Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey fellas just went and got on the dyno for the first time to see how my car is performing asi had suspicions it was a tad slower than other standard skylines

mods so far are turbo back kakimoto exhaust, atmo BOV, thats pretty much it for engine wise

my first run was 132rwkw which was a bit low hence why my car didnt feel very quick compared to others

after a few more runs which were pretty equal we put a nismo fpr on and also the turbotech boost controller... ths is where the problems began

at stock boost it was ok almost the same as before but as soon as we ran a bit more boost it (as little as 9-10psi) will have a bad power curve like the ecu is retarding/lowering boost or something to that extent and was much lower power than stock

pretty much all we tried turned out bad so ended up putting the boost back on 8psi with the turbotech (122rwkw this time, lost 10kw from stock although the day did get hotter by about 5 degrees is that makes any difference)

am i going into rich and retard mode or something like that? the mechanic didnt have too much experience with r33s so he didnt have much more of an idea

here is a picture of the dyno results (green line = stock, red = with fpr and boost controller, black is running about 10-11psi)

someone help please!! lol what can i do? is the only option an aftermarket computer?

dyno1.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/149882-my-first-dyno-run/
Share on other sites

Was any thing done to tune your car?

I made 202 rwkw(270.9rwhp) with 10psi , pod filter , dump back exhaust, stock ecu stock turbo, walbro fuel pump, FMIC

My previous r33 dead stock did 201rwhp wiht stock airbox etc and its power curve didnt look as ruff as ur one??

fpr is brand new nismo item, so im pretty sure its good unless it came faulty from factory

im using standard airbox atm until my cai setup arrives..

we played around with the timing but only got worse results

its like as soon as it hit about 110kw it just shits itself, with higher boost its MUCH more of a dip, dips down to about 70kw

any way i can check afm ? my other mechanic put his computer on it and only error was the HICAS was getting no signal all other sensors were fine

My SII R33 pulled 144rw/kw stock as a rock (7psi) then 165rw/kw with full exhaust (7psi) so theoretically at 10psi i should be looking closer to 175rw/kw.

Your dyno graph looks all over the shop once it hits full boost. My car had a simillar dip at 5000rpm due to misfiring coils and now that its fixed its smooth to redline... can you feel those power dips on the road? and misfiring/hesitation? Spark gap may be too big and the boost is blowing out the spark.. try 0.8mm gap... check coils...

Hope all goes well dude!

Regards,

Sarkis

My SII R33 pulled 144rw/kw stock as a rock (7psi) then 165rw/kw with full exhaust (7psi) so theoretically at 10psi i should be looking closer to 175rw/kw.

Your dyno graph looks all over the shop once it hits full boost. My car had a simillar dip at 5000rpm due to misfiring coils and now that its fixed its smooth to redline... can you feel those power dips on the road? and misfiring/hesitation? Spark gap may be too big and the boost is blowing out the spark.. try 0.8mm gap... check coils...

Hope all goes well dude!

Regards,

Sarkis

Coils could be likley, does it misfire? u probly cant hear the misfire with stock muffler.

Yeah air fuel seems rich? correct me if im wrong too?

yeah it is rich it should be around 12 or something, but i cant do nothing about that until i get a computer right?

the spark plugs are gapped at 1.0mm just changed them a week aggo with platinums. the coils seemed ok but never looked at them 100%.

there sometimes seem to be a little flatspot and then it kicks on again , it doesnt backfire only sometime on the shifting of gears but not very loud

Coils could be likley, does it misfire? u probly cant hear the misfire with stock muffler.

Yeah air fuel seems rich? correct me if im wrong too?

See if you can borrow a PFC and see if that makes it feel better (maybe through it on the dyno)

You shouldn't need a Nismo FPR - that is just adding another variable.. you would usually use this to richen things up by adding extra fuel pressure (I..e when nearly maxing out injectors)

You are most likely hitting R&R..but the curve is very wobbly.

Was any thing done to tune your car?

I made 202 rwkw(270.9rwhp) with 10psi , pod filter , dump back exhaust, stock ecu stock turbo, walbro fuel pump, FMIC

My previous r33 dead stock did 201rwhp wiht stock airbox etc and its power curve didnt look as ruff as ur one??

Very happy dyno :D

Looks like rich and retard....but at a low boost, got me stuffed but im no expert.

Lose the BOV and boost controller and FPR for now. Then put the car back on the dyno and ofcourse as suggested gap the plugs to 0.8. I think your problems will go away.

But youre running less than 10 afr (the graph shows 10 but i think it has gone below and simply reads the minimum on the graph which is 10) which is no good. You lose a lot power at 10afr...well I know I did.

Interested to see how this goes.

Edited by 180bfj20det

Please take that FPR and atmo venting BOV off.. and leave them off

There is no way on a stock ecu that you want to increase the Fuel Pressure unless something else is not functioning properly(e.g. fuel pump).

Everyone knows they run rich when on boost and also can go into rich and retard mode. Addiing more fuel rail pressure means this is even more pronounced...

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...