Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Looking at some of those bull’s eyes it may indicate you need a bit of bodywork or at least a high fill primer.

Did you say you are doing it all by hand?

It can be hard not to get rub marks in the car if you are doing it all by hand, can you at least get a block, or better still an oscillating orbital sander (air tool) to do the majority of the work. You will need to finish it off by hand, but to do the whole lot by hand is a big job.

PS any little imperfection will look 10 times worse with a coat of paint on it. Before you paint it get someone with a good eye to go over it and highlight the bits that need more work.

The first time I painted a car my preparation wasn’t good enough (after a week of work) and the car looked almost as bad with the new coat of paint on it.

hey guy,

thanks for the advice. yeah the bull's eye are obviously dents in the fenders. im using a block and all by hand. Its a big job but i dont have the necessary orbitor equipment so im just going to have to do without it. Im ust concentrating on the sanding atm and then will fill up the dents prior to applying the primer. I aint rushing it so should hopefully be ok.

Looking at some of those bull’s eyes it may indicate you need a bit of bodywork or at least a high fill primer.

Did you say you are doing it all by hand?

It can be hard not to get rub marks in the car if you are doing it all by hand, can you at least get a block, or better still an oscillating orbital sander (air tool) to do the majority of the work. You will need to finish it off by hand, but to do the whole lot by hand is a big job.

PS any little imperfection will look 10 times worse with a coat of paint on it. Before you paint it get someone with a good eye to go over it and highlight the bits that need more work.

The first time I painted a car my preparation wasn’t good enough (after a week of work) and the car looked almost as bad with the new coat of paint on it.

:werd:

Heya Sleeper, do you have some spare time in the next month to come down to morepower and get my turbo high flowed? Would be good to show them that I want the same service you recieved for the same price etc.

no problem. :Pimp2:

I have a week of from the 9th to the 17th :uh-huh:

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...