ATMO Tuning

Renault & Alpine General Discussion

Moderators: eastlmark, BIG_MVS, phildini, Test Moderator, Alpineandy

User avatar
User

David Gentleman

Rank

Non Member

Posts

3474

Joined

Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:10 am

Location

Colchester, Essex


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby David Gentleman » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:26 am

peterg wrote:Or a V5???? :shock:


Or what about those weird H-16 engines in the Donnington museum or were you to drunk to remember... :lol:
Image
User avatar
User

peterg

Rank

Non Member

Posts

2501

Joined

Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:26 pm

Location

Cumbria


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby peterg » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:32 am

I was pretty drunk!!!!! How about a straight 5....love the sound of the Fiat version (as seen in Bravo and Coupe)
User avatar
User

Stunned Monkey

Rank

Non Member

Posts

1514

Joined

Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:24 am

Location

Nr Chippenham, Wiltshire


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby Stunned Monkey » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:08 pm

I was driving!!!

Mental engine tho.
Martin - PRV Tinkerererer
www.delorean.co.uk
User avatar
User

LiamMcShane

Rank

Non Member

Posts

512

Joined

Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:39 pm

Location

Shenzhen, China


Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby LiamMcShane » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:01 pm

Stunned Monkey wrote:

...and I thunk the Scooby engine was a flat 4, not a V ?


It is!
'88 GTA V6 Turbo

http://www.perfect-display.com.cn
Perfect Display Technology Company Ltd, Shenzhen
no avatar
User

alpine99

Rank

Non Member

Posts

41

Joined

Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:23 pm

Location

Kent


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby alpine99 » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:35 pm

Just seen David`s post of 1 Nov and compared the rolling road test with my 24 valve.

At 210 km/h along the horizontal axis, the graph line goes well past 240 KW on the vertical axis and just touches the top of the graph area. Sanspeed said this equated to 225 bhp at 6500 rpm.

The engine internals are standard apart from no balancing shaft!, no cat, custom made tubular manifolds & exhaust.

Iain
User avatar
User

David Gentleman

Rank

Non Member

Posts

3474

Joined

Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:10 am

Location

Colchester, Essex


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby David Gentleman » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:48 pm

No torque graph to hand, though you can backward map it if you work out wheel speed against the gear to get revs, then divide the power figures on the plot by 5252..

What you roughly mentioned about the torsional rigidity of the PRV verses inline 6's and inline 4's in in the PRV engine design technical paper on this site..

http://www.renaultalpineownersclub.com/ ... manual.pdf
Image
User avatar
User

David Gentleman

Rank

Non Member

Posts

3474

Joined

Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:10 am

Location

Colchester, Essex


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby David Gentleman » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:03 am

Yes, and more lateral loading etc on the bores too on the 3.0. The 2.5 is a lovely short stroke, and the rod to stoke ratio is good too. Easier to tune ignition for torque too as the piston spends more time around TDC..
No direct comparisons, but you could enter the data into any engine modeling software and see the piston accelleration differences. In the real world its not really worth commenting on, as compared to other engines, the stroke on both is still very low, and as they dont rev that high, its all quite marginal...
Image
User avatar
User

David Gentleman

Rank

Non Member

Posts

3474

Joined

Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:10 am

Location

Colchester, Essex


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby David Gentleman » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:40 pm

Martin Faulks wrote:Yes agree. Whilst talking about rotating things however, do you have the spec side clearance between a pair of the rods and the big end journal thrust faces 2.5 T? :


Not to hand, but yes it is 'lots' :lol: Don't worry about it, its normal, about half a mm is about right..
Image
User avatar
User

simonsays74

Rank

Non Member

Posts

1296

Joined

Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:12 pm

Location

Belfast (££££ Zone!!)


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby simonsays74 » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:45 pm

Martin Faulks wrote:
Solving for radiated losses Qr=5.77e[((ts+273)/100)^4-((tw+273)/100)^4] where e=0.9

Qr = 30000(W)/0.78 = 5.77x0.9x[((ts+273)/100)^4-((21+273)/100)^4]

Ts = 657 deg C Impossible you shout!!!! – check it.

I really should have something better to do :lol:


QUITE :?
User avatar
User

darrenbiggs

Rank

Non Member

Posts

1499

Joined

Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:03 pm

Location

Horley - Nr Gatwick


Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Postby darrenbiggs » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:19 pm

Tyres and tyre pressures make a huge difference, it's all friction and all part of the total transmission loss.

It's not necessarily the gearbox that's the cause of the 50 odd bhp going missing. 255 section tyres don't exactly help! :wink:
I'm just here for the gasoline.
User avatar
User

Stunned Monkey

Rank

Non Member

Posts

1514

Joined

Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:24 am

Location

Nr Chippenham, Wiltshire


Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby Stunned Monkey » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:52 pm

I think I was -slightly- misquoted there - the "we know it" bit was the start of the next sentence. Tony's was measured at 43hp loss on the dyno
Martin - PRV Tinkerererer
www.delorean.co.uk
PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 183 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | Renault' and 'Alpine' are trademarks of Renault S.A.S. or its subsidiaries and are used with kind permission of Renault France