Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

warpz0r, my understanding is passing emissions does not necessarily mean absolute best fuel economy (hence your lean comment).

Ign and afr's affect the levels of different gas the motor expels.

It must be tuned correctly; and emissions test is not done on boost, so plug in the stock ecu and pass that emissions test. :dry:

Thats my limited understanding. :)

I haven't actually seen the ecu thread on calaisturbo.

The RB30DET actually runs fine behind an rb25det ecu, on boost afr's are quite nice and it simply just runs.

Providing the motor has been setup with factory like squish/quench there 'shouldn't' be an issue passing emissions on the stock ecu.

The Rb20DET ecu however struggles as its airflow map has not been designed to see anywhere near the airflow levels the 3ltr pushes at low rev's. as a result it fuel cuts very early in the piece with only 6-7psi on a stock rb20det turbo.

Then there's the cost of an emissions test.. So as Nismoid put it.. not feasible/possible :D

EDIT: I'm having a read of the ecu thread now.

http://www.calaisturbo.com.au/showthread.p...t=ecu+emissions

in NSW the emissions test is free...

so hyperthetically speaking - having my rb30det emissions tested using a rb25det ecu with stock injectors and my current turbo (hiflow) boost limited to a lower psi should get within an acceptable range providing i switch injectors to stock and maybe put a brand new cat converter in place?

in NSW the emissions test is free...

so hyperthetically speaking - having my rb30det emissions tested using a rb25det ecu with stock injectors and my current turbo (hiflow) boost limited to a lower psi should get within an acceptable range providing i switch injectors to stock and maybe put a brand new cat converter in place?

What about the fact that you have 0.5 L more capacity - it will be lean which increase HC which increases the chance of failing.

Why would it be lean?

Airflow is relative, it sucks x volts through the afm it drops in y amount of fuel.

On the stock ecu my afr's on cruise and light throttle etc were all perfect, on boost as I said prior it would fuel cut.

Another bloke in the early days of rb30det conversions simply dropped a rb30 bottom end under his r33 rb25det head, all still with stock inj, ecu, turbo etc.. AFR's were all good. Ran fine and with a slight increase in cas ign. timing it made close to 200rwkw, same as the rb25 he had prior just with a lot more area under the curve.

have noticed that lean ups the ratio of another gas .. cant remember which one..

this will sound bad, but to pass a CA18 in a sprinter we had a copper pipe attached from the turbo outlet pipe, onto the exhaust pipe..

so it basically pumped fresh air into the exhaust ready for them to read :D

i gues that would suffice if your desperate... just know how much Moanie on teh forums had to go through with Hitman to retune the car over and over to get it to pass and that was on a 240rwkw RB25

Why would it be lean?

Airflow is relative, it sucks x volts through the afm it drops in y amount of fuel.

On the stock ecu my afr's on cruise and light throttle etc were all perfect, on boost as I said prior it would fuel cut.

Another bloke in the early days of rb30det conversions simply dropped a rb30 bottom end under his r33 rb25det head, all still with stock inj, ecu, turbo etc.. AFR's were all good. Ran fine and with a slight increase in cas ign. timing it made close to 200rwkw, same as the rb25 he had prior just with a lot more area under the curve.

Really there was no jerky ness or drivability issues - its more to do with throttle enrichment as its based on TPS enrichment not airflow, also cranking fuel as its pulse width vs ECT.

No jerkyness, no dead spots nothing just smoot, like factory. it was all perfect.. Mine was on the rb20det pfc and this other dudes was on the r33 ecu. mr_rbman also ran his in on the stock rb20 ecu. Ran started and drove fine.

Prior even with the rb20det I had a cold start issue that too carried over to the rb30det where it would fire then stumble. The only fix was the pfc. I would have most definitely noticed any drivability issues as I ran the stock ecu on it for 10,000km's.

I've got vids of it driving.. Nice and smooth, if anything it felt as if it was punchier off idle with the stock ecu vs the pfc.

No jerkyness nothing smooth.. it was all perfect.. Mine was on the rb20det pfc and this other dudes was on the r33 ecu.

mr_rbman also ran his in on the stock rb20 ecu. Ran started and drove fine.

Prior even with the rb20det I had a cold start issue that too carried over to the rb30det where it would fire then stumble. The only fix was the pfc.

I've got vids of it driving.. Nice and smooth, if anything it felt as if it was punchier off idle with the stock ecu vs the pfc.

Fair enough - I've got to admit though I do almost halve throttle enrichment in both the PFC and standard ECU, but not in all cases.

Its a good discussion though as I will be trying to pass my rb30/26 with the standard ECU retuned by me.

Edited by rob82

yes the pfc does tend to run quite rich throttle enrichment, unsure on the stock ecu. But as you say if you pull nearly half then there must be a little head room where it just happens to work ok with the rb30det.

Care to share what values you found to be near optimal with the pfc? :D

Off the base pfc values mines running a tad less than std. But I still think it may be a tad rich, haven't really had much of a fiddle with accel enrichment as of yet.

yes the pfc does tend to run quite rich throttle enrichment, unsure on the stock ecu. But as you say if you pull nearly half then there must be a little head room where it just happens to work ok with the rb30det.

Care to share what values you found to be near optimal with the pfc? :D

Off the base pfc values mines running a tad less than std. But I still think it may be a tad rich, haven't really had much of a fiddle with accel enrichment as of yet.

Just as a guideline enlearn it until it drives shitty. It's different with different mods - injectors, airflow meter plenum size and so forth.

Any quick tips on how I should do this as there's the amount and decay value. I simply pulled out a little decay, made no difference to feel. :S

No pull the pulsewidth value out - the decay you need to have a drive and a feel and watch your mixtures with a wideband. The decay is mainly used to enrich for the time it takes the manifolds volume/ pressure to stabalise. So for a properly mapped system the mixtures wont change with any amount of throttle disturbance.

Sure you could tune it to meet an emmision standard, but what one, one from 10years ago?

It wouldn't go anywhere near meeting current emmisions standards for manufactured vehicles.

They had to build newer NEO engines for a reason and drop the SR20 altogether.

About all you can do is use a good 3way catalyst, set your ecu up for closed loop control to target a 14.7:1 AFR when cruising and enjoy reduced fuel usage and cleaner emmisions during this period when the engine is warm and knowing that your car would pass an emmision test for cars from 1986 that only required closed loop and a cat.

Better then not doing anything, but in reality a few modified cars contribute bugger all to greenhouse gas when compared to industry and coal powered power plants.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...