Thought I'd create a new thread, purely because I think it's more useful for other people for Google searches and forum searches than if I were to post this in my project thread. I hope I answer a few questions

Took my car to Performance Torque today, first of all I'd like to say the guy who runs the company and writes all the maps, Will, is extremely knowledgeable and really opens up your eyes in regards to Tuning Boxes vs Generic Maps vs Live Maps. Today I had the fully live map.

In regards to time, I was there over 2 hours. I managed to watch "Clarkson Duel" in the time it took him to write the map, so judging by the fact the DVD is 78 minutes long, it shows how long it takes to write a real, live map. Compare this to the 20 mins or so it takes up upload a generic map You get what you pay for!

Few more runs on the dyno, and the car (120T) came out with the following;

Engine Power : 169.1 Hp
Engine Torque : 243.4 Nm @ 3594 RPM

As for my engine and turbo, they are apparently very healthy, and the turbo pulls really strong right through the rev range. Even at 5,500 RPM the car is pulling at 216 Nm so that's pleasing

Just for interest, the car ran at 144 bhp before the map, well over the 120 factory figure but it was running the below mods..

Mods are as follows;

VL38 Turbo fitted
Longlife cat back exhaust fitted (straight through centre with increased bore)

For those that are interested, Will informed me that the car bottlenecked at the exhaust, not at the turbo. He could increase the boost and thus the power, but the EGT temps would then be beyond the safe limit. To safely increase power I need to fit a 100 cell sports cat . However, power would be a trade off with low end torque, as further de-restricting of the exhaust would result in a loss of back pressure.

I have asked him the question regarding the 120 vs 150, and he has records of two rolling at 175 and 178. In his opinion, if the turbo's were identical, the real world difference between the 120 and 150 is 8-10 bhp. I know this won't please the 150 owners, but I asked the question and I've passed on the answer

Photo time, and you are more than welcome to ask any questions

Thanks for reading.

RobBravo said:

I have asked him the question regarding the 120 vs 150, and he has records of two rolling at 175 and 178. In his opinion, if the turbo's were identical, the real world difference between the 120 and 150 is 8-10 bhp. I know this won't please the 150 owners, but I asked the question and I've passed on the answer

Click to expand...

But then again turbos are not identical, so we're still pretty pleased
Nice results though.

No questions just "OOOOOOSHH!"

Ok maybe one, did the guy reckon the new turbo and exhaust were the reason for the 144 stock? Or was it similar before the upgrades?

lyubohar said:

But then again turbos are not identical, so we're still pretty pleased
Nice results though.

Click to expand...

No doubt about that it was more for information for people like me who want power from the 120 version. If you're handy with a set of tools the turbo can be swapped in less than two hours

Matthewr1990 said:

No questions just "OOOOOOSHH!"

Ok maybe one, did the guy reckon the new turbo and exhaust were the reason for the 144 stock? Or was it similar before the upgrades?

Click to expand...

He did say that the ECU's are pretty good on these cars and can adapt and learn to changes made. I would guess that some of that 144 was down to the exhaust and turbo yes

I thought the only difference between the 120 and the 150 was the turbo?? and obviously the standard map on the ECU

Supposedly there are also differences in the camshaft

Hmmm that's quite interesting. Wouldn't see the need why they would do that though. Just downgrade turbo and that's the quick and easy way to down the power for a less powerful model

l3v1athan said:

Hmmm that's quite interesting. Wouldn't see the need why they would do that though. Just downgrade turbo and that's the quick and easy way to down the power for a less powerful model

Click to expand...

Think its safety more than anything, every component will be tested to within a certain tolerance, the power that the 120 camshaft can handle is probably a lot more than the 150 but they always like to make things more tolerable than they should be. So they would change the 150 one to make it even stronger just incase.

Best way to think about it is bunk beds. The top bunk will be safe for "up to 90 KG's" according to the safety letter but It would be more than fine with over 110Kg's. They engineer things stronger than they need to be.

Ohhh okay I understand what you're saying. But I would think they would've reverse engineered the 120 from the 150. Like they would've taken the 150 engine and decided to down it's power by just adding a smaller turbo, so in the sense they would've kept the strengthened 150 camshaft as it would be extra-strengthed for the 120 version. Unless they actually started with the 120 version and decided to make the 150 version afterwards. Then yes of course the 150 version needed to be strengthened for the extra power increase.

But somewhere along the line there is a valid reason for the different camshaft in the design process.

The difference in camshafts is because of different cam profiles, not because different strengths.

Different cam profiles mean that there is a difference in valve lift and/or duration, maybe even different valve overlap duration. All of these have big effects over torque/ power .
When talking about cam profiles, 1 mm or 1 degree can result in massive differences in engine behavior .

I think i read somewhere that difference 120 vs 150 is in turbo, injectors and ecu map.

I know a guy that had the opportunity to take pieces of a t-jet 150 and install them on a 120 t-jet, he took the cams and the turbo. that's it.
He then reflashed his ecu with the original 150 map.
I am talking about a guy tat previously DIY'ed a low boost turbo instal on the 1.6 16v Bravo MK1. He is well versed in tuning and engine mechanics.

