nicksamaniac

Sounds good in theory, but how well will it handle 20+ psi of boost? And how well can it correctly read air temp? Seeing it will either be mounted on the hot side of the charge or the cold side of the charge? Im not entirely convinced it would work 100% correct all the time?

They look like Rochester brand, hard to know the size without a part number?

Sweet idea, might give that ago. Ive seen the r35 afm design, i thought about that too but I'd need the load ramp table to start off with. Also, Can the standard table be stretched out with datalogit? To cover a broader airflow.

I was running a z32, but was having issues with it, it was giving and/or the power fc was reading it as a noisy signal, like it was ever so slightly out of tune? Hard to explain, it was always 1 cell off where it should be, or the load ramp table needed modifying. I put the stock afm back in and went back to the power intake setting and was sweet. But it hits 5v at 3/4 power.

Ive been researching this topic in regards to my afm "hitting the ceiling" so to speak, if 2 afm's wired in parallel gave the same/equal voltage output but at half the value of the single afm, could i just double the percentage the power fc see's? Or tune to suit? I believe this would be a more accurate way to measure load as aposed to the bypass inlet idea? Ideas?

^^^^finally a person who gets what im asking!!!! Not 1 person yet has exlpained, without contradiction to themselves, how the same engine on 2 different drive lines will result in different rw readings. Of course the ramp changes, of course there is angular moment difference, of course there is polar moment difference, All these kinetic energy and dynamic loss differences WILL show lower readings. That is because ---there is no way to obtain a static measurement at full rpm, full power and full torque and achieve the same result. No way.... There WILL ALWAYS be variables affecting how things work, its real life, its how the world works, its the truth! k to my RB25 question? 200.0kw atw in an r33? Same engine in a patrol, same wheels to remove that variable! How will it ever make 200.0kw at the wheel then? It won't, it can't and it never will! Say there is 2 cars, both the same car but 1 has a beefed up race spec hd drive line, both have 300hp Engines, both cars cruising at 50km/hr on flat road, 1 car uses 40hp to maintain the speed due to wind drag, rolling resistance etc, the 2nd car (big driveline) uses 50hp to maintain that same speed for the same reasons plus the fact that it has extra wieght in the drive, Oh but that wont effect it you say? Yes it will and heres why? It wieghs more, giving it more rolling resistance, the stored kinetic energy is f#ck all compared to the resistance it will have at cruising speed. This is why you loose a rear wheel reading figure.

Yes I agree with 50% of what hes explained, and is correct from a theoretical point when done in a perfect environment with no outside interference although in practical application, why is there a loss in power, at the wheels, when using a larger drive line? He said if you spin a shaft up to speed it will remain at said speed untill there is an aposing force, and in REAL life situations, there is ALWAYS an aposing force, im sorry for winding you up gtsboy, but explaining the way you did is like saying perpetual motion is the real deal! My original argument is that a larger drive line Will show a loss atw on a dyno, that has yet to be proven to me otherwise?

Before you go, I still need you to explain my 15hp loss atw when compared to a street version RB30 car? If I never know the truth behind it I'll be doomed to spend the rest of my life in a world where quantum mechanics are just dont follow conventional rules of thermodynamics!!!! dooooooooomed!!!!!!!!

Or better yet! With all your knowledge you could work for nasa and explain to them they could take 1 months worth of extra fuel, supplies, an extra moon buggy and 6 extra astronauts but only need the same power rocket to reach space as wieght plays no part in power loss!

So to my question on the 2 different cars and same engine? And no I am not wrong, it will require more power to be accelerated up to speed, as there will ALWAYS be external influence becouse we dont operate cars on a stand in the vacume of space away from any gravity source. There is always 99.999% of the time a load of sorts. And the shafts of different sizes will have different bearings, larger yolks, different angles at the joints. Again there is always influence to play a part in the way it works. In the end, you can dictate physics in a perfect environment with zero outside influence to a point where the differences play little to no part. But here on earth, where there will always be some affect by the parts we use in a drive line, there will be losses due to size, shape, materials, wieght, and it will be a measurable difference at the wheels. Yes your answers are surplus to some things but you have not yet provided a real world example of how there wont be a loss with a larger drive train? put a 8hp briggs in your car and tell me it still makes 8hp at the treads!

And a big heavy drive shaft WILL loose power through static loss. If a shaft A- 500mm long 80mm dia, and 5kg will take X power and torque to maintain a static speed. Then shaft B- 3000mm long 350mm dia, and 40kg will require Y power to maintain the same speed, there is absolutely no way it can maintain the same speed as drive shaft A at the same power and torque.

Again im not talking about static losses, I am talking about dynamic losses, rotational windage, inertial acceleration, these are whats measured in the REAL WORLD not in an engineering lab at a car designer workshop. I understand you explaining conversion of engergy, I understand it very well. But you have not yet explained drive train loss through wieght difference? As it FEELS like a power loss? Well thats becouse there IS a loss, through dynamic means, inertial reaction. Heat ONLY comes from friction through transfer of energy, either from convection, physical friction or radiation, they are ALL transfer of PHYSICAL energy,from large components all the way down to friction of electrons even down to light particles or the atomic level. But not dynamic energy, this does not transfer to heat unless there is interfering parts, it a measurement of acceleration over time. So if I had an r33,rb25 that made exactly 200.0kw atw on 17" rims, 245/45r17 tires. Then took that exact engine out and put into my patrol and managed to fit the same rims/tires on it for the dyno (no loss through tire/rim size) It will still make 200.0kw at the wheels? With absolutely no losses? for where the heat goes, through the radiator to atmosphere, as load increases, more power is demanded, more heat is generated, radiator works abit more, the world keeps turning, universe keeps expanding, entropy never takes place, and so on.

