Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Performance measurement e.g. 4/4

"Just replacing the restrictive factory exhaust manifold should give a 20hp increase "

When I bought my Duratec plus 4 it had the full Williams Motorsport stainless manifold and exhaust/sports cat along with the ITG air filter conversion already fitted. I've had my car on a rolling road and it produced 155bhp at 6000rpm and 148lbft torque at 4800rpm.
Assuming Fords figures are correct that's a 10bhp increase only.

A few things to take into account here, I couldn't have the car tested prior to fitting so I'm not sure what figures would have been achieved in standard mode.

Not all rolling roads give similar results, as my tester said " some read high to please the client"

If you feel the car drives better than before any modification then the figures really don't matter!

I've followed this thread from the start and really enjoyed it. It would have been really interesting to have had Monty tested prior to any modification and again when completed. On the same equipment operated by the same tester under the same conditions obviously.

Its been a very thoughtful, quite in depth and informative discussion. The basic question I would ask, if you are looking to increase the power of your car's engine performance at some not inconsiderable cost, with a chance of variable results, if there was a more powerful engined car in the range, why not buy that car instead?


I appreciate the technical challenge might be all absorbing to some, but it does seem a much easier more reliable solution when eg a 3.7 Roadster produces 280bhp with the 3 litre producing between 200 and 240bhp for not that much larger a purchase price outlay. Especially when all classic Morgans share the common problem of putting the power to the ground, that will have to be overcome no matter what model you own and the often variable qualities of the gearboxes are shared across several engines. I fully understand the difficulties that obsolesce, lack of spares supply may lead to replacement ECU's , PCB's etc

As they say each to their own.

I ca see where you are coming from John, re tuning, having been there and done a bit of that in my yoof, remembering well that my uncle a one time m/cycle racer, would suggest to buy a machine designed to go fast instead of trying to make a slow machine go faster..... It took a while for me to learn that my uncle was correct...(-: But then I learned a lot while "improving" aspects of my machines performance in terms of the possibility creating an imbalance in other areas of the machine, as ever the primary item on the agenda was the search for more speed, and once found , cooling could then become an issue, perhaps the need for improved braking and handling. In my early years it seemed Morgan forums were almost awash with folk suffering such issues, none more so the folk who had bought an old Morgan, and set about servicing it, searching out and using the information on settings and applying those as it was when left the factory, unaware that it had a different cam within or somesuch. Overheating was also a regular topic... I wonder why..(-:

At one time it seemed in the DNA of just about every Morganeer to be "improving" his steed in some way or other, though as they aged and digital technology arrived on the scene it seems fewer and fewer were into tuning for more performance..?

Back then creating a Morgan engine to race car spec, generally equated to something that drove like a pig in traffic...though digitally controlled engines seem to offer the opportunity to select different levels of engine tune by selecting a different engine management programme, switching from economy to sport, which in the process may automatically also alter suspension settings etc. etc. etc. Seems a whole different ball game now..?

I suspect few may understand their machine more, than those who set out to improve it`s performance overall...?

Yes indeed, each to their own.

To each his own is the best statement. For me, it is close race between my enjoyment of working on the car vs driving the car. I enjoy both very much. And the combined effect of driving something that I have torn apart and rebuilt is a real high for me. Right now, my engine is out with someone who knows a lot more than I, and they are refreshing it and adding a little punch. I wish I had the tools to do the job, but I will be the one to pick it up from the shop and put it back in the car.

I have to agree with those who see a balance between the fun of working or tuning and the joy of riding. Nevertheless, there are limits to tuning, depending on the car and engine. If there weren't just a handful of 4/4s with 2 litres, but if this option had always been offered as an alternative to the 1.6, I would have saved myself all the tuning and had even better torque from the basement onwards. As long as we're talking about naturally aspirated engines, two litres is just two litres. On the other hand, I have learnt a lot about my engine, and if I had a two-litre, I would probably have caught the tinkering virus too.

To George's point, I believe that the Duratec 2.0 and Sigma 1.6 were the last engine generations where tuning was still fun and noticeable. These very modern engines are only tuned up by software. Of course, this assumes that weaker variants are simply digitally derated, but have more mechanical potential from the outset. At the end of the day, it's a great hobby either way and I personally like the slightly older generation of NA engines without direct injection and without delayed boost much more.

I could not agree more, Heinz. In the beginning of my Morgan journey, I quickly realized that one can make ANYTHING of a car with enough money and skills possessed or hired. That would be analogous (I love analogies!) to playing a sport with no out-of-bounds.

I set myself rules..Laws really. And they are very different from what I originally (pun!) supposed they would be.

1. I adhere to the UK's DVLA rebuild rules, not because I particularly believe in them but merely because they the only set standards.
2. I will not do anything to my Morgans that I cannot reverse within 24 hours, by myself in my little garage, which is more than the time I would need to swap a Morgan engine in and out.

You will notice this precludes body/chassis changes

It is merely a system I set for myself. Others can fashion their own personal mog Laws.

gmg

Ford's figures are from the flywheel. Did you take yours from the rear wheels?

As dyno figures cannot be compared to anything but the same car with the same dyno operator, assuming the dyno has not been re-calibrated between the tests your best determinant is how you "feel".

gmg

Ford's engine figures will likely be theoretical, based on engine design. Assuming your rolling road calculated transmission drag that engine figure would seem a good improvement.

For comparison a friend put his near standard GDI Plus 4 on a rolling road recently and it achieved 140 bhp, 10 bhp down on Ford published figure but a good average according to Cain of Wolf Performance who happened to be there at the time and uses same dyno.

I think it is generally accepted that the difference between flywheel power and power at the wheels is of the order of 15% - 20%.
If we knock 15% off the nominal stock flywheel 145bhp it comes to about 123 bhp. In the case quoted, IF the dyno result was genuinely at the wheels, with no correction applied, that would mean an increase of at least 32bhp.
Maybe…BUT, many dyno printouts already correct for losses to the back wheels so Lorne’s final comment is very appropriate.
Cannot compare apples with pears!

The 155bhp is the corrected flywheel figure, this was the point I was making, it means nothing because I didn't get a chance to test the car in standard trim. The actual power at the rear wheels is 127bhp which again I'm not sure is relevant because of the comment made by the tester.