Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 20 of 100 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Got the motor running on the new ECU at last. The problem was getting time to work on it rather than anything else.

I'm using an Emerald K3 ECU (UK based product). It's in Alpha/n mode at present, although there is a MAP sensor in place for when the blower goes on top. Plan is to map it aspirated then top up the fueling based on boost from the MAP signal. I used a throttle body from a 155 V6 simply as I had one kicking about and it uses a proper potentiometer rather than the switch of the stock TPS. The two TPS units aren't directly interchangeable on a given TB, although it's easy enough to make up an adapter. Dimensions are the same, despite the 155 being a 2.5l motor. I'm using some 360cc/min @ 3 bar injectors rather than the stock 188cc items as I'm hoping for more power than the 188s can comfortably cope with! Motor is only slightly tweaked from stock. C&B mild road cams, 9.5:1 pistons, 3 angle valve seats, light port matching. I've retained the IACV fornow, though I might not need to ultimately as the ECU does a good job of idle stabilisation using ignition advance. I also use the ECU to control when the A/C clutch operates and I'll be using it to drive the charge cooler pump & fan once the blower is installed.

That's about all for now....I hope to get it mapped properly soon so will have some power/torque figures for you then. Currently I'm using a map a friend supplied. It's another 12V V6 but he has a wilder cam profile (and is running 6 GSXR 600 TBs with dual injectors) so it's not perfect as yet. Close enough to do some data logging and adaptive fuel mapping at least, and safe to drive as I've set the target AFR on the rich side for now.

This is the third Emerald installation on a 12V V6 I've been involved with directly now. Done 2 myself, helped with the 3rd.

Happy to answer any questions if you have 'em
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,090 Posts
Sounds interesting. How about some pics?
Jes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,090 Posts
Post them right here. May require rescaling to fit size requirement of AlfaBB site.
Jes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Ah ha!! Didn't think of that.

Anyway, turns out the pictures are mostly taken part-way through as I was checking to see how the blower would fit. I'll post the least worst of those now and take some better ones now it's finished (without the blower for now).

You can make out the 6 pole coil and the fuse/relay box for the management but not an awful lot else.

Not in a 164 or 75 by the way...but that should be apparent form the pic...

And apologies for all the 'Samco Sport' logos - tried my best but you just can't hide the darn things.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
All looking neat Chris.:cool:

That Billet must have took some machining, certainly looks up to the job of holding the blower in place. with regard to the throttle body, is it going to clear the rear clam section or is that another mod to do? and do tell where is the charge cooler going to fit cos it's looking mighty cramped in there.:eek:

John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Looks as if the cast parts are going in the bin. I'll have to make a new inlet flange for the blower but might just be able to use the outlet with some surgery.

Hoping the charge cooler will snuggle down in the V somewhere......

Had the car on the rollers today....slightly disappointing 198bhp. Suppose it's realistic though. Cams & pistons are basically 'S' spec so I shouldn't expect much more than 'S' power. Maybe I was expecting too much from the 3 angle valve job alone but I must admit I was expecting some kind of gain from losing the flappy AFM. Be interested to find out just where the problem lies, but I'll make do with it as it is I think. Peak power was at 5500. Torque curve nice and flat though, topped out at 208 ft/lb @ 4500

Ready for that blower now I think....

A shot of the engine bay.....

I've got some movies of a power run and some general mapping stuff.

Had a slight oops on the rollers, one of the tyre valves failed but it was on run-down so no real harm done.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,090 Posts
Looks great! How about some more pics? Is this a street car or race car project?

You said you got video? You can create a youtube account, upload it there, and post a link here...

You got 198 hp at the wheels?

Jes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Hi Jes,

It's a pure road car. People do compete in them in various classes but not me - no talent!

198 at flywheel I'm afraid. If it had been at the wheels I'd have been happier! Lots of argument about 'chassis dyno' power figures of course, but I happen to trust this one to be pretty accurate for a number of reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Just posted this up....



...shows a power run from initial run up through gears to steady speed held by rollers, then application of full throttle, then the phase where the RR gets realeased and allows the revs to increase at a controlled rate..and finally the coast-down that is used to measure the transmission/tyre losses to estimate the flywheel power figure. Not exactly top-quality TV viewing, but kind of interesting.

A shot of the car on the RR....
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
403 Posts
Sweet...

An Alfa V6 in a Stratos:confused::eek:, SWEET;):D:cool:. Would love to see a video of you taking it through its paces when everything is sorted, strictly beast-mode. Very nice car, real or replica?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Most kind! :eek:

It's a replica, although I'm a bit strange and like to think of it as a modern interpretation of/tribute to the original.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
198 flywheel bhp is a little bit on the low for S-spec and ECU. Of course it depends on what loss factor you believe in and the difference in dyno and the software used.

As a side note the European Car magazine's project Milano had 178 wheel bhp and Michael Harris's (GTV6.com owner) has 183 wheel bhp (9.5:1 pistons, S-cams). Both have L-Jetronic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I thought the same TBH. Not sure where the problem lies, or even if there is a problem. The exhaust could be restrictive as it was originally designed for a 2l twin cam. Just because it's loud doesn't mean it's free-flowing!! I do want to do something about the exhaust anyway and was planning on fitting something bigger and quieter. I'll try and get another power run with a new exhaust before mapping the blower, as I suspect both jobs will get done at the same time.

Comparing wheel HP figures from different RRs is a mistake though I think. Far too many variables for it to make any sense whatsoever. The only truly accurate way is an engine dyno of course.

