Tech GT Engine Management system from Forza installed in my 308 QV!!

I finally installed the kit purchased from Nick on my 308 QV with one caveat, I didn't install the knock sensor after seeing the dyno results.

So I gues the fisrt question is what are these results? On a very hot day (95 F) the car registered 237 HP at the wheels. This is the same number as published by Ferrari at the crank. Torque was measured at 179 at the wheel, again, same number registered by the factory at the crank. Overall a 20%-23% improvement in performance.

On matters of drivability, the torque comes in at lower RPM and the curve is flatter, thus making the car more driveable in town. Also, the enfine runs a good 8 to 10 degrees cooler.

I'm not entierly finished as I'm machining some "plumbing" to replace the k-jetronic in feeding the air to the engine (the dynoruns have been made with a K&N conic filter on a flexible tube).

Once this is done, I'll post the results od the final dyno runs.

Summer in Canada is a beautiful thing when driving a GTS on a sunny day. Sure beats minus 30!

 

That is fabulous. I bet it runs great!

I would love to know some info about the results as they are the highest I have ever heard of with any 308 engine naturally aspirated, racing engine or not. With the exception to Michelotto racing engines, typical 308 racing engines get 230 at the wheels with a dynojet and it is a real bear to get that much. Just ask Norwood! What type of dyno are you using?

Another example is the engine I just built. It is a very tight little motor with 10.5:1 compression and early carb cams. There is 215 at the wheels, but I am going to have a heck of a time squeezing it out and it is going to take lots of tuning. The first dyno result yielded 202 at the wheels and was very lean and the cam timing was not optimal.

I love following tuning threads, so please keep us informed!

 

Would have been nice to have some "before" dyno runs on the same dyno for a real comparison. Dynos are different and can show wildly different results - especially inertia dynos like the typical dynojets. Not saying there wasn't improvement but a before/after dyno run on the same dyno is the only way to see what really happened.

 

230 HP is about right with a TEC GT on a stock 308 qv engine, the averages have been 230-235 on a DYNO JET with a 4 valve engine. We did a 2 valve 308 here last fall and we got 196 hp at the rear wheels & 180 lb ft of torque with only 2 hours worth of tuning! Tec GT is a simple install that yields good power & street drivability. There is a link below the 2 valve 308 that we shot some video on.

http://www.nicksforzaferrari.com/forzaferrariwebsite1_011.htm

 

Nick, that 2v motor was fresh with new pistons and a slight compression bump. 196 is very realistic. 230 at the wheels with a qv where nothing was changed other than the ecu? No way. Those engines won't make 230 at the flywheel let alone wheels.

 

Well I guess I'm just old fashion, but I always start with a baseline pull before doing any tuning or engine "upgrades". Otherwise you are just guessing. Also are these corrected dyno numbers? As I have been involved in more than my share of 308 dyno pulls over the years on a couple of different brand dynos and your numbers look out of place. By the way, how do you know the torque comes on earlier with a flatter curve without a baseline on your car first? I'm not saying it's impossible, but adding 48HP to a QV by simply adding electronic ignition and fuel management does not compute.

All the best!

 

"Well I guess I'm just old fashion, but I always start with a baseline pull before doing any tuning or engine "upgrades". Otherwise you are just guessing"

Absolutely right! And the "louder is faster" and the "I paid money for this" mystique always results in phrases like: "revs much more freely," "way better response," etc with no actual basis in reality, just in wishful thinking. I have seen a ton of "upgrades" that have reduced power/driveabilty while the owner observed how much more responsive the car felt.

If you don't measure it, you can't claim it!

 

How much is it?

 

IIRC Tommy, somewhere around $3K

 

Exactly Mike, seat of the pants dyno does not cut it!

Kind of like the old myth that adding a Tubi Muffler and K&N air filter is good for an instant 40HP when it is more like 6HP depending on the application. Stock QV heads can only flow so much without help.

