Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Everybody else" still seems to be Birnie and myself.

I haven't changed any of the corrections, and it's still running just fine.

In the absence of information from any of the experts regarding what latency or lag time actually is, it seems that it is not a critical figure. The correction for flow rates, is.

hah, yeah that's right Dale ! :)

.....although Ben has joined the club too

Just check my settings as i forgot all about it since being tuned by The Hitman,

He has em setup as 72.0 % and +0.10 Latency?? Go figure.

As far as the 72% goes, i guess his full tune would be applied to that setting so i wouldn't advise using that as a temporary figure to get to the tuners......stick with the 82.5..it's a proven working setting, then let the tuner do whatever they want.

PS...The Hitman RULZ !

Any upadate on the latency for the S15 injectors? Is -0.06 the setting everyone else is still using?

Getting my tune tomorrow.

444cc and 0.5 as i posted only a page ago :)

I used the below and put in +0.06 as calculated. Also used the 82.5%. Tune done at MRC Castle Hill. Got a nice 247.4rwkw (18psi peak trailing back to 16psi).

Tough to test in the wet though. Spins from 4000up.

Good tune at a reasonable price.

Thanks Birnie and Dale.

How do I configure larger injectors?

Configuring larger injectors into the PowerFC is quiet simple and takes only a few moments. You need to know the following information before you can continue

Current injector size

Current injector latency

New injector Size

New injector Lag time

Injector Size and Latency (standard units)

Unit Size Latency

RB26 444cc/min 0.772msec

RB25 370cc/min 0.528msec

SR20 (Jap Spec Manual) 448cc/min 0.584msec

Nismo 480cc 480cc/min 1.100msec

Rx7 550cc 550cc/min 0.730msec

Aftermarket New Units 600cc/min 0.810msec

To work out new INJECTOR correction and latency;

Old SIZE / New Size = Correction

New Latency - Old Latency = Latency Correction

John plans to install 600cc injectors into his RB26 VL Turbo. The following figure's are used;

444 / 600 = 0.74 * 100 = 74.0%

0.81 - 0.77 = +0.04 msec

So he would enter 74% for correction and 0.04 as new latency

Once you have switched to larger injectors you should still check your AFR's with a wideband to ensure they are safe and acceptable.

For a list of common OEM injectors and their settings try here;

Injector Chart - Side Feed OEM

Injector Chart - Top Feed OEM

i forgot to ask. When I plug the Hand controller in again (and when it's dry :P) Ill do a few 2nd gear to redline pulls and check the peak.

He didn't say that they were close to maxing out but I reckon they wouldnt have much left.

Edited by benl1981
i forgot to ask. When I plug the Hand controller in again (and when it's dry :P) Ill do a few 2nd gear to redline pulls and check the peak.

He didn't say that they were close to maxing out but I reckon they wouldnt have much left.

best to check duty in higher gears. 2nd doesnt have enough load.

  • 8 months later...

I thought I'd crunch some numbers about RB25DET injectors and larger direct fit replacements to put y'all in the picture .

Std - 370cc , S15 T manual - 450cc , Nizmo 555 and 740cc .

If you divide the std 370 by 450 555 and 740 you get 0.82 , 0.66 , 0.50 .

So I guess this means the S15 Terracotta coloured ones are ~ 18% larger , 555's are 33% larger , 740's are 50% larger .

I ended up buying new Nismo 555's from a member here which I reckon would be fine for my power requirements using PULP , trouble is if you ever decide to use high ethanol fuel blends such as E85 (if it becomes readily available) you need injectors approx 33% larger than you would with PULP to maintain chemically correct AFR's for E85 .

Where that leaves me is line ball (555's vs 370's and PULP vs E85) so in hindsight if I knew then what I know now I would have bought Nismo 740cc injectors .

Nismoid uses/used 740cc Nismo's I believe in an RB25 and had no issues at idle or light loads - on PULP ?

Cheers A .

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...