast
7. Stuart fox - 155 @ wheels - clio 172 cup, cams, tbs, p & p head etc by same place as who did FMP's engine
8. Danny Beat - ??
9. David Anderson (toad) - 114 @ wheels - 708 cams, BV head
10. Daniel Hector - 98 @ wheels - induction kitm BTB mani and exhaust - down 5bhp @ wheels from last time we were there with same spec...
11. Tom Shaw - 82 @ wheels
12. Sam Preston - 55 @ wheels - 1.4 westy, induction kit,mani, exhaust, cam - down 12 bhp @ wheels from last time with same spec, but up on torque
13. Lee Aucott - 73 @ wheels -vtr
14. Ben Wilson - 97.5 @ wheels - polo gti
15. Ben Wood - 97.5 @ wheels - scirroco
16. Dan Mcauiffe - 107 @ wheels - vts, 708 cams, BV jp4 head, high comp pistons
17. Ste Wedge - 87 @ wheels - vts, mani exhuast and filter
18. Christopher Williams - 77 @ wheels - vtr
19. Jamie Pescaglini - 101 @ wheels - vts, mani exhuast and filter
20. Jameel Qureshi - 97 @ wheels - vts, mani exhuast and filter
21. Alan Marden - 88 @ wheels - totally standartd vts (should be 100ish)
22. Danny Clayton - 102 @ wheels - gti, mani exhuast and filter
23. Steve Garrett - 75 @ wheels - yaris
24. Matt Newton - 90 @ wheels - vts, pt51 cams, bv jp4 head, cam timing needs sorting
25. Tim Western - 72 @ wheels- vtr exhuast, manifold & induction kit
26. Elliot Maynard - 71.2 @ wheels, vtr exhaust and panel filter
27. John Lawson - 76 @ wheels - vtr exhuast & induction kit

All done at Northampton motorsport on the same day with roughly same inlet temps etc

Cammed engines highlighted

24th August 2008, 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toad

Nice to see you're still kicking about Colin.

When are you going to invite to one of your 1/4 mile trips? I'd really like to have a bash. Our cars should be similar...

You say you car has less than 150bhp... But that's down to the RR we all went to a Northampton Motorsport where we got REAL figures. None of this 165bhp malarky people seem to get from other RRs.

haha yer Im still about

Yer by all means we will get one sorted. Its nearing the end of the racing season now and weather will be rainy, but next year my car should be built! lol.

Yer and it was good coz all the engines were very similar in power so I was pleased to keep up with all the other high lift cam engines there!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullit

that on the 285s colin?

Yes

24th August 2008, 11:01

Those figures do look low, and they vairy so much its almost frightening!

24th August 2008, 11:52

To give some perspective at a different Dyno ...

My VTS ran 108 ATW's with BMC, Raceland 4-2-1, Magnex Zorst and Decat.

25th August 2008, 10:28

Thanks for the post JP, I lost all that RR day info...

I think TBs will give an increase in max BHP when compared to standard inlet, although as stated, the main difference will be in the mid-range. They had to sit extra people in mine to stop the wheels from spinning, I don't know whether or that would make any difference to the readings? Show what a difference the S1 box can make, and also the car being very light...

Did you get to the bottom of why your torque curve was so wierd? Did Dan ever get things sorted with his car?

25th August 2008, 11:04

The shorter gearing of the s1 box will show more power on the rollers.

25th August 2008, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

The shorter gearing of the s1 box will show more power on the rollers.

That's what I thought. The RR chaps said it wouldn't IIRC.

25th August 2008, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toad

That's what I thought. The RR chaps said it wouldn't IIRC.

Course it will, its pretty obvious why it would!

My torque looked nothing like that at GMC, and the figures this place gave for the vts engines especially didnt exactly fill me with confidence!

Dans car im not so sure what had happened there it ran well at the ring and goes well on the road, thats all that matters.

25th August 2008, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsaxo

Course it will, its pretty obvious why it would!

My torque looked nothing like that at GMC, and the figures this place gave for the vts engines especially didnt exactly fill me with confidence!

Dans car im not so sure what had happened there it ran well at the ring and goes well on the road, thats all that matters.

So you've pretty much written those RR results off then? Not a bad idea IMO...

25th August 2008, 18:01

from the faces of most of the lads at the rr when those figures came out I would toad

quite glad my car didn't make it there I think I would have been hugely dissapointed with the kinda figures that were produced

25th August 2008, 20:53

so what does a saxo running at 150bhp pull like?
i've driven a vts conversion with a decat and that pulls well, just like to know if a 150bhp saxo is quick?

