Harrop TVS86 Owners Thread

[UNREAL]

Some photos during the parts installation

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6000 using Tapatalk

[grumpysnapper]

Thats looking good mate, one of the great things about the Harrop is how well thought out the installation process is. With Harrop, cost=quality.
You are going to love it

[grumpysnapper]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

@Capt Spaulding
Wheels/tires is a must if FI but no real benefit to 16” unless maybe for off-road use. Otherwise no performance increase and limit your brake selection, most stick to 17” or even go 18” for this reason.
FD ratio is a ton of pros and cons and reasons to choose one over the other. I can elaborate much more if you want. But typically once FI it is not a good idea to go beyond 4.3FD, many choose to go 3.9 or even 3.7 for various reasons. MT has fairly close gear ratio as is you have 5 useable gear with only 1 OD gear. 5th is 1-1 and tops out with 4.1FD and stock tire at about 130mph. 4.66 is 14% more aggressive. Every gear will be 14% shorter, 5th will redline at 112mph. When you are FI that will feel way too short. I had a 4.56 and even that was too aggressive and short.. Also aggressive FD makes grip issues even worse. Most simple way of deciding is to decide what you want your top “acceleration” speed to be and choose an FD to make 5th for MT 4th for AT hit that speed at the top of
That gear.

I feel its a little too simple to say there are no real benefits/performance increases to 16's.
A quality tyre with a decent side wall actually can improve function on most less than ideal surfaces.
A taller sidewall can (often) give you a better 'feel' for when the tyre is transitioning to/from losing lateral grip.
Sidewall can also help maintain a more predictable lateral grip with its compliance.
And better ride quality is a genuine bonus too.
BBK's can fit too (with careful consideration), AP Racing Sprints fit very easily for example inside my Rays.
We will have to agree to disagree on the final drive gearing.
As with most modern cars, ours are fundamentally geared quite highly for fuel economy (sales) figures...which is also why modern small engines are happy to "lug" at low revs that would have been (pinging) unthinkable not that many years ago.
Our cars are not exactly rocket ships (without FI)... so lowering the overall gearing will actually improve performance with quite a good $ per grin ratio.
The trade off is only around 400 rpm at 85mph....in 5th.
And top speed is still north of 140mph.
But all of this is subjective, there is not really a right or wrong, with cars its about what "flicks your button" and how you drive.... thankfully

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by grumpysnapper

I feel its a little too simple to say there are no real benefits/performance increases to 16's.
A quality tyre with a decent side wall actually can improve function on most less than ideal surfaces

yup, like off road or rally (something most people don’t do or at least build this car for) on a track or normal road lower profile tire will have better handling and response and the larger wheel gives more options for better brakes. Often lower profile tires can have slightly better fuel efficiency as well. Aside from off road/ rally bigger profile tires only real advantage is comfort which stock size profile is still just fine at.

Originally Posted by grumpysnapper

We will have to agree to disagree on the final drive gearing.
Our cars are not exactly rocket ships (without FI)

You outlined opinions. i mentioned facts for the reader to determine for themselves what is right for them. This entire thread is an FI thread, NA and FI should not use same FD ratio. 5th in MT and 4th in AT is 1-1 gear ratio your acceleration drastically falls off once you shift to an overdrive gear (6th for MT 5/6th for AT) meaning the top speed of your 1-1 gear is what you’re really able to use and have fun with. With FI hitting 120+ is no problem, using an FD like 4.66 makes 5th top at 112mph you will be wishing you had more gear with FI. For general use i wouldn’t go higher than 4.3 for this reason. For specific use like track or auto x their is a specific method in choosing what ratio is best but chances are with FI it will still not be over a 4.3, many FI choose to go lower like 3.7-3.9. I went from a 4.1 to 4.56 When NA it was one of the best performance mods i did. Then i went FI and i hated that ratio, swapped back to 4.1 which was better but combined with a 255 tire i wished for a tiny bit more acceleration, then switched to a 4.3 ratio which was perfect. at 250-300whp 4.3 is perfect for general use. Also traction becomes a bigger and bigger issue with FI and more power a more aggressive FD like 4.56 or 4.66 makes traction that much worse.

[grumpysnapper]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

yup, like off road or rally (something most people don’t do or at least build this car for) on a track or normal road lower profile tire will have better handling and response and the larger wheel gives more options for better brakes. Often lower profile tires can have slightly better fuel efficiency as well. Aside from off road/ rally bigger profile tires only real advantage is comfort which stock size profile is still just fine at.

I think you're being too absolute. I'm not just talking about off road or dirt, I'm thinking about bitumen too ... roads with inconsistent surfacing, like most back roads for example. A tall(ish) sidewall can provide actual functional benefits on these types of roads.

