car seems slow (220 turbo)

[dan220turbz]

when i put my foot down, u can hear the turble whiste, but just doesnt seem quick at all, and being as there is 220 bhp i think there has gotta be something wrong, i thought it was being caused by the cheap boost controller, but took it off and replaced with standard, and still seems the same, some had left the standard bcv on, and the pipe that whent to the actuator they had put a valve on for some reason, im really confused, but iv took it off now and im using standard.

[E_T_V]

Originally Posted by dan220turbz

when i put my foot down, u can hear the turble whiste, but just doesnt seem quick at all, and being as there is 220 bhp i think there has gotta be something wrong, i thought it was being caused by the cheap boost controller, but took it off and replaced with standard, and still seems the same, some had left the standard bcv on, and the pipe that whent to the actuator they had put a valve on for some reason, im really confused, but iv took it off now and im using standard.

197bhp as standard and most are less than that now.

Its easy to lose a lot of performance if something isn't right.

Find out what boost you are running before going any further.

A compression check is also a good idea too to make sure the engine is healthy.

[Stevo135+]

Mine is 16yrs old, and it does eventually pick up well and pull fairly well, but i have not yet serviced it or replaced all the bits like hoses and plugs and leads that should really be done on a car of this age. I'm going to add some fuel/injector cleaner to the tank once i've changed the fuel filter, and hopefully that will clean out the fuel system and restore what i think is the slightly missing performance.

I'd definately change all the fluids, filters, and all the ignition system components first, as well as checking out the boost pressure's and compression pressure. I'm going to replace all my coolant, boost and vaccum hoses with decent quality silicone ones, to eliminate any source of leaks.

There are lots of things on a T-series turbo engine of this age that could be causing or contributing to lower than std bhp and performance. Engine wear with high mileage only normally gives a very small loss in performance, compared with the other things that could cause poor performance IMO.

[E_T_V]

T series usually never make their quoted power on the dyno. Typically coming in at 180-190 for a healthy engine.

Boost control valve and duff wastegates are common on the T series. Both will give low boost or late boost and lose you power.

[Stevo135+]

Interesting! I suspect that a fair number of T-series engines did not make as much power as they quoted for them from brand new. The main reason i have read alot about over the years is the quality of the casting, and machining the cylinder heads to finish them. Apparently the valve throats were not always machined accurately to the valve guide boss's, and there could be a step at the valve seat area. This is cited as the main reason why i have heard that a std T-series engine could make as little as 125bhp or as much as 145bhp as std, depending on how good the head was finished in the factory. The turbo versions would have suffered the same between very good and very bad ones too.

I guess the only way to guarentee that you have one of the best T-series engines that gives as much power as it possibly can, is to have the cylinderhead flowed and smoothed, with re-cut valve seats, new guides, and all the ports blended in well and matched exactly to the manifolds. If going to these lengths you may as well have the ports enlarged and fully gas flowed for better air flow, seeing as head blueprinting work is expensive.

I'm not going to tune my T-series turbo until i see at 165+bhp at the wheels, which IMO should be about the correct std power figure with the drive train losses added.

I'd also like to try and up the compression ratio slightly if it's possible from skimming the head without running into piston-valve clearance issues?
This is why i want to have the head re-built and modifed proffessionally as one of my very first modifications to the engine.

[E_T_V]

It is also rumoured that the wasted spark models didn't make as much power as the distributor models but I've no idea if there is any truth in that.

[dan220turbz]

changed all fluids/filters, redex through the fuel system, been dyno run and shes running 219 bhp, but its like, when you put your foot down, theres boost and then after like 4500 rpm the boost doesnt seem to do much more, could the boost be running too low? i still need to get an electronic boost controller and gauge. just would of thought a 220 bhp car would of felt a little bit more powerful

[empsburna]

Sounds about right for a T25 with standard intercooler.

[dan220turbz]

id like a bigger intercooler, but there just isnt room as ive got the a/c rad, i would like a custom one mounted in the middle of the front bumper, would any intercooler fit? if i had it on the front, how would i get the pipes to where they need to go, or is it better to just mount a slightly bigger intercooler in the standard place?

[Stevo135+]

Agreed that it sounds about right for a 220 turbo lump. If you have made 219bhp on the rolling road, and you also have decent compression and the full 11.5psi of boost, then it should be running pretty good tbh!

