Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Haha sorry mate just assumed it was you, howd yours go, was really liking that airbox looked super trick! my car is so loud now its rediculous, rattles your eye balls in ur head while ur in the dyno room, like when a top fueler goes past, it cause mats laptop to lock up like 6 times was rather amusing...

Did u see the marks i left round the corner from mats, so long and so black, i got it into top gear with no brakes, i was proud...

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well straight away i see a huge difference in the air fuel ratio...

Also the power is brought on later in the rev range and the torque is fatter and comes on sooner...

So all in all... The spry tune will see johns motor last longer and he has gained a slight amount of power...

I think to when dave went to matt and hes words were something like... "I got the same power on less fuel and less knock"... So he tunes to very safe levels, probablly safer than stock setups and of course achieves good power in the process...

Im not here to say who is better than who, but what i am going to point out is some oberservations.

Hp or Kw, either graph shows 207kw basically. So the power is effectively the same after either tune.

The Lambda graph is not the Afr's but the amount of unburned oxygen in the exhaust gas. Conversion in this link here:

http://techedge.com.au/vehicle/wbo2/info5301.htm

The lambda graph shows the first tune registers just above .70 volts and the second tune registers .80 volts.

Now whilst at the Allstar dyno day i was show the Afr's from a BT&T car, and they are quite rich, prelonging engine life. Now if the second tune has the volts higher then according to that site the mixtures are leaner?

Secondly Col you say that the torque comes on fatter and sooner. Looking at the line in the graph then yes, but looking at the units down the bottom, no.

The first graph from the 4th of May, shows that 1380NM (there abouts) is achieved at 3170rpm.

The second graph from the 20th May, shows that 1410Nm (there abouts) is achieved at 3640rpm.

Even when you run along the first graph you can see at 3490rpm its makeing 1400Nm. A difference of 10NM less at 240rpm less.

Now if you look along both graphs trying to match up similar Rpm and see what the torque is, you will find there is a difference of about 80NM more torque that the second tune makes. This can probably be attributed to the fact that the second tune is slightly richer than before.

From these graphs i can see one tuner is tuning richer than the other, both achieving the same amount of Hp, but one with less torque. Take it as you will just something to think over.

Now I dont care who everyone thinks is better than the next cause i go to neither of them, im just pointing out what i can see.

Edited by Zenith

Isnt the torque reading actually tractive effort? Cause no way does it have 1400nm, otherwise every man and his dog would have a skyline as a tow car.

Once again not being sure, just an observation, but too rich can also cause damage, and is an unnessary waste of fuel, with prices as they are atm, Id want every extra km I could get.

Mattys tune is definately better. Most of it is what you cant see with just a WOT read out like that.

Isnt the torque reading actually tractive effort? Cause no way does it have 1400nm, otherwise every man and his dog would have a skyline as a tow car.

Once again not being sure, just an observation, but too rich can also cause damage, and is an unnessary waste of fuel, with prices as they are atm, Id want every extra km I could get.

Mattys tune is definately better. Most of it is what you cant see with just a WOT read out like that.

You have to divide that figure by the final drive ratio in this case 4.11..that will give you the real torque figure

I still stand by what i said... The peak torque is reached sooner and underless effort and on that basis im sure John has a better feeling when he brings the throttle on...

Also the air fuel ratio is a safer tune than before. It does not vary and is fairly flat. John suffered from black chuff's under load (un burnt fuel). I think you u ask him he is no longer suffering this problem.

Not to mention at the end of the day he achieved 4 more kw's from start to finish on matt's dyno. Yes all stars dyno had the same reading but the motec correction was different on both days...

Just to clear that up. The motec correction is there to help compensate air temp/humidity and air conditions in general to try and make the dyno read the same on any given day.

Motec correction can make a varience to kw and torque.

Not to mention at the end of the day he achieved 4 more kw's from start to finish on matt's dyno. Yes all stars dyno had the same reading but the motec correction was different on both days...

To clarify this. I went in on Matt Spry's dyno with 200kw's and came out with 204kw's.

To clarify this. I went in on Matt Spry's dyno with 200kw's and came out with 204kw's.

Also to clairfy you are happier with the tune right...???

Do you still have un burnt fuel spewing out under high revs or load...?

Do you have a smoother power band...?

Are you using less fuel...?

Also to clairfy you are happier with the tune right...???

Do you still have un burnt fuel spewing out under high revs or load...?

Do you have a smoother power band...?

Are you using less fuel...?

yes, more happier with the tune then with brisbane tuning.

no, no more smoke pooring out of the exhaust like i had with brisbane tuning.

yes, very smooth, can barely feel the instant take off at 3,500rpm like i did with brisbane tuning.

using alot less fuel. filled up $50 the other day and got just over 300k's. if i did a full take, would of got more k's then.

yes, more happier with the tune then with brisbane tuning.

no, no more smoke pooring out of the exhaust like i had with brisbane tuning.

yes, very smooth, can barely feel the instant take off at 3,500rpm like i did with brisbane tuning.

using alot less fuel. filled up $50 the other day and got just over 300k's. if i did a full tank, would of got more k's then.

Fair enough, I meerly pointed out what i could see from the graphs, nothing else.