So where does the power go? Or are going to stick to the theory there is no power loss? Am I wrong in believing there is no such thing as drive train loss's? If I had held my engine at full song for long enough would it have made 90hp instead of 75? I don't belive it could have, it would of continued to reach redline, or if we increased load at the rollers to hold it from reaching redline hp would drop as it would overcome the power the engine had to reach that speed. I said before, the only way to achieve the same reading with the same engine via different drive lines is at static speed, and when you maintain a speed, the torque and hp drop to point, they level out, and speed becomes constant. There is no way to maintain a speed and achieve the same readings through different drive lines. its like saying a 150amp alt at full load wont cause a loss more than a 50amp alt at full load? That 100amp has gota be made somewhere? And to produce it the engine works that bit more to make it.

Yes they are, I can also confirm how crap they are, all companies make shitty choices, that is one Nissan made! Take a good solid engine and put a stone age fuel delivery system and ignition on it! but mine was running efi.

And as a real world example, I took my patrol in stock trim for a power run so I had a starting point before all my engine mods. It made a massive 75.3hp at the wheels on 28" tires, witch are like little chees cutter wheels. the dyno operator said it was an expected result for the car type and showed me results from VL and r31 runs. (same engine on a different drive line) All of these figures where over 90hp, so how does a no loss idea explain a loss of 15hp? And he also said it'll be lower due to, you guessed it, a bigger drive train!

Good argument, I still disagree with some of what youve said, most power runs I see have a ramp rate at witch power is measuered, nobody does a static power measurement at full rpm, full hp and full torque for 5 seconds! Thats just stupid. inertial wieght is ONLY low nearer the center of the shaft as it approaches zero rpm at the center even if surface speed is 100's of meter sec. The only way id believe component size and wieght make no difference to hp output is at a static speed, but thats when load drops, torque becomes static and power drops off to a point where its only maintaining vehicle speed. In any other scenario wieght WILL be a loss on the system. If you take that 500hp engine and match it to a standard Nissan FS5R30A 5sp box, on the output in 4th (1:1) it makes, say? 490hp (for argument sake) Now take that same engine, match it to a 15speed road-ranger transmission and same 1:1ish ratio, how much does it make now? It can ONLY make the same at a static speed, BUT more torque will be required, more load will be applied and more hp will be needed to maintain the same static speed.

Well think of it like this, take out the small drive shaft, the r200 diff center, the little irs axles. Put in a truck tail shaft @ twice the wieght, fit a 10.5" size diff center, fit axles twice the size and tires that each wiegh more than 2 of your original tire/rim combos together and tell me that wont sap hp? Its very basic physics, E=mc2. sounds stupid but its the more mass you try to accelerate, the energy required increases massively! the next one is newtons laws of motion, every body acted upon by a force has a equal and opposite force acted back upon it, so the requirement to accelerate it is more so the heavier the object. So this is where hp goes, through frictional loss, witch is a combination of windage, physical wieght, drag- from both wieght, size of components and material density. It goes on and on the deeper you look into it! The lhc in Europe uses maga watts of magnetic power to accelerate bits of particles to near light speed, if mass was easy to accelerate, theyd be sending house bricks around the tube wouldn't they?!!!!!

Nistuned or stock ecu? Im not paying you out, just blown away that youve milked so much out of it!

But at only 8psi? 160kw on 35" tires and a truck drive line ? I know mine has a 100mm drive shaft and 43mm axles! Tuff but hp sappers!

Big cams will disrupt cylinder pressures at idle speeds hence the "lumpy idle" this is due to reverberation back past the inlet valves, the more overlap the more lopey the idle is. So its really hard to get afrs right at low engine speeds, I learnt this after buliding a cammed up v8.

And my old GQ with VLt injection and t3t4 Garrett @ 12psi barely made 150kw atw on 33's and 98.

Steve200b, have you got a dyno sheet to prove that? I find it very hard to believe 160atwkw on 35's and a GQ drive line, and through a VL/r31 afm? My GQ with a RB30DET @15psi just made 185atwkw on 33's and 4.88:1 diffs, pfc, 400cc inj and z32.

Im running a power fc on my RB30DET, I dont have the a/c switch or the power steer pressure sensor connected, ive got my idle set to 800rpm (sounds high but thats where its happiest idling) and I have no problems with idle when a/c is on or at cruise, afr's stay solid and I csn only just feel when the a/c comes on @ idle but not at cruise speed. Maybe try disconnecting these inputs to test?

As an example of what gtsboy says, older RB30 vl (eccs) used 2 types of batch fire, 2 lots of 3 injectors would fire at low load, then at high load it would fire all 6. This is due to the ecu only being able to control 1 pwm, and at high load the pwm would be so large the 2 batchs would over lap on the pulse, so it changed to all 6 and use the 1 large pulse. If that makes sense?

The bcpr6es 11s you got, the 11 is the gap set out of the box- 1.1mm, you can try closing it to 0.8mm as kinks said. Everybody does it and seems to work for everyone. Science tells us that gas is harder to ionize at pressure, hence closing the gap helps.