Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yes but 300rwkw on an rb25 is different to 300rwkw on an rb30

it will flow different amounts of airflow for a given RPM

and i believe he was using ap eng RB20 which i think possibly the airflow ramps were a bit of out spec, ie: in the newer 5.10 RB25 PFC i think the ramps are bit better

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yes but 300rwkw on an rb25 is different to 300rwkw on an rb30

it will flow different amounts of airflow for a given RPM

they may flow different amounts throughout the rev range, but if peak power is the same and if it doesnt max out on one, it wont on the other either.

Edited by mokompri

I was running it off the rb20 base map to start, then we flashed the pfc over to the rb25 base settings (which work better) and we had a play with the datalogit adjusting :

the numbers in the voltage ramp which are visible in datalogit, fc pro and power excel only control how it is placed on the load map, that is it wont control when it hits 5.1v but more determine where certain voltages hit the load axis.

as well as something else to get the load points down to a tunable resolution.

dont ask me specifics, i just pay fer the tunes :P Cubes may remember exactly what we did...

they may flow different amounts throughout the rev range, but if peak power is the same and if it doesnt max out on one, it wont on the other either.

In my expierence's with the Q45 (one that works) I've tuned 2 different RB25's with 2 different turbo's same Q45 AFM... Sorry didnt look at the number on it.

Engine 1: rebuilt engine, GT3540 turbo - running 30psi making 500rwhp maxing AFM 5.1vlts @ 5000rpm - engine was reving to 8k - peak power was made at 7500rpm

Engine 2: stock engine, HKS 3037s turbo - running 25psi making 430rwhp maxing AFM 5.1vlts @ 5500rpm - reving to 7k peak power made at 7k

We did not check these AFM with a multi-meter to see for sure that they were maxing out, these readings were from the apexi PFC.

The cars drove fine etc, had no troubles with tuning the AFR's

I know boost pressure does not = air flow through the meter.

The z32 is a much better afm for tuning the only thing you could do is to put it into a bigger 90mm pipe.

Doesnt a z32 have enough resolution for 300rwkws?

:S

369rwkw/24psi on my ole RB25 & Z32

peak power the same for both motors, wont mean the same airflow for both motors (if different capacities) if im not mistaken

peak power the same for both motors, wont mean the same airflow for both motors (if different capacities) if im not mistaken

power is determined by how much fuel and oxygen is burnt ie mass of fuel and mass of oxygen/air

afm measures *mass* of air, so regardless of engine capacities a 2L and 3L both producing 100kw at whatever rpm, are both consuming the same mass of air.

Edited by mokompri

Wolf3D... great step up :lol:

mokompri: What are you trying to say? If 2 differnet engines make eg: 300rwkws and if the AFM does not max on one it should not be max on the other becaues they have the same peak power.

You'r claim eg:

Car: Make 300rwkws at 7000rpm - None Maxed AFM

Car: Make 300rwkws at 7000rpm - None Maxed AFM

How do you know its not maxed, regardless of the peak power like I said AFM's generally max at peak torque point or close to it in the engine, whether its 5000rpm or 7k a MAX voltage of 5.1 is the limit.

Too many variables,

Were talking turbo's not superchargers!

Let me know how you go adrian! :)

doesnt matter whether its a supercharger or a turbo..

what im saying is, that afm's measure mass of air

the peak consumption of mass of air is at max power, not at max torque (unless that rpms also has max power), for any given period of time.

so yes, 2 engines making 300rwkw will show the highest voltage on the afm at peak power, and since they both make 300rwkw peak neither will max or both will max.

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...