rob82

Untrue. Plus thats not the point - you dont design a fuel system to supply the same amount as the injectors can flow at 100% on. IF you have 6 x 1000cc injectors they can only flow 6l/min of fuel flow so when designing the rest of your fuel system you may want an extra 30% as a safety margin. So when testing this type of fuel system I would be looking for a bare minimum of 7l/min at the desired boost.

Well I'm glad you've had the same problems with Haltech too. For years we were telling them about there issues with triggering, accell enrichment etc etc - all fell on deaf ears. Very frustrating because as a tuner when you tell a customer I cant fix an issue they immediatly presume you dont know how to tune. I love the fact that they say they support idle motor control and boost control and a heap of other functions when they cant even make an ECM that delivers consistant fuel and timing. I personally will never recommend haltech and try as hard as I can not to tune them.

Probably wouldn't be that advanced alot of manufactures these days can control the entire ignition system using knock sensor feedback. Some manufactures have really good control some are poor.... 'cough' GM 'cough'. And testing fuel system flow rates can be done very sucessfully by pressurising the fuel pressure regualtor to the desired boost level with the pump running and then measuring the return fuel flow. IMO its the best way to test fuel system - as you dont need to have the engine at high rpm/load.

Hmmmm wait till you start tuning engines that can continuously move inlet cams or even both inlet and exhaust. Then add variable runner length and direct injection into the equation. You'll start to realize that you know very little about tuning. I thought I knew tuning quiet well until I talked to a former gm calibration/ experimental combustion engineer.

Is there a diffence between the gt3582r and the "gt3540" - I can tell you that the standard ford branded gt35 made more hp than the gcg gt3582r. Have seen two applications to back up results. Both where with same rear spec 1.06 rear.

Change your ignition spark edge to falling. STD coil setup is for the spark event to occur on the falling edge of the trigger with the dwell time being the duration of the trigger time spent at 5v.. This is probably why you have roasted your coils! It would hav been charging the coil at like 98% duty instead of 2%. I laugh every time I here about haltech's being plugin. As others have said I avoid them like the plauge!

Put the AFM's back on with a normal PFC for best drivability as long as you don't care for wanker valves!

Colder plugs don't help cold starts at all.

What's your plug gap and heat range? Most engines idle smother with some load on board. You can induce some idle load by retarding your Ignition timing. I usually only like running low timing advance when proportional spark control is available though.

Try 30-40 degrees retard and a bit more fuel. Its the ignition event with the exhasut valve open that cause the turbo to spool. The idle valve is required to stop the engine rpm from dropping too much. If you did nothing but retard the timing you would still get 95% of the benefit of anti lag - hence it is the most important variable.

C63 amg's run two 7" cats to be emissions compliant and still make decent power - you will probably find that they are over 400cpi though. Btw they only make around 280rwkw with a tune.

There is a difference between a BOV (wank valve) and a bypass valve. Nissan from factory use a bypass valve that vents from intake side pre throttle to intake side pre turbo so that if the turbo gernerates more airflow then the engine can consume the valve allows the air to circulate. There is no provision in the nissan tuning required as the air is always metered. When you block the bypass valve and the turbo combination can flow more air then the engine can consume at idle then the air will revert back through the intake. I'm not saying this is the issue but it may contribute to the problem.

I believe the gauze is nissans attempt to straighten the airflow hence the reason it is on both sides of the airflow meter. I think you would be surprised the difference fine mesh makes at low airflow rates. And yes I know what is involved in correctly metering air as I have calibrated at an oem level for Mazda. You would not believe how sensitive rx8 airflow meters are!

The purpose of the gauze is to straighten the flow. The angles before the AFM will have an effect at high flow rates but not at idle or light load. The angles after the AFM will have an effect also but only when the air reverts on closed throttle.

If the gauze is still on both sides of the AFM, orientation wont matter shit. Esspecially not at idle.

The afm element orientation isn't an issue if the AFM is standard.

Dont forget to cup the balls!!!

Are you sure? I'm sure the timing changes it's just heavily retard from the main map from what I remember. Can you elaborate on where this value requested?

Its commanding that value - therefore its in the tune. I believe its a catalyst warm up function. I've havn't disassembled these ECU's enough to find where it requests the retard from but I'm guessing its a single signed 8-bit value added to the main table.

f**k all unless something is completely wrong.

Polarity doesn't matter.

RB20DET have 6 injectors drives and 6 ignition outputs.

You guys dont have a clue. You realise in going to the haltech you will be batch firing injectors and coils! The std ECU is fully sequential on both. It will do everything about 100times better than the haltech ever will. There is a reason haltech doesn't support the earlier ECU's anymore is beacuse they are shit.

I know lots about haltech and how many I've pulled out of various vehicles over the past eight years. I'm sure their new platinum series are just dandy! Cant comment on them though cause I have no conifdence in there ECU's since they went windows based.

Haltech are shit - Nistune all the way.