Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Nope.

I've never seen someone "average" runs and print that out.

Not saying its not possible... But your run is all over the place which is basically a poor tune

I have. Doesn't mean that this is relevant here though. Sorry to have introduced a possble furphy to the thread.

Mate; my friend's R34GTT in AUTO with nothing but a Std ECU ran 194rwkw and the curve was A LOT smoother than yours :)

Glad that my immediate reaction from seeing your graph is shared by a few others.

You have a PFC; your graph should be smooth as all hell!

Hmmm... so should i perhaps bring it back to the tuner and tell him to smooth the curve our & drop the boost a lil... how do they smooth it out just out of curiosity? Also why do u guys think that the boost is dropping off towards the top end, could this be turbo inefficiency?

Bass Junky, i didnt think that the lower 2nd graph could be a reading of torque coz if i converted the figures in LbFt to Nm i'd have a peak torque of 1550Nm. Altho that would be nice if it were only true.....

Thanks for all ur comments/advice btw...

G-Force.

Normally on a dyno graph you are interested in four things.

Power either kW or hP at the wheels

Torque either ft/lbs or nm at the wheels

Boost in either PSI or Bar

AFR only in Air : Fuel

don't worry too much about the numbers of the torque as you have to remember that you are going through a gearbox and rear diff which changes the ratio and stuff of the torque.

It's only a measure, not really an exact number, and at the end of the day, Power is simply a measure of Torque over time.

Bass Out

G-Force.

Normally on a dyno graph you are interested in four things.

Power either kW or hP at the wheels

Torque either ft/lbs or nm at the wheels

Boost in either PSI or Bar

AFR only in Air : Fuel

don't worry too much about the numbers of the torque as you have to remember that you are going through a gearbox and rear diff which changes the ratio and stuff of the torque.

It's only a measure, not really an exact number, and at the end of the day, Power is simply a measure of Torque over time.

Bass Out

Dont they normally do the dyno run in 4th gear which is close to a 1:1 ratio? Correct me if im wrong, im no dyno expert. Im just interested in wot that 2nd graph was reading thats all.

Back to the more important question. Should i perhaps bring it back to the tuner and tell him to smooth the curve our & drop the boost a lil... how do they smooth it out just out of curiosity? Also why do u guys think that the boost is dropping off towards the top end, could this be turbo inefficiency at 14psi?

Cheers

Remember your diff is about 4.11:1 hence, massively inflated torque.

Drop boost a little. I made 200rwkw on 11 psi and you've seen my graph, it's nice.

the boost is dropping off because your turbo aint got no more to give.

Remember your diff is about 4.11:1 hence, massively inflated torque.

Drop boost a little. I made 200rwkw on 11 psi and you've seen my graph, it's nice.

the boost is dropping off because your turbo aint got no more to give.

Aha.

Wot mods r u running in urs Bass? Ive been looking thru numerous other dyno graphs on the forum, it does look like mine's rough as hell in comparison.

If i brought the boost back to round 12psi would i still be able to achieve close to the same power figure? I'll give my tuner a ring today and see wot he's got to say. Wot should i say to him to smooth out the power curve? Is it a matter of correcting MAP figures?

When I was making 200 I had FMIC, Dump pipe back exhaust (not turbo back) Power FC, PFC Boost kit, and that's about it.

The roughness of the tune will be a combination of AFR and Timing.

That's basically what a tune is. How much fuel, and how much timing at different load points. Load points are supplied by the MAF sensor.

The AFR is rough as guts and I reckon the ignition timing is going to be all over the place.

Here's what I'd do.

Go into your PFC hand controller and write down the ignition timing and fuel map.

So get an Excel spreadsheet and put 1 thru 20 on the top and 1 thru 20 down the side.

Going in the ingition timing map and write it down number for number.

Same with Fuel.

Then punch those numbers into the spreadsheet and graph it 3D.

the progressions and gaps between numbers should be smooth and clean.

Not big jumps up and then down.

Try it out.

You'll learn a lot about tune maps.

Oh yeah, and the turbo doesn't make any more power at 14 psi than it does at 12 psi as its out of it's efficiency up top.

You'll make a little bit more in the mid range, but you'll overspeed the turbo and it's a recipe for busting 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

    • 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...