Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

ca wouldn't even heat up a kettle :)

but srsly, CA in a keto would be fun, gotta look after the engine tho. 90% of CA's are old and thrashed, no wonder they dont last. If you think about the pre 91 silvias with CA's, that was 18-19 years ago, thats old in engine years.

all aboard the failboat.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/To...93-t260430.html

+

holy shit! someone run this turbo

Garrett GT6041R

Information:

This large frame turbo is suitable for race applications.

Housings Available: 1.25 A/R, 1.47 A/R

Power: 2000hp

+

The price is still dropping :)

http://www.j-spec.com.au/list/index.php?ID=14119

yep not wrong on that one damo

if i remember correctly he made 185 on the boostworx dyno

not a bad power to weight ratio on that beast

That was 185 kw with a 10mm hole in the intercooler piping where a blanking plug came lose and fell out. That won't be happening again, now with added loc-tight.

What's with all the CA haters here, anyone would think it's a skyline forum. The only problem with CA's is that a lot of them have had a hard life and they haven't been well maintained, If you get one that's been treated with respect they make a good RELIABLE little power house. Have a look at the graph below, that's on a standard bottom end.

Here's the new graph from a couple weeks ago on a 36 degree day, and that's after i lost 10kw by going back to the factory manifold which we gained back by 1 more psi in boost, also gained 400 RPM in response with the factory manifold;

CA18DETGT2871R05-02-0917psiMod.jpg

Edited by D_Stirls

such a nice and smooth curve and the power is coming nice and early as well

ahh now i know why you only made 185 on that day....would have liked to see this figure there

so am i reading it right Dale....your actually loosing 400rpm in response by using aftermarket manifolds?

such a nice and smooth curve and the power is coming nice and early as well

ahh now i know why you only made 185 on that day....would have liked to see this figure there

so am i reading it right Dale....your actually loosing 400rpm in response by using aftermarket manifolds?

I knew something wasn't right in the day because it was sssooooo rich, if you remember the exhaust manifold was also cracked at the turbo flange, when i took the turbo and manifold off it all made sense when i saw the 10mm plug had falled out of the compressor outlet.

Yep was getting full boost just over 4000 before but now it's more like 3700-3800 rpm, but at the cost of kw. Was making 216kw with the old manifold but with the factory manifold it was making 203kw, with some more tuning and the extra psi or so we got it back to around the same figure as the old manifold.

Earlier power = Torque so would have gained a few Nm in torque, but i don't have a graph with that on it.

Edited by D_Stirls
ca wouldn't even heat up a kettle :)

but srsly, CA in a keto would be fun, gotta look after the engine tho. 90% of CA's are old and thrashed, no wonder they dont last. If you think about the pre 91 silvias with CA's, that was 18-19 years ago, thats old in engine years.

yeh damo ca in a keto would be a handfull!

CA's don't even need oil :)

Have had nothing but bad experiences with CA's (spun bearings, lack of women throwing themselves at the car when I drove past, etc).

But seriously, if you're going CA... just do yourself a favour and get a RB20!

Use the CA for a paper weight or something.

its ok i thought about rb20 in the keto lol..

but just abit too much work.. and would be way insane!!

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...