Jump to content
SAU Community

R33 GTSt - 12.4 @ 123 MPH!!!!!!


Recommended Posts

What's in it

RB26 HKS Motor with two all beef patties (HKS 2510's), pickles (forged pistons), sauce (very big injectors), lettuce (HUGE HKS FMIC), cheese (HKS Cams), on a sesame seed bun (twin plate clutch, dog box and mechanical diff...)

That about cover it??

But wait there's more... lots more I just CBF typing....

R32PWR (aka RoundEye) here,

Thx to tha good Doc drift for being my support crew on the lovely evening.

Yes, the R33 is nuts .. it has heaps of potential.

My 1st run was 13.6 (very :P after that), but eventually reached a respectable 12.4 @ farrrq! .. I was also fortunate to come runner up on the 8 car shootout (luck of the draw).

My plans are to soften the suspension, lose the 2" catty, slicks, more boost (ran 1.3 bar on 12.4 pass), and try dragging without a .2 - .3 headwind.. I would expect low 11's to be feasable :D:)

for those in the market for a complete car built for track (this thing has $6,000 Climax suspension, nismo bushes, etc (not good for drag) - then email me or even phone [email protected] / 0421 058259 if your interested. I'm looking for around 30k for my ultimate sleeper GTSt with fully worked Rb26dett.

Stay tuned for my next session, and also the dyno figure following Dr Drifts Dyno day (22nd Feb and every month there on).. aiming for over 300rwkw's.

Cheers,

RounEye

There should be an easy mid 11 there, maybe low 11 - have a look at the time vs mph for my bike in my sig, and that was with ~2.1 60'. I raced a GSXR600 that ran 123mph, it did 11.5 iirc.

Anyway enough of my dribble, congratulations on the time, car sounds like a beast :P

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • 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.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...