Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

post-31501-1226991270_thumb.jpg

in response to $100 dolla bill thread which is better :D numbers dont lie bitches. taken from my orginal gtr special hpi mag. that decimal of a second means im like 1cm in front n stuff.

clearly my penis extension r32 is bigger and therefore better at compensating my lack of manhood than your 33s n 34s

Edited by Inline 6

i could also be agrued that they are progressively faster around a race track through the gen's as ive seen vids of the 33 and 34 smoking a 32 gtr around the race track. i believe alot of that is down to the attessa reprogramming making the newer more 4wd in the corners havin a lil more torque from the motor.

i got love for all of em but 32 will always be my fav, 34 is the best around a race track and 33 is the best value for money i think we can agree on.

and craig i dont diss peoples cars :) because after you drive a $300 dato for 7years its usually me on the recieving end of car disses. gives all a laugh though :P

if they made em smaller id want that 1 too :D 2 seater only 240z style would be crazy

Edited by Inline 6
i could also be agrued that they are progressively faster around a race track through the gen's as ive seen vids of the 33 and 34 smoking a 32 gtr around the race track. i believe alot of that is down to the attessa reprogramming making the newer more 4wd in the corners havin a lil more torque from the motor.

aerodynamics, improved suspension design, improved chassis design, etc, would all play a fairly important part also. 32 had very little in the way of aerodynamic aids, 34 however...

lol Dan, I can show you figures that have the 34 GTR doing the 1/4 in 12's and 0-100kph in 4.5sec (stock standard)

they say vspec 2 32 can break into 12s aswell, they all just the reg gtr times hpi pulled.

alternatively sled you can pull your gtr out and line me up, its on mofo :banana:

*eye of the tiger beats playing in head

tempretures n tyres n such could play a factor in it when its that close, its a bees dick diff in there times. and i think a ztune should easily pull that sled :P

also note sled im an accountant(numbers obsessed) and i used to read every single magazine that spat out 1/4 mile times for skylines and como's (jus scouting the enemy boys) thats around about what they usually put them at.

^^ i thought u thought (get smart voice) i was dissing peoples cars, never mind all good dude my care factor is very low.

Edited by Inline 6
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...