Day Of Tuning With Mat

[NA_R33]

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...

[SirSkyline]

Well my car goes to Matty next Wednesday with a few problems that I hope he can find and fix them,(By sound of the comments here he will) I cant wait to drive it after 4 months of it sitting in a corner getting worked on

[Zenith]

  Col-GTSX said:

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 June 27, 2006 by Zenith

[dangerous_daveo]

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.

[Bunta]

  dangerous_daveo said:

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

[Col-GTSX]

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.

[Mr-Toy33]

  Col-GTSX said:

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.

[Col-GTSX]

  r33skyliner said:

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...?

[Mr-Toy33]

  Col-GTSX said:

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.

[Zenith]

  r33skyliner said:

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.

[Col-GTSX]

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...

[Mr-Toy33]

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.

[chrissso]

I took my newly soldered Jaycar DFA to him for tuning. He's very good, talks straight down the line, etc. He even diagnosed a dodgey fuel pump while I was there.

[Col-GTSX]

Tuning is only needed if you make major changes to the modifications of the car.

Its not a 3 times a year thing...

[Mr-Toy33]

ok awesome. next tune should be set for when the new cams and turbo go on then

[WazR32GTSt]

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 June 3, 2006 by WazR32GTSt

[J-Boy]

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...

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

[R33S2]

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.

[Spook's_Skyline]

off to see matt to see if he can fix my diabolical fuel consumption

[Col-GTSX]

  Spook said:

off to see matt to see if he can fix my diabolical fuel consumption

Pfffttt... i reckon 20 litres per 100 is pretty good...