These car's don't feel that much like a turbocharged car in std form, especially at higher revs. It should feel more like the power delivery of a 200bhp 3litre nasp engine, i.e. smooth and progressive, but with no great kick up the arse, and not as much turbo lag as is typical with many other turbo cars of the time.

[Wild Bill]

Old Turbos are a pain to get right. Mine felt slow compared to my Clio at the time with a 2.0 16v (Williams) engine. Part of the reason is the high gearing designed for a higher top speed. Replaced all the ignition parts and it ran a bit better but IMO it still never kicked-out anything like 200BHP. Maybe 150-160BHP at best. Was told that the wastegate valves rust-up reducing the effect of the turbo but I wasn't prepared to throw more money at the car and sold it on for a loss.

I wouldn't bother with a T series engine again. Much prefer the K series as they are lighter and you don't have to worry about tuning issues the same. My wedge with a 1.6 seems to pick-up just as good as my old Turbo!

[E_T_V]

Funnily enough my neighbour thought his clio was quick (modded 1.8), until he went in the missus 220. He then had to sell it and bought a turbo clio conversion instead!

[Stevo135+]

Originally Posted by Wild Bill

Old Turbos are a pain to get right. Mine felt slow compared to my Clio at the time with a 2.0 16v (Williams) engine. Part of the reason is the high gearing designed for a higher top speed. Replaced all the ignition parts and it ran a bit better but IMO it still never kicked-out anything like 200BHP. Maybe 150-160BHP at best. Was told that the wastegate valves rust-up reducing the effect of the turbo but I wasn't prepared to throw more money at the car and sold it on for a loss.

I wouldn't bother with a T series engine again. Much prefer the K series as they are lighter and you don't have to worry about tuning issues the same. My wedge with a 1.6 seems to pick-up just as good as my old Turbo!

There's alot more complication and things to go wrong with a 15yr old+ turbo petrol car, and they can take quite a bit of work and sorting to get a tired/knackered/ or poorly set up car running well, and replace parts that do wear. Turbo engine put more strain on other components so you can expect to find some problems or issues after all this time with such cars. If you stick with it, eventually you will get a fast reliable smooth running car IMO!

The 1.6K-series engine that i assume you have, is far less reliable and more design compromised that a T-series engine, if you look at nasp engines, or forget about the turbo related components.

[Wild Bill]

Originally Posted by Stevo135+

The 1.6K-series engine that i assume you have, is far less reliable and more design compromised that a T-series engine, if you look at nasp engines, or forget about the turbo related components.

K Series engines have a bad rep but I personally think they are pretty good. Good power outputs and MPG for what they are any small and light to give a car good balance. Just need to be looked after a bit and keep a regular eye on the coolant.

I have five wedges over the years with different engines and bodyshapes but the Turbo felt very different to drive with the higher gearing and the extra weight at the front.

If I was ever to drive a decent one with a healthy engine and a decent suspension set-up I may change my opinion on them being a bit naff!

[Stevo135+]

I'm not against the K-series engine overall, but the later Damp liner engine's are a real step backwards in the development of this engine IMO. I do agree that a well looked after K-series and one that is serviced meticulously is likely to be much more reliable than the reputation they have overall, but they are still a weak engine design wise, and with what they can put up with too.

The T-series is the best engine in an R8 Rover that i've ever experienced. The Nasp version is very good IMO. The turbo can have issues, and i do agree that the Heavy 2.0 lump effects the handling, and the gearing on the turbo is very high compared to other models in the 200 range too.

The D16 216Gti twin cam, is possibly the best ever model created in the R200 range, but i have as yet to drive one and have never had a go in one to compare it with the K-series and T-series powered versions.

[ashy]

Having driven a 200, 45 and ZR with all variants of the K series from 1.4 to 1.8 VVC and then a T series conversion I can say in no way do any of them compare to the T series turbo. The best of the K series is the VVC by a mile, but the T series is a fine engine when running properly and very easy to drive without having to rev the spuds off it.

Put a decent turbo on it and it will pull like a train. I used to get one hell of a kick in the back with a T28 on when boost kicked in.

Can be economical too if you can resist the temptation to boot it all the time. The car out performed many a newer car with similar BHP.

Can't say I was ever disappointed with it's performance.

[STypeD,onTour]

Have not read the entire thread but i do recall replacing a few cat's on turbo engines under warranty as they had broken up and caused the engine to loose a serious amount of power.

[dan220turbz]

had the cat ripped off, what a difference. best £60 ive ever spent

[STypeD,onTour]

Great result!!