Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey I have got a PFC and around 240rwkw... and my car uses a fair amount of petrol, when i am fanging it periodically fuel effiency can drop down to around 18L/100km and general town driving would see me get aroudn 14L/100km driving smoothly...

When i accelerate hard i can expect a moderate sized cloud of black smoke trailling behind me do to the car (r33gtst) tuned to run rich....

My question is why is it that there is a perception that the car should be tuned to run rich to the point where smoke comes out of the exhaust...?

I have seen porcche's and ferrari's launch off the mark and go for a good fanging without leaving a trail of smoke....

Is it just that i have a bad tune? or is it necesarry to run my car this rich?

your thoughts?

if you are getting unburnt fuel coming out the exhaust then it is running rich. it should be tuned so that the afr's are around the 11.8 to 12.0:1 range. easiest way to see what its like is to stick it on a dyno and see what the afr's are like.

if you are getting unburnt fuel coming out the exhaust then it is running rich. it should be tuned so that the afr's are around the 11.8 to 12.0:1 range. easiest way to see what its like is to stick it on a dyno and see what the afr's are like.

They are at that range.... however i still get a fair bit off black smoke coming from the exhaust

I have seen porcche's and ferrari's launch off the mark and go for a good fanging without leaving a trail of smoke....

I've seen exotics running rich on occasion too.

gotta burn fuel to make power, stoichiometric is 14.7:1 so even at 12:1 you are putting more fuel in than can be completely burnt. unless it's excessively rich i would not worry.

My car is tuned rich (CRD) and when I was getting my new cat-back exhaust fitted yesterday the bloke said that normally when he pulls off an exhaust they have about 1-2mm of black crap lining the insides where as mine has 3-4mm which he said was 'too' rich.

It does blow plenty of black crap when I give it a belting which does become expensive but then I read threads of engines blowing up due to bad tuning and I sorta forget all about my engine running so rich.

Is it really blowing that much smoke? If its

I see in the headlights of a car behind a hase of smoke that one could consider a cloud. On the dyno and my other half strapping it past from the side of the road there is zero smoke.

How long has it been since your tuner calibrated his o2 sensor?

  • 3 months later...

Accel pump settings are set high on a PFC. The setting is in Milliseconds, so if you change to a larger injector they will be way to big making the problem worse. And "no" the accel pump settings are not scaled when you change the injector size settings in the PFC.

This setting can give you the big puff of smoke when you first accelerate and cover the back of your car with black crap.

This puff should clear quickly to no smoke on gentle acceleration providing the rest of the tune is good.

Mike

Accel pump settings are set high on a PFC. The setting is in Milliseconds, so if you change to a larger injector they will be way to big making the problem worse. And "no" the accel pump settings are not scaled when you change the injector size settings in the PFC.

This setting can give you the big puff of smoke when you first accelerate and cover the back of your car with black crap.

This puff should clear quickly to no smoke on gentle acceleration providing the rest of the tune is good.

Mike

I tend to agree with this.. I've pulled dialed mine back a little past ~1/2 of the std value and still haven't experienced any drivability issues.

Just remember that TOO rich slowly glazes shit up and = death eventually. You need to find that comfortable medium.

My car is running a Wolf and off boost is an absolute dream on fuel (500km to a tank city driving), on boost it uses more, blows a bit of black smoke but nothing exessive and pulls hard, back off boost, comes back to good fuel economy. Its making 274.8rwhp too out of a fairly stock RB20DET (exhaust, Wolf, RB25 turbo and fmic) and the car is happy as.

Hey I have got a PFC and around 240rwkw... and my car uses a fair amount of petrol, when i am fanging it periodically fuel effiency can drop down to around 18L/100km and general town driving would see me get aroudn 14L/100km driving smoothly...

When i accelerate hard i can expect a moderate sized cloud of black smoke trailling behind me do to the car (r33gtst) tuned to run rich....

your thoughts?

strange u get better fuel econemy running it harder, than putting around, my car is total opposite. a little black smoke is normal from a highly boosted engine, as where then it would be practical to run it a little richer.

My question is why is it that there is a perception that the car should be tuned to run rich to the point where smoke comes out of the exhaust...?

seems hes running it richer, so it doesnt lean out up top. leaning out is bad , but of course running rich alot is bad also, over time, it will wear out ur rings.

Is it just that i have a bad tune? or is it necesarry to run my car this rich?

maybe try a new tuner. should be able to rectify that with ur PFC i would imagine.. just gotta find someone who knows how to tune the pfc properly.

I tend to agree with this.. I've pulled dialed mine back a little past ~1/2 of the std value and still haven't experienced any drivability issues.

Well I have 700CC injectors and dialled my Accel pump setting to 1.5ms at 1000rpm down to 1ms at 3&4000rpm, much better and no black puff or cloud when I drive away. The setting is best felt by the driver on the road of course but with only gentle acceleration. The bit you're feeling for is the very initial push as you just open the throttle. Slaaming the throttle open especially at rpm under 3000 allows you to feel no change regardless of setting.

Zero them out and gradually increase them and you will see what I mean.

Mike

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...