Kinkstaah

I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.

God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.

So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output. If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.

Continental have consistently beaten the absolute shit out of every other performance tyre in Wet/Damp/Cold conditions and give up a little bit of time (half a second at most) in the dry. Almost like it's engineered for German conditions or something. I'd def give those a try.

I mean it's a bit late to say "This won't have any tangible effect and it is not worth spending more than about three seconds on it, please just enjoy the car" But I said it anyway. Does the pod actually get any airflow in that position behind a bumper like that?

Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.

This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?

The best part is when you own the car long enough that you look back and find your OWN ham fisted amateur shit!

Yea - I mean I've seen my fuel pump which is decades old and uh, while I'm not saying this with real knowledge... but I sure get the ick at using anything in the fuel system that produced the state of that pump. Many years ago I went through multiple pumps (and strainers) before I dropped the tank to clean it out with extreme violence. I'm talking the car would do maybe 50km before coming to a halt, which resulted in me cleaning out the filter with some brake cleaner and going on my way. None of my stuff ever looked like what came out of your fuel tank. I don't think I'd be happy with it unless every single component was replaced (or at least checked/cleaned/confirmed to be clean here).

I'm back from the dyno - again! I went looking for someone who knew LS's and had a roller dyno, to see how it shaped up compared to everything else and confirm the powerband really is peaking where Mr Mamo says it should. TLDR: The dyno result I got this time definitely had the shape of how it feels on the road and finally 'makes sense'. Also we had a bit more time to play with timing on the dyno, it turns out the common practice in LS is to lower the timing around peak torque and restore it to max after. So given a car was on the dyno and mostly dialled in already, it was time for tweaking. Luis at APS is definitely knowledgable when it came to this and had overlays ready to go and was happy to share. If you map out your cylinder airmass you start seeing graphs that look a LOT like the engine's torque curve. The good thing also is if you map out your timing curve when you're avoiding knock... this curve very much looks like the inverse of the airmass curve. The result? Well it's another 10.7kw/14hp kw from where I drove it in at. Pretty much everywhere, too. As to how much this car actually makes in Hub Dyno numbers, American Dyno numbers, or Mainline dyno numbers, I say I don't know and it's gone up ~25kw since I started tinkering lol. It IS interesting how the shorter ratio gears I have aren't scaled right on this dyno - 6840RPM is 199KMH, not 175KMH. I have also seen other printouts here with cars with less mods at much higher "kmh" for their RPM due Commodores having 3.45's or longer (!) rear diff ratios maxing out 4th gear which is the 1:1 gear on the T56. Does this matter? No, not really. The real answer is go to the strip and see what it traps, but: I guess I should have gone last Sunday...

I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!

This is the check list they sign off on. This implies that adjustable coilovers of the type we're referring to are not a "Variable Ride Height" system. This very much is in the ethos of "I can change the height while moving/while parked without pulling wheels off the car and mechanically doing so"

I would think making the argument that the travel is limited by a spring flexing against a spring perch as "the same method". Later on in the document they do state that the spring can't bind on full bump travel and cannot come loose in full rebound travel as well. (which is all very sensible). The laws are actually pretty sensible and reasonable. It's just that the people who enforce and check them don't actually read them or know them accurately. "Oh, coilovers? Instant fail mate. Don't even need to look at it." - Guy who will be instantly reported by me. There is probably merit to people who do get defected for height also get defected for the suspension in that state that allows it. I did never consider the people who are complaining about coilovers being picked on are also running around at 50mm off the floor.

I think given SAU's knowledge of E85 we can strongly conclude that 10% ethanol in almost any situation is entirely fine. Almost all of the myths against E85 were overblown, let alone E10.

They actually don't - They adhere to VSB14 rules just like Victoria. The rules are against CABIN adjustable height, and it quite clearly states that the height has to be within parameters. I asked the VASS engineer to confirm this when I got my car engineered and they refused to engineer the coilovers because they didn't meet the requirements for requiring engineering. (mine are height adjustable.) People "Not wanting to bother" with "Actually reading/knowing/adhering to the rules" should result in fines and immediately losing the ability to issue blue slips and/or RWC's in Vic.

Sorry, are coilovers ACTUALLY ILLEGAL in NSW? They aren't in Vic, as long as they retain 70% of stock travel and the car is above 100mm off the ground. Does NSW actually have a law making coilovers actually illegal? RWC/Blue Slip/Engineering people not knowing the actual f**king laws boils my blood. Demand them to point to the documentation that states a coilover is illegal. (it may exist in NSW ) Edit: I checked. They aren't. https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/RMS-infosheet-light-vehicle-modifications-manual-suspension-and-ride-height.pdf

So yes. All of them. Something like 98% of all fuel in the USA has 10% ethanol: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol-fuel-basics It's labelled as like, AKI, 87, 91, 93 with an E10 or E5 or E15 label on the pump. At a certain point, it's not just "E10" instead of 91. It is 91, 95, 98, and all of them have 10% Ethanol in them. You can also get E85 and E30 which is why you do see some people rolling around with E30 tunes in them.

I was mostly jesting. In my experience (and probably only my experience) the R34 GTT physical airbox space is actually too small to flow the amount of power it wanted. By sealing the box, I made it so it could only be fed by the ducts themselves. So you can seal it up and get nice cold air which IS good, but at a certain crossover point: More Hot Air > Less Cold Air I don't think you're at this point. In my case merely ducting the hot air intake with a very focused set of ducts counteracts the fact it's in a V8 engine bay. More cold air obviously best. The solution looks great.

Is this where I say "Hey man my airbox cost me horsepower in my Naturally Aspirated Engine"? (I know you need them for legality in NSW)

Yea mine does, I assume we all use the same sensor. I'm not sure whether it is exact down to the .1%, but it definitely does have decimal points involved.

It works but you have to download it, save it somewhere, open it from app of choice. Also it sounds awesome. I went back 50 pages to see what gearbox was in it. During this I saw a lot of memes about going to All Japan Day, whatever that is. I'm pretty happy to see you finally made it with no issues as I am sure you are too!!

I think you'll find that all fuel in some countries has 10% ethanol in it.

Yes mine will scale from 0.1% to 100%. It is feasible that the retailer does have a strict adherence to the formula..

Sorry yeah - My post was a mess and I attempted to fix it. In my example both sensors are post-cat. I realized later that I had literally pulled the motor apart and we saw no evidence of any knock and everything was sweet, so my WB was likely accurate (enough!, if anything the engine looked a little rich) In your example I'd want to recalibrate both sensors. I realize this is not possible in the real world. Best you can do is: 1) Calibrate current sensor 2) Calibrate a brand new sensor in same location (do you have an older one to compare to? Or is this a new purchase) Observe any changes in readings. I always thought it was 1M, I am clearly out of date. Mine is likely 2m+. I didn't want to have to choose one bank over another in my application.

Supposedly because being (further) inside the pipe means it won't be affected as much by outside air. Mine is mounted roughly middle of the car, just after where my exhaust merges. No science there - Just where it fit and I wanted it after the merge of a V8. Most widebands request it be 1M from the exhaust port or thereabouts as a minimum.