Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Cant believe I could be f'ed doing this

http://www.djrperformance.com.au/dynographs.html

Very nicely inflated results there

and

oh look a Chassis dyno...not an engine brake

http://www.djrperformance.com.au/services.html

so

he was claiming rwkw's

  • 3 months later...

1989 Nissan Skyline R31 Silhouette

RB30E

GTS2 Extractors

3'' Straight Pipe

20 Degrees BTDC Ignition Timing

98 PULP

Scan_Pic0001.jpg

Also just going to mention that my car is over fueling and running extra rich so that would have taken some out of it.

  • 2 weeks later...

2007 V36 370GT VQ37HR 3.7L V6 5SPD AUTO

Modifications:

Cat-back exhaust pipes

Hi-flow panel filters

2011-09-17165602.jpg

Apparently car runs rich from factory, bit more power to squeeze out of it if I can lean of the a/f ratio a bit

Stock Power run done close to when I first got the car for reference:

2011-09-17165537.jpg

th_video-2011-09-17-11-49-21.jpg

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

+1

also love how the radiator hoses are put as a modification

I thought this thred was for dyno figures? apparently not.... Anyway, Ive only put down what was read out at the car show where the dyno run was done, And I thought the turbo r34 standard are 208kw and the gtr 280kw? From what I've read about a million times N/A RB25de neos do about 147kw standard?? is this wrong coz the thing will keep up with my mates boosted s14 no problem?

I thought this thred was for dyno figures? apparently not.... Anyway, Ive only put down what was read out at the car show where the dyno run was done, And I thought the turbo r34 standard are 208kw and the gtr 280kw? From what I've read about a million times N/A RB25de neos do about 147kw standard?? is this wrong coz the thing will keep up with my mates boosted s14 no problem?

both the r34 GT-t and the GTR are quoted as having 206kw at the flywheel (all factory quoted figures are at the flywheel) however the GTR actually puts out more power. and yes, the non turbo is 147kw (again, at the flywheel) which would work out to be about 150hp at the wheels

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

R31 Skyline Series III Ti

RB30E

Stock Motor Done Near 800,000K's - Runs A Little Off Beat

Runs a rusty old set of extractors with old stock exhaustand had 4.11 Diff ratio which was stuffed open wheeler "Just about to install 3.23 LSD"

New GTS1 Cam, Timing Kit, Plugs & Leads - Installed 6 Weeks Ago!

15" Ti Alloy mags

Does 10KPL Religiously & equates to almost 600K's Per tank

Am shortly contemplating in dumping the NA high comp motor that I've got with around 80,000K's on it and VLT auto trans that's only done a few hundred K's along with Hi-tech headers "Stainless" and 2-1/2" sports exhaust. WIll be interested in seeing if the figures change much along with the 3.23:1 LSD installed.

  • 2 weeks later...

Just got my v35 350gt8 a week ago. runs 200kw at flywheel stock. Waiting on a few parts to turn up.

Used to have a na b18c type r powered crx with a few bits here and there running high 12s low 13s.

bout 180fwkw

Gonna try and beat that with the extra na displacement.

  • 1 month 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

    • 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...