 

Something else to think about when going over dyno numbers for the 308, a DynoJet will typically show peak HP about 15% higher than a Mustang dyno with he same car.

 

For what it's worth, installation of an electronic ignition sytem in my 330 2+2 did make a big difference in how it ran.

Starts became instantaneous in any weather, and the engine pulled smoothly to 5800 RPM; pre-modification it would start feeling strained around 5300.

Did it make the car faster or add measureable power? Maybe a little, maybe not.

The tangible before/after differences in starting, smoothness of power, and overall "feel" was well worth the $2,500.00 I spent for the system and installation.

I don't recall if it ran cooler, but hot running was never an issue.

 

My Mustang and dynojet pulls both showed peak power to be at 6600rpm. Mustang showed 185 with 171lbs tq and the dynojet 200 with 173lbs tq. Both numbers are at the wheels. Interesting how both dynos show tq to be nearly identical. Both pulls made in nearly identical conditions and further prove the substantial difference between the two dynos. I have seen only one other stock 308 pull a higher number on a dynojet than mine, and that was a Euro QV which made 201 at the wheels and 168lbs tq. The torque curve with this qv was just awful and was really peaky and not flat at all.

The QV Carobu modified to 300bhp was a Euro QV and they flywheel dyno'd this engine when it first arrived. The engine was described to still be in good serviceable condition and pulled a little over 225bhp at the flywheel. I would think it to be 5-10bhp down from what a new engine would pull.

 

I agree Scott, I have an electronic ignition on my 308, and just the money I saved by not having to do a full duel dizzy tuneup every X miles made it worth it.
But don't expect huge HP numbers from something like this.

 

First, I've got to tell you that I did an engine out service two years ago. Changed the North American pistons (8:9 to 1) for Euro version 9:2 to 1). Instaled an hyperflow catalyst, cermachromed the headers and installed a Stebro exhuast.

Here are the numbers base numbers with these goodies in place:179hp at 6700RPM and 162 lb*ft at 4000RPM (flat from 4000 to about 5700)

We got high HP (quoted in my initial post) numbers playing with the advance timing and with a cone filter instaled directly on the intake and with the Stebro tips out. This would be a prefect profile for the track! Idle was rough and driveability was not ideal.

After instaling the original filter back (and after machining an new aluminium bracket) we we reinstaled the exhaust tips, remapped the advance to make the car more driveable in town. We now have 210hp at the rear hubs @ 6850RPM and 179lb* ft at the hubs at
5600RPM.

If we use 16-20% as loss percentage, that leaves us with about 250-260hp at
the crank, and 215-225 lb *ft torque at the crank. So, gains of about 20ish
hp and 30ish lb*ft at the crank.

Results obtained on a 4WD Dynapack chassis dyno. Temps was 90F, Humidity 79%. Montreal is at sea level...

Hope this helps!

 

Sounds like you had some other issues with your build-up, as your HP baseline number reflects a bone stock us spec car. In fact my 77 pulled 179 HP baseline with the dizzies out of sync, the webers out of sync, and an exhaust leak from a cracked header. The former owner thought the car ran great.

Good luck with your ride!

 

Dave, you say: Sounds like you had some other issues with your build-up,

The issues were not with the build-up but with the Magneti Marelli ignition system. You see, I often track the car at high speeds at iether Mont Tremblant (ex F1 track) and Sanair. I noticed at higher RPM that the car was not perfotming wel. I checked flywheel sensors, wires, plugs, extenders, to whole 9 yards and still nothing wrong.

I borrowed two identical Magneti Marelli 806A units from a friend who also owns a 308 QV. My car ran perfectly. The culprit had been identified!

This is when I decided to go with an electronic ignition system. While at it, going EFI would aslo be smart, although a bit more expensive.

I agree the base line may be low due to these ignition isues but the final results don't lie! If you compare the net result from the original 308QV specs, I have more HP and more torque.