Its all good...

I was just trying to make a point that the dyno graph does not really show the improvement to the cars performance in an over all aspect...

John has done really well with the tune performed by Matt and i experienced huge gains in fuel economy and responce. Power in my case was lower than we started but i also decreased knock by half so im running a safer tune with a bit more torque so over all it feels a hole lot better...

matt's overall goal as he told me is to usually make sure there isnt anymore then 30 to 40 knock's.

on a side note.... how often would it probably be recommended that matt tune the car?

i'm thinkin once every 3-4months or once every 5,000k's.

however, im leanin more towards the month period then the k's.

how much did it cost you for the tune? (approx)

i'm just thinking, bang-for-buck wise, that if i gained only 4rwkw and some smoothness, it would want to have cost less than $100

if i was going to drive down to the goldie and spend a day there, i would be expecting to come back with at least 15+rwkw...

just my opinion though. after all i'm a student, so bang-for-buck is always at the front of my mind...

Edited by WazR32GTSt

Well tuning is never all about power gain, the torque curve is important..it's always torque over power output fer me...its not abt getting there, it's about how u get there... :thumbsup:

And tuning is also about getting better fuel effiency, better AFRs, eliminating flatspots...and also getting the kindda setup u want fer yerself...

That is beauty of having an ECU running the car, the tune doesnt alter, spark plugs, filters and oil are the maintenance items that affect your tune, if they are changed on a regular basis its all good.

  • 2 weeks later...

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

    • it was good to see our presence at GTR festival..hope to see more SAU at these events 
    • This is awesome.     
    • Thanks for the quick replies guys its appreciated. A small extension was welded onto the standard 6boost external gate pipe which you can see where the pipe goes from black to stainless just below and to the right of the rear housing in the first picture. Overall I would say the flow is pretty good other than 6boosts choice to come straight off the collector at a decent angle.. Not sure why I went with two valves, I originally replaced the stock twin bovs with the GFB when I had the twins on. When I purchased the EFR it came with the Turbosmart Kompact BOV so I figured that would be a better option than the stock EFR Bov. I don't believe the Turbosmart BOV is adjustable? When I get the spike and then sudden dip in boost pressure, the turbo speed does drop as well. Stock head size wise however I believe it has Neo Turbo springs and a Neo Turbo intake camshaft and an aftermarket exhaust camshaft in the vicinity of 260 degrees. We didn't try a different MAC valve, we tried two different ways of plumbing it and we also tried removing the mac valve entirely and just having the boost source from the turbo directly connected to the wastegate and it still spiked / dropped and exhibited the same behaviour. Standard R33 GTR 5 speed tansmission. I'm running a Haltech Elite 2500 and can provide some logs if you. I understand what you're saying in that it looks like an auto plot however no, it's still a manual and it just has a lot of torque down low, for all intents and purposes it's a very impressive street car. I've attached a photo of the quickbitz dyno plot which was when the only difference is I was running -5 twin turbos with a mac valve. As you can see theres a decent dip in AFRs between 125kmh and 135kmh. Our problem now is not that the AFRs are dropping, just the boost pressure is dropping, however it is evident in the same RPM range of the map, coincidentally or not.
    • What transmission are you running?  It's a bit tricky with the scaling, but at face value the power "curve" looks more like a "line" which is a bit odd... basically a lot more like a dyno plot I'd expect with a highish (compared to a factory auto) stall torque converter type setup. If this is running an auto then this kind of boost control challenge is definitely a thing, the rpm scale on the dyno doesn't reflect what the engine is actually doing (unless the dyno has access to the engine's ACTUAL speed electronically) and what you'll get is a big rpm flare up as the engine torque launches past the converter pump's ability to resist torque at that rpm, then as the converter starts picking up rpm it will kinda even out again and the engine rpm will pick up more steadily. The trick with this "flare up" is if it's kinda near the boost threshold for the turbo then the engine's airflow requirements to maintain the previous boost level will outrun the turbo's ability to supply that boost - so you end up with a natural flattening off, if not dip when that happens.   If you are running closed loop, or even tune the "feed forward" wastegate duty cycle to deal with that rpm spike then when the engine starts settling to a more typical climb you'll actually have a situation where the gate is "too closed" and boost will run away for a bit, then have to pull down again.      It's not trivial to get this perfect as most boost control systems are generally expecting more predictable engine rpm rates of change, but if you *know* that's whats going on then you can at least "accept your fate" and realise getting that area perfect is kinda chasing your tail a bit, and assume that if the rest is working sensibly and the spike/dip isn't completely uncontrolled then you should be good. Sorry if I've gone off on a tangent, but the dyno plot and boost control behaviour look a LOT like what I've seen tuning autos in the past. What ECU are you running? Could possibly be convinced into looking at logs if I get too bored this weekend haha.
    • A few things that seem a bit off here. - why is there 2 BOV鈥檚?  - the turbo smart BOV on the compressor housing, is it turned up ALL the way? I have seen this become an issue on old man Pete鈥檚 car. It would push open and recirc, turbo speed would rise and the boost pressure would do weird things. - stock head? Does that include springs? - tried a different MAC valve? Is it plumbed correctly?
  • Create New...