quote:

---

Originally posted by rhinopower
Running vvt leaves the cam at 90degrees at rest, and 130 degrees at advance, neither of these are the cams peak power figure. I understand the reasons for running it, and I did previously, however there is a better way of doing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coyoteboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhinopower
Running vvt leaves the cam at 90degrees at rest, and 130 degrees at advance, neither of these are the cams peak power figure. I understand the reasons for running it, and I did previously, however there is a better way of doing it.

---

If you mapped it correctly it would not run lean and should provide better results, it makes absolutely zero sense for a manufacturer to add huge complexity to make a poorer performance. The whole point of vct is to allow better performance and efficiency at low revs but provide correct timing at high revs too, why would Ford make it so it's worse at both if it didn't have to? Your suggestion that when activated it goes lean suggests you were not mapping to account for this, a simple automatic table switch should work and could match ignition timing to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenko
I guess the point is.....The on / off method, although clearly not optimum is not used with the ford ecu, it's typically used with aftermarket ECU's that are mapped accordingly to compensate for when the cam turns 'on'.

I think the real test is to understand how the on/off method works on a fully mapped ECU. Also I assume you mean Lambda sensor rather than MAF for the compentsating. Again, I would imaging the Lambda comensation to not be able to keep up with the on / off function.....Im far from an expert however, so just adding more discussion points to the experiment. Keep up the good work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaileyPerformance

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenko
I guess the point is.....The on / off method, although clearly not optimum is not used with the ford ecu, it's typically used with aftermarket ECU's that are mapped accordingly to compensate for when the cam turns 'on'.

I think the real test is to understand how the on/off method works on a fully mapped ECU. Also I assume you mean Lambda sensor rather than MAF for the compentsating. Again, I would imaging the Lambda comensation to not be able to keep up with the on / off function.....Im far from an expert however, so just adding more discussion points to the experiment. Keep up the good work.

---

Matt is correct, its the MAF reading that will change when the cam angle is changed, as the air flow will change when the cam is moved.
The lambda on a standard ST is a narrow band, so is not used after a give point (open loop)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Allison
Matt did you manage to alter the VCT without the standard ecu reading any fault codes for the cam not being in the correct position the ecu wanted.

Controlling the VCT with this box is one of the cheap route to using the ST engine. But there are going to be no big gains unless more cam duration is used i.e. new cams.

From reading about another ST build which has head work,cams, pistons and rods done. They have still not managed over 198bhp. But its still on the standard inlet. So it looks like the inlet may be far more restrictive to the engine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
Matt,

Interesting work - is that power at the back wheels or the engine?

If at the engine then it would seem little point in using an St170 engine when we have seen over 160BHP using bike carbs and 175BHP on Jenveys on a stock black top.

We have dyno'd a totally standard ST170 and they do make close to 170BHP, that's with a CAT and all factory electronics and hardware.

So, there is a problem with the Escort shown in your post - maybe the carbs are too small? was the fueling spot on?

We have noticed the exhaust system is critical on a blacktop, i would assume more so on than ST170 - the system must be 2.5" with an free flowing manifold - the stock ST170 one is very good. (could be modified for RWD?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtechmatt
Hmm, IIRC Autodata liosts the St170 as around the 155 mark, certainly all we have ever seen anyway...

Our stock St170 focus we dynoed at the start made sub 150 And that is a normal car bought for testing, with no modifications at all

Matt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtechmatt
Funny how even though Ford never stated the 170 meant 170bhp, people assume it be...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtechmatt
A mondeo St24 makes abit more than 24bhp

---