It would have been nice if we'd had the time to muck about with a few things like making sure the air filter/inlet piping wasn't causing problems but after a late start and the problem with the valve on the wheel we where running late. Maybe next time.....

The Zetec engined Westfield I took there a month or two back made 168bhp, which was pretty much spot-on where it should be for the spec of the motor, hence my feeling that these figures are as accurate as they are likely to get using rollers. The purpose was mapping though - the car now drives really nicely (much better than it did on the Motronic by the way) which is all that matters for me really. Power figures are much abused IMO, but then having achieved such a poor one, I'm bound to say that, aren't I ;)

Maybe after a few more miles it'll loosen up a bit more too.

Anyway, I'll come back with some more once I get around to putting the blower on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,090 Posts
Nice video!

I'm surprised that you seem to indicate that the engine didn't run well with Motronic. It should be quite smooth and nice with Motronic. In January I transplanted a 3.0 12v 164S (QV in Europe) engine into my Milano (75 in Europe) race car, and it runs strong and well on the 164 Motronic which I also transplanted into the Milano. If you had the Motronic you could check for any engine codes, but with an aftermarket engine management system I assume you don't have such a feature.

If I remember correctly, the S engine in the 164 is rated at 200HP. So, if your intake or headers+exhaust are too restrictive, perhaps 198HP isn't totally off. I assume cams are in good shape and valve clearances are adjusted to spec.

Jes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Here's the power run...

The motor has 9.5:1 pistons (which I thought was S spec, but when I looked at the CarDisc the other day it said 10:1 was S spec). Cams are C&B 'mild road'. Everything is new, valve clearances checked and adjusted as needed a few days before the RR session when I did the first service/head re-torque etc. Valves are new & standard, but I did have a 3 angle valve & seat job done. Inlet is standard, although I did do some gentle port matching to remove some nasty steps. Exhaust headers are standard cast, rest of system is same bore pipework into a fairly small 'silencer' box and then out in the same size tubes again. I think (but don't know for sure) that the silencer is just a simple perforated pipe, so shouldn't be restrictive....but might be I guess. I did a cold & dry cranking compression check while doing the service and it gave 15 bar/220psi. Cam timing was absolutely spot-on. I bypassed the throttle body water jacket to reduce charge heating and use an oil vapour catch tank to avoid octane reduction from oil fume.

It didn't run that smoothly on the Motronic and had a habit of pinking (pinging) unless I ran it on 97RON AND fitted the 'red' plug. This did make me suspect cam/crank timing at first but I double-checked that.

I guess it is what it is, and that's that. As I say, absolute power accuracy isn't in any way guaranteed with a RR, but I think it's close.

It would have made 200 on 97RON and a couple more degrees timing no doubt, but that's just fiddling the numbers!

I recall being dissapointed some years back when getting a Rover V8 mapped. It was a 4.2 with a mild cam and CR lift and it only made 226bhp/250ftlb. Makes the Alfa 3.0 look pretty good.

Interestingly, both the Rover V8 and Alfa V6 12V respond really well to boost. We'll see how mine does.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,501 Posts
Well, since you're planning on "blowing" this thing, its probably a good thing - 9.5:1 is a good starting point for static CR and blower!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I was always hedging my bets on this motor...I wanted a basically good aspirated setup that I'd be happy with should the supercharging not work out for some reason. I'm aiming for about 8psi of boost with air/water charge cooling. Depends how it goes. I figured a short overlap cam was the thing so went for the mild C&B cam and had originally intended on stock CR, but was told by the supplier that they only had the 9.5 pistons in stock, which they told me was slightly higher CR than normal..and I believed them.

CarDisk shows the 91-93 car as 9.5:1, 183bhp, 191ftlb, the S as 10:1, 200bhp and 195ftlb. I'll take these as accurate as they are the shop manual of course. 198bhp and 208ftlb on stock CR doesn't sound so bad now. The C&B mild cam is very similar to the S cam spec I think.

Greg was edging me toward a much lower CR and more boost, which would yield more power ultimately of course, but it wouldn't give me an easy route back to aspirated if I didn't like it or it doesn't work. You might wonder what's not to like about more power and torque...but it's the potential for noise and problems with the installation that might make the choice. Hope not, but I didn't want to end up down a dead-end. Maybe a mistake, but that's the way I chose to do it.

Anyhoo, as you say, a good place to start for some mild forced induction. Plenty of capacity in the injectors I used 360cc/min @ 3 bar. I might look at a twin injector setup as we had trouble getting the injection rate low enough at idle - had to run it slightly richer than ideal to stop the injectors shutting off. There might be some useful gains in cooling to be had from injecting some fuel into the plenum perhaps, then reverting to just stock injectors in the inlet runners for lower demand areas. As long as this is done at higher revs/loads it should be OK I think. I could probably get away with 3 or 4 of the bigger injectors rather than using all 6. Mm, time for some sums I think. 3 would be easier to install than 6.

A friend over here is using 2 sets of injectors on his V6 with bike TBs that have 220cc injectors. It's set up to use the stock injectors until they reach about 85% then it switches over to both sets. Works really well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
That is very close to what EA (software sim) shows for a S spec (If I entered all the stuff right?)
I did this a long time ago.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Interesting. Looks a lot like the S numbers from the data, but it suggests a higher revs for max power figure than is seen in real life...but close none the less. That extra half point on the CR makes all the difference doesn't it.
 
1 - 20 of 100 Posts
Top