C70 2000 2,4T tuning

jantt · Post by **jantt** » 23 Sep 2016, 08:55

Hi

Just bought a C70 2000 2,4T 193 Bhp autotrans. 3 weeks ago.

Installed BSR tune (should give me 239 bhp) : http://www.bsr-tuning.dk/tuningsudstyr/t/1538
2,5" sport exhurst : http://www.bsr-tuning.dk/produkt/sportf ... -1996-2005
Open airfilter : http://www.bsr-tuning.dk/produkt/opti-f ... -1999-2005
Larger intercooler and new pipes/hoses : http://www.do88.se/en/artiklar/bigpack- ... 99-00.html

Is there any idea in bying larger tubo T16 and 3" downpipe or will it not give that more effect ?

Post by **kcodyjr** » 26 Sep 2016, 18:14

That's the LPT engine. You have a 13G turbo in it.

You could put a 16T into it, to great effect, but be aware that you're totally changing the characteristic of the car - instead of having sick torque at the bottom end and choking out a the top, it'll have the usual turbo spool up lag at the bottom and all kinds of horsepower up top. Not bad lag, though. People have successfully put much larger turbos than that onto these engines. Later R versions came with 18Ts.

If it was my car, I wouldn't do it, nor would I have bothered with the intercooler; I like its torque curve right where it is. But if you're looking for a track car, or to make it more of a highway racer, you've already begun to open up its breathing, you may as well continue.

I don't see the point of a 3" downpipe with a 2.5" catback, but maybe someone cares to differ. Except maybe that a performance downpipe is going to have a freer-flowing cat (or no cat, please observe all local laws). This will also create CEL issues, which could be a problem depending on your state, and I believe will degrade performance unless hacked around to satisfy the computer.

That being said, if you're doing a turbo, you should probably also be doing a custom mandrel bent T304 3" turboback exhaust, using the newer angle flange and an R manifold sourced from Japan, if you can find one. See if they'll take that bolt-on catback back.

Before you get into this, do your research and check your numbers. The 2.4 engine has somewhat thinner walls than the 2.3, and didn't come with the sodium-filled exhaust valves, and these years didn't have the under-piston oil squirters. There is a limit to how much power you can develop without having to do connecting rods. Search the forums; this has been discussed at great length.

Also, be aware, at these modification levels, you might need to do hardware cam timing adjustments. Check with your tuner company.

jantt · Post by **jantt** » 26 Sep 2016, 21:53

Ok so with a bigger turbo I will move the power from low rpm`s to high rpm`s ?
That`s not what I want.
I want to get quicker from 0-60, so a bigger turbo will not do that ?

If that?s so I will like ti thank you in stopping me from wasting Money.

I have heard the with a 3" sportcatalysator like this it will give better speederrespons ?
http://www.bsr-tuning.dk/produkt/downpi ... 9-2000-2wd

Post by **kcodyjr** » 27 Sep 2016, 11:05

To optimize 0-60, no, you don't want a big turbo.

The exception is if you've heavily upgraded your exhaust. The turbine in the turbo works on the pressure drop across the blades, so everything you do to reduce back-pressure will add just a little more force to the turbo's spool-up. By the time you have a full 3" turboback, it can get to the point that your turbo, especially the tiny little 13G, is spooling up too soon. High torque at low RPM bends rods. In this case, the right remedial action is a slightly bigger turbo - but not to a really big turbo.

Someone that knows turbos better than I do, please chime in. I believe he's looking for a 15G - but only if he does a full exhaust. Would he find that in a slightly newer GLT?

To get what you want, the next thing I'd do is switch to a 93 octane fuel tune, and replace your TCV with an aftermarket HD version. Or, if E85 is readily available in your area, an ECU tune meant for that will actually give excellent performance. It only sucks on stock ECU programming.

But, it's a mistake to keep throwing parts at it one by one, hoping for incremental gains. Take a look at the overall system and figure out what really makes sense to upgrade, given your goals. Come up with the final design, and then implement it in stages.

So, answering your question, yes a 3" performance downpipe would reduce back pressure (mainly due to the cat, given your 2.5" catback) and therefore give better turbo spool-up and therefore better off-line throttle response. But, if that's all you do, you could bend a rod.

jantt · Post by **jantt** » 27 Sep 2016, 12:43

Thanks for the answer.

So your advice is not to do more than I have done in risk of damaging the engine ?

As for now I have done as I have told : ECU upgrade, bigger intercooler, open airfilter, 2,5" sportsexhurst and drive on 99 octane Shell V-power.

Post by **kcodyjr** » 27 Sep 2016, 13:14

Yes, my advice is to chase breathing no further unless you intend to do a turbo. Even doing the intercooler was probably useless.

I'd also skip the 99 octane fuel, unless you have a tune that makes use of it.

Wait, do the octane numbers mean something different in Copenhagen vs Boston? I couldn't find 99 if I had to . It comes in 87, 89, 91, and 93.

Anyway, higher octane fuel by itself does not increase power. It permits more aggressive timing advance, which results in more power, but the ECU has to know that it should do that.

There's a saying: I'll take 2 degrees of timing advance over 2 psi of boost, all day long.

Also, your open air intake might actually be costing you power. From the factory, these cars had a reasonably good cold air intake that was plenty sufficient for stock airflow levels. Now you can suck in more air, but it's heated air from under the hood. I'd consider either going back to stock, or constructing some sort of cold-air ducting.

You don't need more air. You're concentrating on off-the-line performance. Airflow is not the limiting factor.

That being said, the stock piping has some unfortunate design decisions, including that accordion tube going from the airbox to the turbo. That can turn laminar flow into turbulent flow, and add friction to the air moving through. I've seen kits to replace those with a smooth shiny metal pipe, which claims to improve flow characteristics. That might be worth a few bucks.

jantt · Post by **jantt** » 27 Sep 2016, 22:07

Maybe because we only have 92, 95 and 99 octane.
Allways heard that the higher octane the better for the engine.

With the new intercooler I also redirected the airflow to a shorter over the engine as you can see on the picture
and the airfilter have a heatshield.

I have ordred this : http://www.vivaperformance.com/turbo-in ... 8-s-v-c70/

I have a camshaft Tool I bougt from ARD so I should advance both intake and exhurst 2 degrees ?
http://www.ardideas.com/ARD-Cam-Timing-Tool_p_146.html
I have VVT on exhurst side

Post by **kcodyjr** » 28 Sep 2016, 09:16

OK, you have a RIP kit in it (Reverse Intercooler Piping). A logical add-on when you're doing an intercooler.

A heat shield on the intake is not the same as piping cold air from outside the engine bay. It'll still suck in hot air, the shield only protects the filter itself from radiant heat. You might be able to adapt the stock tube to it, though. You're interested in the piece that went from the grille to the airbox.

Higher octane does not necessarily mean better for the engine, except that in some brands, the top grade product has better cleaners and other additives in it. What's important is using at least the minimum octane required by the engine - check your owner's manual, in the U.S. it's 90 for a Volvo turbo. Using a higher grade than specified is just throwing your money away.

Get ARD on the phone and talk to them before you do any timing adjustments.

jantt · Post by **jantt** » 28 Sep 2016, 10:13

Thanks for all the good advices

jantt · Post by **jantt** » 13 Oct 2016, 08:50

New closed airfilter with direct intake and steel pipe to turbo