burn4005

Members
  • Content Count

    350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    0%

burn4005 last won the day on October 16

burn4005 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About burn4005

  • Rank
    Rank: RB25DE

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Car(s)
    R34 GTR

Recent Profile Visitors

1,783 profile views
  1. burn4005

    Emtron do a Kv8 plugin for skyline gtrs. Worth a look.
  2. burn4005

    Ok so this is how this thread will go down. I and everyone else is going to say go a split pulse manifold at a 1.05a/r rear on it as you'll choke it. Then an American is going to come in here and say nah he made X power with the 0.92 and a war will break out with Dyno sheets and Aussies calling American dynos shit.. Basically go a 1.05. I did and made 492kw at the treads and the turbo is at Max speed. 127,000rpm.
  3. You can do a fair bit of testing around engine pressure ratios with an orifice plate or butterfly as a restriction in the exhaust. Every psi of extra pressure post turbine will be likely ~3x that amount in the exhaust manifold when you factor in the operating turbine expansion ratio.
  4. Euro 7? Life racing's charge temp correction and transient enrichment/decay is far too simplistic for that. there is zero chance they are using their ECU in an OEM situation and meeting that standard. a one-off non-performance tune of a car to scrape through euro6 maybe. but oem e7, nah. enough internet debate, and I know you love them as a dealer/partner but they're just another option in the middle of a sea of many.
  5. sorry I assumed the max speed for a 9180 was ~1119/120k rpm from where you've started blanking out. discovered now its 116k so you can see where I was coming from.
  6. as with anything, shit in = shit out. if you have enough fit for purpose sensors (fast response, high accuracy) that are correctly calibrated, know your injector flow ACCURATELY (which is the difficult part of this) there is no reason to doubt the result. A VE model is just an abstracted correction function using physical models. you could convert all the corrections to ms and have no difference, and would suit your "motosports". they're fully interchangable. the advantage of a VE model is you can have single variable corrections as things are coupled in the model, whereas in a ms map they would be multivariate. sure, its not going to be within 0.01%, but in a dynamic real time system its not neccessary to go to that, its only a compressor map, and its a visual tool. The log I have above, the compressor stonewall flow vs turbo speed matches to within 0.8% of the BW supplied compressor map. if you are telling me that isn't useful data then by all means keep "intending" to set up a test bench. OEM manufacturers go to extreme levels to accurately model engine characterists because they REQUIRE it. emissions are getting incredibly tight. motorsport engine control is basic stuff by comparision, especially on the fuelling side. those advanced motorsport ecus aren't doing anything clever, they are just very reliable, don't change constantly, come with excellent datalog analysis and professional support, and often retardedly complicated licencing requirements on top of the hardware cost, but that's another story. the torque control and gear shifting is what you're paying for. the Bosch motorsport ecus (even as old as MS5's etc) use a relative fuel mass to lambda target, the air temp correction is based in a NTP relative ideal gas model and the final fuel charge is converted to an injection time later from the Q-stat flow so get off your high horse.
  7. does the life racing calculate a VE model derived mass flow? a good plot is mass flow vs boost pressure with turbo speed as color. makes it easy to compare with a compressor map.
  8. lol at the redacted plot.. anyone have ASIO clearance that can make sense of this for us? the Y axis can be fully extrapolated from the data in the bottom left corner (117.61) for the cross hair value. so you're overspeeding it by ~4%, good for you.
  9. Yea split pulse manifolds and 1.05 housings on both.
  10. I'll have a 9174 result on a 2.6l rb26 in the next few days. Running at same boost (180kpa) my 8374 hit Max speed at to compare. but should be interesting against my 8374 result on the same Dyno. Have turbo speed sensors on both engines and emtron kv8s so logging should be pretty comprehensive
  11. burn4005

    You have to use much lighter return springs on the itb shafts too.
  12. yea listen through exhaust, listen through plenum and listen through oil filler hole.
  13. What cams is the motor running? Compression is on the lower end of acceptable but cams can make a big difference.
  14. Full race guys seem to have an inside line on the EFRs
  15. yea they would be, but if you want a more agressive cam ramp they won't do the job. duration and lift doesn't tell the full story about cam design. there is another metric of the cam that is the average lift over the duration that tells more of the story about the cam profile. also, worth noting the Tomei cams quote the lobe height and kelford quote the net lift. so they're both a 10.8mm lobe cam.