25th August 2008, 22:23

It looks like this, but mines got a tad more than 150 (vs a clio 172)

25th August 2008, 22:57

hmmm so a cammed VTS is quicker than a 172 in a straight line?!

26th August 2008, 03:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Vts

hmmm so a cammed VTS is quicker than a 172 in a straight line?!

Mine isnt just cammed though

26th August 2008, 03:14

bt a cammed vts is quicker than 172 straight line or?...

26th August 2008, 03:21

Depends on gearbox choice, cam choice, and what wheel size, also the driver and to what speed - lots of variables.

I've never owned a "cammed vts"

26th August 2008, 03:42

oh lol basically std VTS just lowered...

cammed n vts gearbox vts wheels dry conditions...

i think the 172 would edge it? but then saxo might edge ahead but it would be very close tbh

26th August 2008, 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Vts

oh lol basically std VTS just lowered...

errmmm, i hope you dont think that thats all jp has done, do you?

26th August 2008, 05:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark51

errmmm, i hope you dont think that thats all jp has done, do you?

no, he has black wheels aswell Mark... come on, keep up

26th August 2008, 06:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by smiith

no, he has black wheels aswell Mark... come on, keep up

Lol ^^^

This is true

26th August 2008, 08:59

and discs with holes in.

END OF SPAMMING NOW PLEASE

26th August 2008, 09:09

ill find the vid of mine (has newman ph3s in and a vtr box so is a tad slower than a vts gearbox)

compared to a full race spec rover turbo coupe

EDIT: (the dark blue saxo that gets passed)

26th August 2008, 09:28

Why do people get so unhung on rolling road figures I will never know

At the end of the day if it performs well on the road thats what you want

Look at Matt Yates didn't make higher power, but he is happy with the end results and he issures use its ten times better then it was originally

26th August 2008, 09:33

tbh leeroy your spot on
i went out with mine at first and was like wow 150 yea!!

but the suspension and tyres wernt up to the task and look how it ended up
the car pulled extremy well
and stopped very well too
but in the corners it just didnt work

(if you listen relly carefully to the vid you may be able to hear the tyres squealing there nuts off and the lower brace bottoming out on the floor at only a 50mm drop)

personally id sort the chassis first then the engine after a while

26th August 2008, 10:08

Agreed Alex

Anyone can go fast in a straight liner....cornering takes talent

26th August 2008, 10:26

I've got a 182 cup and i'd say my old stripped cam'd vts was quicker.

26th August 2008, 10:44

Quote:

I've got a 182 cup and i'd say my old stripped cam'd vts was quicker.

Strange I had one and it felt much better

26th August 2008, 12:02

What your 182 felt much better than your cam'd Saxo?

26th August 2008, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgel

I've got a 182 cup and i'd say my old stripped cam'd vts was quicker.

I can believe that. Nice to hear a non-bias comment.

26th August 2008, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Strange I had one and it felt much better

u said uv never had a cammd vts?

26th August 2008, 14:57

mines 145, only thing that bothers me is if it will pass emissions lol

26th August 2008, 15:40

Quote:

u said uv never had a cammd vts?

Mates 2 cammed ones fun like but still dont think it was any quicker

Quote:

mines 145, only thing that bothers me is if it will pass emissions lol

Best mates was mapped well was just say out, if in doubt bung the cat back in will pass then

26th August 2008, 16:08

oh i see

value for money though cant beat a cammed VTS?

26th August 2008, 16:51

Agreed

Well a decent mapped one

26th August 2008, 17:03

cammed vts is awesome, but then add an xsi box lol its too much fun

i know to bung cat on

26th August 2008, 17:11

Stipping out 80kgs make a difference too.

26th August 2008, 19:27

i beat a few 172s down the strip, unmapped aswell, shagged tyres and bolloxed gearbox. cammed vts is quicker

28th August 2008, 06:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_Vts

oh i see

value for money though cant beat a cammed VTS?

doubt it, although 172's are becoming increasingly cheap now days - saying that most of the cheap ones have probs been ragged to hell by now

28th August 2008, 06:57

i agree

neighbour got ph1 172 in silver

abused to ferk lol, in and out of damn garage lol

28th August 2008, 08:05

I had a ph1 172, yeah its quicker then a vts, although im planning on camming my vts.

I dont think there would be a great deal in the 172 against a 150bhp vts, most 172/182's dont make there claimed bhp anyway. The ph1 172 produces around 156bhp per tonne as standard also.

Just thought i'd add my two pence

28th August 2008, 08:37

Very true Daz!