Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Probably a stupid thing on my part, but I need help.

Ok Just had my new rims put on and discovered an issue on the way home.

Fronts are 8 inch 235/45 tires with 35 offset

Rears are 9 inch 255/40 with 42 offset

cars a r32 btw.

While driving home the torque split guage was basically playing silly buggers and putting power to the fronts on light throttle in 3rd and 4th. Noticed this happening a few k's after leaving the tire store (normally only activates on heavy throttle). Pulled over and pulled the fuse, drove the car home in rwd mode. Now I asked the tire store if the different profile tires would cause an issue with the attessa system, they said no, since they were the same rolling diameter.

Well the rolling diameter of the fronts seem to be around 645 mm and the rears seem to be about 638mm, What I'm wondering is this enough to stuff up the attessa system or is the problem possibly something else?

I still have 4 reasonable 235/45 profile tyres on my old rims, was thinking of putting a set of them on my rear rims to see if this was the issue.

You should have the wheel/tyre with the larger rolling diameter at the rear as far as I know. If you've got larger ones at the front, the attessa system will think you're losing traction at the rear and will be 'confused'.

Either drive without the new wheels or with the fuse ripped out.

providing your tyres aren't stretched, you're looking at a total rolling diameter of 25.3 inches in the front and 25 inches in the back. the widths don't matter and the profiles don't matter, as long as you get the rolling diameters even or slightly larger in the rear.

When you have a larger diameter wheel in front it'll think that there's traction loss in the rear and send power to the front.

If you have larger diameter wheels in the back, then it'll detect that there's traction loss at the front and won't send as much power to the front as it would if it were even.

My advice to you would be to go UP to a 265/40/17 in the rear. It'll make the overall rolling diameter of the front and back even.

Getting two of my old rear tyres put back on on Saturday, only reason I had these tyres left on my new rims was they were in good nick, and like I said the tyre shop said it wouldn't be an issue, which it obviously is.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...