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

    • As discussed in the previous post, the bushes in the 110 needed replacing. I took this opportunity to replace the castor bushes, the front lower control arm, lower the car and get the alignment dialled in with new tyres. I took it down to Alignment Motorsports on the GC to get this work done and also get more out of the Shockworks as I felt like I wasn't getting the full use out of them.  To cut a very long story short, it ended up being the case the passenger side castor arm wouldn't accept the brand new bush as the sleeve had worn badly enough to the point you could push the new bush in by hand and completely through. Trying a pair of TRD bushes didn't fix the issue either (I had originally gone with Hardrace bushes). We needed to urgently source another castor arm, and thankfully this was sourced and the guys at the shop worked on my car until 7pm on a Saturday to get everything done. The car rides a lot nicer now with the suspension dialled in properly. Lowered the car a little as well to suit the lower profile front tyres, and just bring the car down generally. Eternally thankful for the guys down at the shop to get the car sorted, we both pulled big favours from our contacts to get it done on the Saturday.  Also plugged in the new Stedi foglights into the S15, and even from a quick test in the garage I'm keen to see how they look out on the road. I had some concerns about the length of the LED body and whether it'd fit in the foglight housing but it's fine.  I've got a small window coming up next month where I'll likely get a little paint work done on the 110 to remove the rear wing, add a boot wing and roof wing, get the side skirt fixed up and colour match the little panel on the tail lights so that I can install some badges that I've kept in storage. I'm also tempted to put in a new pair of headlights on the 110.  Until then, here's some more pictures from Easter this year. 
    • I would put a fuel pressure gauge between the filter and the fuel rail, see if it's maintaining good fuel pressure at idle going up to the point when it stalls. Do you see any strange behavior in commanded fuel leading up to the point when it stalls? You might have to start going through the service manual and doing a long list of sensor tests if it's not the fuel system for whatever reason.
    • Hi,  Just joined the forum so I could share my "fix" of this problem. Might be of use to someone. Had the same hunting at idle issue on my V36 with VQ35HR engine after swapping the engine because the original one got overheated.  While changing the engine I made the mistake of cleaning the throttle bodies and tried all the tricks i could find to do a throttle relearn with no luck. Gave in and took it to a shop and they couldn't sort it. Then took it to my local Nissan dealership and they couldn't get it to idle properly. They said I'd need to replace the throttle bodies and the ecu probably costing more than the car is worth. So I had the idea of replacing the carbon I cleaned out with a thin layer of super glue and it's back to normal idle now. Bit rough but saved the car from the wreckers 🤣
    • After my last update, I went ahead with cleaning and restoring the entire fuel system. This included removing the tank and cleaning it with the Beyond Balistics solution, power washing it multiple times, drying it thoroughly, rinsing with IPA, drying again with heat gun and compressed air. Also, cleaning out the lines, fuel rail, and replacing the fuel pump with an OEM-style one. During the cleaning process, I replaced several hoses - including the breather hose on the fuel tank, which turned out to be the cause of the earlier fuel leak. This is what the old fuel filter looked like: Fuel tank before cleaning: Dirty Fuel Tank.mp4   Fuel tank after cleaning (some staining remains): Clean Fuel Tank.mp4 Both the OEM 270cc and new DeatschWerks 550cc injectors were cleaned professionally by a shop. Before reassembling everything, I tested the fuel flow by running the pump output into a container at the fuel filter location - flow looked good. I then fitted the new fuel filter and reassembled the rest of the system. Fuel Flow Test.mp4 Test 1 - 550cc injectors Ran the new fuel pump with its supplied diagonal strainer (different from OEM’s flat strainer) and my 550cc injectors using the same resized-injector map I had successfully used before. At first, it idled roughly and stalled when I applied throttle. Checked the spark plugs and found that they were fouled with carbon (likely from the earlier overly rich running when the injectors were clogged). After cleaning the plugs, the car started fine. However, it would only idle for 30–60 seconds before stalling, and while driving it would feel like a “fuel cut” after a few seconds - though it wouldn’t fully stall. Test 2 – Strainer swap Suspecting the diagonal strainer might not be reaching the tank bottom, I swapped it for the original flat strainer and filled the tank with ~45L of fuel. The issue persisted exactly the same. Test 3 – OEM injectors To eliminate tuning variables, I reinstalled the OEM 270cc injectors and reverted to the original map. Cleaned the spark plugs again just in-case. The stalling and “fuel cut” still remained.   At this stage, I suspect an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, caused during the cleaning process. This has led me to look into getting Frenchy’s fuel hanger and replacing the unit entirely. TL;DR: Cleaned and restored the fuel system (tank, lines, rail, pump). Tested 550cc injectors with the same resized-injector map as before, but the car stalls at idle and experiences what feels like “fuel cut” after a few seconds of driving. Swapped back to OEM injectors with original map to rule out tuning, but the issue persists. Now suspecting an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, possibly cause by the cleaning process.  
×
×
  • Create New...