Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well done Andrew. This is going to be very interesting to see what it produces, and more importantly - how it delivers.

Presumably running the cast HKS manifold, what size gate are you going to use?

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Dale

It has the standard HKS gate for the cast manifold with the divided port feeding it. I am not sure what size it is.

Slight hiccup this morning getting the oil pickup sorted on the engine so it might be delayed a bit unless something simple works.

It will fit in fine since there is already another GT30 turbo on there now. The engine mounts needed to be trimmed a whisker but otherwise it goes on fine.

The oil pickup has been modified successfully so only an hour or so wasted.

It looks like it will be Monday at the earliest that it will be fitted now.

standard hks gate is 38mm on the cast low mounts.

very interested to see how it goes. i have the larger 1.06 T4 ATP housing with the same manifold but havent had a chance to get it on the dyno yet. Atleast fitment should be a little easier with the T3 housing.

i have the larger 1.06 T4 ATP housing with the same manifold but havent had a chance to get it on the dyno yet.

And things get more interesting. Do you have the exact same turbo, just with a larger turbine housing? Engine spec?

These two are going to be worth watching.

56T 3076, used to have the .82 IW housing on the standard manifold but swapped it for a T4 1.06 T/S ATP housing and hks cast low mount last year, at the same time as going to a 30det. motor is a standard 25/30 with the usual shit. havent driven it much with this turbo setup due to other engine issues but it made noticeably more power than the old setup. hard to compare spool times when so much was changed at the same time but the 1.06 housing wasnt noticeably laggy and it made great torque everywhere, loved timing a lot more than the old setup aswell.

it'll be a long time before that happens, having some engine troubles and havent found any motivation to touch it for a few months now....

Edited by JonnoHR31

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...