You outlined opinions. i mentioned facts for the reader to determine for themselves what is right for them. This entire thread is an FI thread, NA and FI should not use same FD ratio. 5th in MT and 4th in AT is 1-1 gear ratio your acceleration drastically falls off once you shift to an overdrive gear (6th for MT 5/6th for AT) meaning the top speed of your 1-1 gear is what you’re really able to use and have fun with. With FI hitting 120+ is no problem, using an FD like 4.66 makes 5th top at 112mph you will be wishing you had more gear with FI. For general use i wouldn’t go higher than 4.3 for this reason. For specific use like track or auto x their is a specific method in choosing what ratio is best but chances are with FI it will still not be over a 4.3, many FI choose to go lower like 3.7-3.9. I went from a 4.1 to 4.56 When NA it was one of the best performance mods i did. Then i went FI and i hated that ratio, swapped back to 4.1 which was better but combined with a 255 tire i wished for a tiny bit more acceleration, then switched to a 4.3 ratio which was perfect. at 250-300whp 4.3 is perfect for general use. Also traction becomes a bigger and bigger issue with FI and more power a more aggressive FD like 4.56 or 4.66 makes traction that much worse.

Not facts, just opinions with ratios.
"NA and FI should not use same FD ratio".... Is there a rule?
"a more aggressive FD like 4.56 or 4.66 makes traction that much worse"....According to?
"4.66 makes 5th top at 112mph you will be wishing you had more gear with FI"... Is 6th illegal?

Because you might dislike a certain drive ratio (or wheel radius), doesn't mean that others experiences might be at odds with your opinions.

I'm guessing though, that we both love the Harrop!

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by grumpysnapper

I think you're being too absolute. I'm not just talking about off road or dirt, I'm thinking about bitumen too ... roads with inconsistent surfacing, like most back roads for example. A tall(ish) sidewall can provide actual functional benefits on these types of roads.



Not facts, just opinions with ratios.
"NA and FI should not use same FD ratio".... Is there a rule?
"a more aggressive FD like 4.56 or 4.66 makes traction that much worse"....According to?
"4.66 makes 5th top at 112mph you will be wishing you had more gear with FI"... Is 6th illegal?

Because you might dislike a certain drive ratio (or wheel radius), doesn't mean that others experiences might be at odds with your opinions.

I'm guessing though, that we both love the Harrop!

Maybe you’re roads are a lot worse then ours in the states. It will be beneficial in snow, off road/rally, horrible roads. Think most people aren’t trying to drive at the limit on horrible roads I’d rather have a higher limit in scenarios i can actually drive hard in. Not having a more comfortable ride going 25mph down some horrible back road. But to each their own, 95%+ of people a 16 is pointless and probably worse unless for winter tire or rally/offroad.

I don’t think you know how mechanical torque works through gear ratios. If you did then you wouldn’t have asked those last three questions. It’s basic mechanical physics. The 3rd question I already answered.

Also i see your running a 225/55r16? If so that changes your final ratio at the tire a lot being so much bigger. 100mph on speedo you are really 104mph. 225/55r16 with 4.66 FD is the same as 215/45r17 with 4.46 a lot less aggressive. I think it should be specified when you are recommending FD ratios based on what you are using that your tire really makes your FD a 4.46, if they use stock tire diameter with a 4.66 that would be like you using a 4.88 with your tire.

[grumpysnapper]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Maybe you’re roads are a lot worse then ours in the states. It will be beneficial in snow, off road/rally, horrible roads. Think most people aren’t trying to drive at the limit on horrible roads I’d rather have a higher limit in scenarios i can actually drive hard in. Not having a more comfortable ride going 25mph down some horrible back road. But to each their own, 95%+ of people a 16 is pointless and probably worse unless for winter tire or rally/offroad.

I don’t think you know how mechanical torque works through gear ratios. If you did then you wouldn’t have asked those last three questions. It’s basic mechanical physics. The 3rd question I already answered.

Also i see your running a 225/55r16? If so that changes your final ratio at the tire a lot being so much bigger. 100mph on speedo you are really 104mph. 225/55r16 with 4.66 FD is the same as 215/45r17 with 4.46 a lot less aggressive. I think it should be specified when you are recommending FD ratios based on what you are using that your tire really makes your FD a 4.46, if they use stock tire diameter with a 4.66 that would be like you using a 4.88 with your tire.

OK. I am wrong.
16's are pointless and worse for anything except off road/winter.
I have no idea about twisting forces.
Opinions about gearing preferences are actually facts. (Your fear of "Loss of traction"... could be an argument against FI, surely?)
And apparently my speedo is also wrong. (You're actually stressing about a practically imperceptible 4%?)

But do you at least like the Harrop?

