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

    • Well, after the full circus this week (new gearbag, 14 psi actuator on, injectors and AFM upgraded, and.....turbo repair) the diagnosis on the wastegate is in. It was broken. It was broken in a really strange way. The weld that holds the lever arm onto the wastegate flapper shaft broke. Broke completely, but broke in such a way that it could go back together in the "correct" position, or it could rearrange itself somewhere else along the fracture plane and sit with the flapper not parallel to the lever. So, who knows how and when exactly what happened? No-one will ever know. Was it broken like this the first time it spat the circlip and wedged itself deep into the dump? Or was it only broken when I tried to pry it back into place? (I didn't try that hard, but who knows?). Or did it break first? Or did it break between the first and second event of wierdness? Meh. It doesn't matter now. It is welded back together. And it is now held closed by a 14 psi actuator, so...the car has been tuned with the supporting mods (and the order of operations there is that the supporting mods and dyno needed to be able to be done first before adding boost, because it was pinging on <<14 psi with the new turbo with only a 6 psi actuator). And then tuned up a bit, and with the boost controller turned off throughout that process. So it was only running WG pressure and so only hit about 15-16 psi. The turbo is still ever so slightly lazier than might be preferred - like it is still a bit on the big side for the engine. I haven't tested it on the road properly in any way - just driven it around in traffic for a half hour or so. But it is like chalk and cheese compared to what it was. Between dyno numbers and driving feedback: It makes 100 kW at 3k rpm, which is OK, could be better. That's stock 2JZ territory, or RB20 with G series 550. It actually starts building boost from 2k, which is certainly better than it did recently (with all the WG flapper bullshit). Although it's hard to remember what it was like prior to all that - it certainly seems much, much better. And that makes sense, given the WG was probably starting to blow open at anything above about 3 psi anyway (with the 6 psi actuator). It doesn't really get to "full boost" (say 16 psi) until >>4k rpm. I am hopeful that this is a feature of the lack of boost controller keeping boost pressure off the actuator, because it was turned off for the dyno and off for the drives afterward. There's more to be found here, I'm sure. It made 230 rwkW at not a lot more than 6k and held it to over 7k, so there seems to be plenty of potential to get it up to 250-260rwkW with 18 psi or so, which would be a decent effort, considering the stock sized turbo inlet pipework and AFM, and the return flow cooler. According to Tao, those things should definitely put a bit of a limit on it by that sort of number. I must stress that I have not opened the throttle 100% on the road yet - well, at least not 100% and allowed it to wind all the way up. It'll have to wait until some reasonable opportunity. I'm quite looking forward to that - it feels massively better than it has in a loooong time. It's back to its old self, plus about 20% extra powers over the best it ever did before. I'm going to get the boost controller set up to maximise spool and settle at no more than ~17 psi (for now) and then go back on the dyno to see what we can squeeze out of it. There is other interesting news too. I put together a replacement tube to fit the R35 AFM in the stock location. This is the first time the tuner has worked with one, because anyone else he has tuned for has gone from Z32 territory to aftermarket ECU. No-one has ever wanted to stay Nistuned and do what I've done. Anyway, his feedback is that the R35 AFM is super super super responsive. Tiny little changes in throttle position or load turn up immediately as a cell change on the maps. Way, way more responsive than any of the old skool AFMs. Makes it quite diffifult to tune as you have to stay right on top of that so you don't wander off the cell you wanted to tune. But it certainly seems to help with real world throttle response. That's hard to separate from all the other things that changed, but the "pedal feel" is certainly crisp.
    • I'm a bit confused by this post, so I'll address the bit I understand lol.  Use an air compressor and blow away the guide coat sanding residue. All the better if you have a moisture trap for your compressor. You'd want to do this a few times as you sand the area, you wouldn't for example sand the entire area till you think its perfect and then 'confirm' that is it by blowing away the guide coat residue.  Sand the area, blow away the guide coat residue, inspect the panel, back to sanding... rinse and repeat. 
    • The detail level is about right for the money they charge for the full kit... AU$21.00 each issue, 110 issues for a total of $2,300 (I mentioned $2.2K in the first post when the exchange rate was better). $20/week is doable... 馃槓
    • If planning on joining us for the day(s) please indicate by filling in this form. https://forms.gle/Ma8Nn4DzYVA8uDHg7
    • You put the driver's seat on the wrong side! Incredible detail on all of this. It looks like you could learn a lot about the car just from assembling the kit.
  • Create New...