Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

as have been said, not a good idea.

some of the variables are-

different intercoolers flowing different amounts,

some fuel pumps are lazier than others

dirty airflow meters

lazy/dirty injectors

different motors having slightly different compression (due to wear)

just to new a few.

ok so we know not to copy but ide like to know other peoples settings just out of interest

well ill start my correction begins at 3500 and is pretty even increase till 5000 which has a correction of 10 then correction is 11 from 6000 onwards this is just from memory cant exactly remember the exact values at each load point

mods 11psi, fmic ,3in zorst ,camgear-3, pod+cai.

208.8rwkw

Mods

------

HKS Pod Filter

HKS Cat Back Exhaust

HKS EVC 5 boost controller @ 10 psi

Greddy Type R Blow Off Valve

Apexi SAFC-II

600x300x76 Autobahn88 Intercooler + fitting

Sard Fuel Pressure Regulator

Walbro 500hp Fuel Pump

This is mine

RPM Correction

4000 0%

4600 -1%

5200 -6%

5800 -10%

6400 -10%

7000 -10%

7600 -11%

Mods

------

HKS Pod Filter

HKS Cat Back Exhaust

HKS EVC 5 boost controller @ 10 psi

Greddy Type R Blow Off Valve

Apexi SAFC-II

600x300x76 Autobahn88 Intercooler + fitting

Sard Fuel Pressure Regulator

Walbro 500hp Fuel Pump

This is mine

RPM Correction

4000 0%

4600 -1%

5200 -6%

5800 -10%

6400 -10%

7000 -10%

7600 -11%

hey does that mean they only used 6 load points??? they did the same thing with my car, i dont think may shops know how to or dont bother to bunch up the load point so you have all 12 where you need them and not where you dont ie, load points sitting ther doing noting where correction is zero

Edited by otto
hey does that mean they only used 6 load points??? they did the same thing with my car, i dont think may shops know how to or dont bother to bunch up the load point so you have all 12 where you need them and not where you dont ie, load points sitting ther doing noting where correction is zero

from 4000rpm onwards was where is was getting way rich thats y they only corrected that area.

i dont know a lot about the safc myself i may get it tuned again at a later date at a place that knows the safc inside out.

because there is so much more you can do with it.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...