Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey mate

Yes i did lose quite a bit of power. I still have the same cat on since the test i think its 2 and 3 quarter inch.

not interested in power atm.. i gotta upgrade the fuel pump and retune it on boost to go for around 350 - 380rwkw so I am going to invest into a 4" high flow cat which will cost around $400.

For now i will go back to using my xforce 3" highflow

Is it restrictive?

Did you loose much more power when you used this cat?

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IF it does cost that much in VIC to get the test then you should look for a tuner that has a 5gas sensor system and pay him to tune it so you can pass the test the first go.

i cant stress how important it is to get a HIGH quality cat that has been proven to remove emissions. Catco is the way to go - i believe there is one that is a little better.

What was the procedure for the test? What did they do...

Max 4 min test on a dyno designed to simulate various load conditions (eg normal driving). Will stop earlier if it has clearly passed/failed the test, otherwise will continue for the full 240 seconds (hence the name).

The full 240 second test simulates driving over a 3.1 km course with an average speed of 47.3 km/h and a maximum speed of 91.2 km/h.

wooahhh.. nice answer :(

but they never stopped when i went the first time and leaned it off and the nox went up like nothing else :) they kept going and gave me a print out.

if you look at the sheet that i posted you can see the different gas's and the speed that the car was going as well. the top line is the speed the bottom is the emissions - as you can see its very low on bottom one. i should scan my first test and show you.. its pretty interesting the differences between the 2 tunes.

They drive it for around 30 seconds and then they come to a complete stop then keep going and then get up to 90ks an hour and cruise then come to a complete stop.

I think a stock turbo r33 would go into boost - so maybe disconnecting the actuator might help ;)

Max 4 min test on a dyno designed to simulate various load conditions (eg normal driving). Will stop earlier if it has clearly passed/failed the test, otherwise will continue for the full 240 seconds (hence the name).

The full 240 second test simulates driving over a 3.1 km course with an average speed of 47.3 km/h and a maximum speed of 91.2 km/h.

UPDATE !!

I passed the noise test today!!! just scraped in by 1db :)

got 87db at 3500rpm and 89db at 4000rpm

So now its smooth sailing to my engineers certificate !! just got to brace the huge hole i got the 3" intake pipe going through and take it back and pay my money!

UPDATE !!

I passed the noise test today!!! just scraped in by 1db :ninja:

got 87db at 3500rpm and 89db at 4000rpm

So now its smooth sailing to my engineers certificate !! just got to brace the huge hole i got the 3" intake pipe going through and take it back and pay my money!

how have you been advised to do this bracing?

  • 2 months later...

Congrats on passing the emissions testing!

I wonder though, what the point of it was? You say that you pro-actively submitted your car to these tests because you "wanted your car to be legal"...

But you say that you are going to replace the very restrictive catco cat with a 3" and possibly a 4" cat. That will render this passed test obsolete and irrelevant? Are you going to keep this tune, or are you going to lean it out again for greater fuel economy?

Fantastic job building and tuning your own car to a degree that you can control gas emissions to such a fine line, but I have to wonder what the point is, if you're just going to continue modifying your car and render this passed test useless?

The reason i did this was to get my car legally engineered. The way it works is that you must get the IM240 test to get a engineers certificate to prove that the modifications you have made ie - intercooler and plenums and exaust manifolds and injectors and ECU etc etc do not change the emissions of the car.

I have heard that EPA can do road side tests and when they do the legal limits are different to what the RTA is - i have heard that the RTAs IM240 is twice the limits as the EPA so if you get a good high flow CAT the EPA tests will pass without any issues.

Oh and i have not touched the cruise tune since the testing at all as it is fine as it is and still gets good fuel economy but not as good as it was.. bit of a trade off i guess.

Edited by Guilt-Toy
  • 5 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Good to hear is all clear..

I got detoured to an epa station last night.

They got me for;

* Exhaust (noise)

* Air Filter (induction noise)

* non-standard intercooler - turbo

* adjustable fuel pressure regulator

* catch can has a filter on it

Can anyone give me some more advice as to what i should change or do.

Car - 1990 R32 GTR

Current Mods

* PowerFC dejetro

* cams

* Single hi-mount turbo

* bigger fmic

* airfilter

* exhaust

* Fuel pressure regulator

* External Gate

* Catch can

Your help would be greatly appreciated

Dave

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...