[Bodalenko]

I’ve had a Harrop, installed by Harrop, on since Jan this year. Has completely transformed the car from the kitten it was to a tiger! Had the FlexFuel kit installed at the same time which is well worth it. Also have STI mounts and full driveline kit to stiffen it up done. Also have the Fluidampr on replacing OEM. Little things make a combined difference and mine is a fire breather at 226kw. Did the clutch before the install and though not necessary it’s worth doing. First gear is basically worthless now so looking at a FD ratio lowering to 3.9 ish..

[grumpysnapper]

Originally Posted by Bodalenko

I’ve had a Harrop, installed by Harrop, on since Jan this year. Has completely transformed the car from the kitten it was to a tiger! Had the FlexFuel kit installed at the same time which is well worth it. Also have STI mounts and full driveline kit to stiffen it up done. Also have the Fluidampr on replacing OEM. Little things make a combined difference and mine is a fire breather at 226kw. Did the clutch before the install and though not necessary it’s worth doing. First gear is basically worthless now so looking at a FD ratio lowering to 3.9 ish..

Sounds great, what size pulley did you decide on, and how have you found the cold starts on E85?

[Irace86.2.0]

It’ll take a few extra turns of the engine.

[Bodalenko]

Originally Posted by grumpysnapper

Sounds great, what size pulley did you decide on, and how have you found the cold starts on E85?

86mm. The start isn’t an issue. Starts and runs as per 98. Seems to be worse 30 sec after starting and runs rough to the point where reversing is a pain in the arse due to almost stalling and actually stalling. Once fully warmed and going the car runs perfectly and behaves as per normal. My car was tuned by Harrop and truthfully, after their second go at it, it’s the only part of the process I’m not impressed with. I do have another Ecutek tune ready to drop on it but haven’t done it as yet. Apparently a lot of tuners avoid using the direct injection and put too much emphasis on the port injection, but as you know once the pedal is too the metal it’s hang on for the ride. How’s you transmission dealing with the much higher torque and HP. I have a spare sitting in my garage but so far the orig seems fine..

[Bodalenko]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It’ll take a few extra turns of the engine.

No not at all which is weird because the cars running only pure e85, according to the zeitronix gauge. I haven’t used anything but ethanol since jan so I know it’s pure ethanol. What it does is start perfectly, warm for a minuted during which time it runs fine, then it will hesitate when reversing out the drive, stalling sometimes and needing the accelerator to be feather to get tit moving. Once it’s been running five mins it’s fine, It has coughed and run rough after stopping and then restarting when the car is at normal running temps but a hit of the accelerator clears it and it’s fine. I’ve run logs via Ecutek and it all looks good. I will call them and see if I can get it retuned. COVID has put things back with dealing with them.

[grumpysnapper]

Originally Posted by Bodalenko

86mm. The start isn’t an issue. Starts and runs as per 98. Seems to be worse 30 sec after starting and runs rough to the point where reversing is a pain in the arse due to almost stalling and actually stalling. Once fully warmed and going the car runs perfectly and behaves as per normal. My car was tuned by Harrop and truthfully, after their second go at it, it’s the only part of the process I’m not impressed with. I do have another Ecutek tune ready to drop on it but haven’t done it as yet. Apparently a lot of tuners avoid using the direct injection and put too much emphasis on the port injection, but as you know once the pedal is too the metal it’s hang on for the ride. How’s you transmission dealing with the much higher torque and HP. I have a spare sitting in my garage but so far the orig seems fine..

I've only just got my cold start fixed (on the new small pulley).... it was taking up to 40+ seconds of cranking to get her going. But to be fair it is now a low compression bottom end, and the Motronic had to be tuned from scratch. Its now not a bad start...but will never be like a 98ron start.
The tuner had a queue of maybe half a dozen different cars he was trying to fix with their cold starts (as it has just turned to winter)...its pretty hard,
'cause he only gets one crack at it per day (first thing in the morning).
In reality though, I won't be running on E85 most of the time as its just too hard to source, particularly on longer trips.
The gearbox is %100 fine, it did about 25k with the larger pulley, and only about a 1k with the new higher power set up. One of the benefits of not having huge mechanical grip with the tyres I'm running, means that the drivetrain doesn't (perhaps) have to deal with the potential loadings of stickier rubber...
Having said that, I do tend to treat the "infamous" 4th gear with a little more love.

[Irace86.2.0]

If you prime the pump by turning the car on then crank it over, it is much more likely to start. If you crank it over, but don't over do it then try to start it again then it boots right up. I haven't found it a problem, even in the winter. Then again, the blend has more gasoline in the winter, so that helps. After driving the car starts right up with one to two cranks more than straight gasoline.


In some countries like Brazil, E85 cars come with a second, small gasoline tank just for cold startups.