Also, I'll tel you there were no isues with the original build as the car ran perfect for 2 years and also ran a good 8-10 degrees cooler that before thanks the hyperflow catalyst and the cermachrome treatment of the headers. It costs $175 to treat the headers, this is absolutely worthwhile!

Cheers!

 

I had my headers done by HPC.

 

ah ok. At the hubs, as in, you used a hub dyno without the wheels. The wheels play a huge factor in drivetrain loss to the tune of about 4-5%. You are probably in the realm of 200-210ish at the wheels which is about right for a Euro QV. Again, the highest Euro QV or any 308 for that matter was 201 at the wheels.

 

I'm not sure the type of dyno make a difference in terms of with or without wheels as the car is not moving, there is no drag and the torque figures would not change. The weight of the Simmons aluminium wheels I've got on the car can't generate a 5% diffrence in final results.

In the case of DynoJet or Dynodynamics dynos, the resistance comes from the massive roller. In the case of a Dynapac, the resistance comes from the hydraulic fluid being moved by turning the hubs.

Dynos are bout resistance. I've seen Callaway Corvettes on the Dynapac and the results at the hubs were close to the data of the test run out of Callaway (2% difference). Same for Brabus modified Mercs.

To ensure results that my results could be reproduced for future reporgramming needs, we did pulls by increments of 2 seconds per 1,000 RPM.

If anything, with 90F temps and 79% humidity, If I was to add a correction factor to the algorithm for these conditions, the end result would be slightly higher figures.

Cheers!

 

My '83 QV runs great now with the original factory electronic setup.

I guess what will push me toward investigating something like Nick's products will be the decision keep the 308 longterm.

Right now, my thought is to keep it as-is for another two years or so, watch what happens with the market for 360s and 550s, and see where our finances are by then.

In any case, keeping the car I have and am happy with would be by far the least expensive alternative.

If adding Nick's FI and ignition packages produced the same type of tangible improvements that putting the electronic system on the 330 did, I'd see no sense in letting the 308 go for a model that is a lot faster and newer but costs $30K plus the 308 to purchase and is much more expensive to maintain.

 

Here's a picture of the cold air intake I had manufactured to replace the original Bosch unit. I'll polish the welds and will get it cermachromed inside and out to keep the air as cool as possible inside.

Air sensor goes on top of the intake. Once this is all done and instaled. I'll do another dyno run and hopefuly, temperatures wil be cooler!

Cheers!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Without wheels there is undoubtedly a great difference. You are essentially removing over 80lbs of rotating mass from the hubs. This figure does not assume how far away from the hub most of the mass of the wheels are rotating. The further away from the hub the weight is located, the more difficult it is to rotate. HUGE difference.

 

Does your calculation takes into account the rotational power accumulated by the turning wheel once in movement? Centripetal force will push outwards and I would believe that a wheel turning at high speed has a lot of accumulated energy. Hence, are the medium/high speed results accurate on a rolling dyno?

Every type of dyno has its own characteristics. The difference with the one I used is that hydraulic fluid can be routed through a series of electronic valves that can compensate for the removal of the wheels in producing final results. I haven't seen the calculation algorithm used on rolling dyno, therefore, can't comment on the correction (or abscence thereof) for centripetal force effect.

Best,

 

Yes, I did take that into consideration. It still requires far more energy to rotate 80lbs additional mass regardless of the little energy gained in its rotation than it does to rotate directly from the hubs. The entire rotating assembly of one of these motors is less than 150lbs so by removing the wheels you are essentially cutting that in half.

Point is: Without God himself present, there is NO way a naturally aspirated 308QV motor in stock form is going to make 237bhp at the wheels. Heavily modified motors with ludicrous cams and compression have a difficult time coming close to that figure........ 328s don't come close to that figure (210-220 at the wheels in a 328), 348s sometimes make that figure with a high flow exhaust and tuning. In the physical universe we occupy, it cannot be done with what you are describing.

Russ' 3.2L engine with webers, upgraded cams, flowed heads and high compression makes about what you are claiming. His car was featured in Forza magazine not long ago.