The injectors are identical, I've checked!

This is my mate's dyno graph for his T-jet 150 with a remap (MONSTAMUNCH)
Take into account this is done at high altitude here (+1500m above sea level)



The performance is similar but he has a much better graph

He's also running a decat

I was told I could up the turbo if I reduced the EGT

As you say, he suggested decat or 100 cell sports cat.

His ran 234nm @ 2874 vs mine at 243nm @ 3594. That would suggest that although mine runs a higher figure - his comes on faster, so it's probably better to have that power low down in the rev band.

Aside from that, it's all pie in the sky unless they are done in the same conditions on the same rollers

Exactly that! And I raced my friends basically stock 150 yesterday and the difference on the road is hardly worth the effort. Still fun to modify though!

Here is the graph of my 1.9 mjet 150 just with a variable tuning box. The 160bhp is as completely standard and I believe these cars tend to produce that result on many rolling roads.

The car produced just shy of 200bhp with the box turned on. I have since removed both cats, but not yet put her back on the rollers. This has resulted in a wider power band and peak power is definitely higher.

The difference between having the box on and off is night and day. Not only is fuel economy better, but the car revs freer and accelerates so much quicker. It really is a pleasure to drive and passengers definitely feel the difference in torque

On the road it will eat up Focus Sts and will match 3.0d Audis

Fergie said:

Here is the graph of my 1.9 mjet 150 just with a variable tuning box. The 160bhp is as completely standard and I believe these cars tend to produce that result on many rolling roads.

The car produced just shy of 200bhp with the box turned on. I have since removed both cats, but not yet put her back on the rollers. This has resulted in a wider power band and peak power is definitely higher.

The difference between having the box on and off is night and day. Not only is fuel economy better, but the car revs freer and accelerates so much quicker. It really is a pleasure to drive and passengers definitely feel the difference in torque

On the road it will eat up Focus Sts and will match 3.0d Audis

Click to expand...

It beats the petrol 2.5 litre, 220+ BHP focus ST's (0-60 in 6.6 seconds) does it? What's it run on, magic fuel?

Or are we taking about the newer Focus ST's that have 2.0 petrol turbo engines at 240+ BHP and are at 60MPH in just over 6 seconds?

I'm not even going to start on the 3.0 Audi quote.

Don't get me wrong though. Those are impressive stats for a Bravo and I'd love to pull those sorts of power from my car, but I can't for one second believe you beat ST's or keep up with Audi's. Out of curiosity have you upgraded your brakes? I would not trust those sorts of figures with the brakes that come standard on the Bravo lmao.

I can only go by the badges on the cars... and yes the Audi did surprise me.

Brakes are EBC turbo grooves all round with Green stuff pads - 1st thing I did when I got the car. The strut brace also tightened the handling right up.

Obviously its no super car and plenty of quicker hot hatches out there, but its ideal for my daily commute and definitely catches out other cars.

BTW this site is pretty good for comparing car specs:

http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/motoring/car-specifications/

A stock Bravo 150 t-jet Sport accelerates on the autobahn just a little faster than a 2009 A6 2.7 TDI quattro with 190HP.
Later, when I tuned my 1.4 t-jet sport to 175HP it really outran that car.

Lately I tested my Bravo against a Golf 7 GTI with performance pack. This were the results:

100km/ph in 6: The Bravo pulls away massive. Get 5-6 carlenghts, while the Golf has absolutly no power in lower RPM.
120km/ph in 4: Untill 160km/ph equal, then the GTI starts to pull away. At 200km/ph 3 carlenghts
Above 180km/ph: Golf 7 GTI pulls away in any gear.

So yes, there is difference, but it really was close. Important fact, I was driving the Golf, a friend of me, my Bravo.

Even more important fact: This was even before I tuned my car from 175HP to 185HP due to specialized software. Now the difference must be even closer. Especially given the fact that my car now has so much extra power in higher RPM then at the moment of that race.

Matthewr1990 said:

It beats the petrol 2.5 litre, 220+ BHP focus ST's (0-60 in 6.6 seconds) does it? What's it run on, magic fuel?

Or are we taking about the newer Focus ST's that have 2.0 petrol turbo engines at 240+ BHP and are at 60MPH in just over 6 seconds?

I'm not even going to start on the 3.0 Audi quote.

Don't get me wrong though. Those are impressive stats for a Bravo and I'd love to pull those sorts of power from my car, but I can't for one second believe you beat ST's or keep up with Audi's. Out of curiosity have you upgraded your brakes? I would not trust those sorts of figures with the brakes that come standard on the Bravo lmao.

Click to expand...

I can actually believe him. Considering you can get even a normal 1.4tjet from 0-60mph around 6.2 seconds (my friend has done it). So thinking that he has 200bhp with cat, and with a decat he'll pump out more from that diesel engine, I believe him.