Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow I can't believe your putting NOS in. I doubt it will make 200kw...well not at the wheels anyway.

The bad thing about some NOS systems is they're not progressive and come on too strongly, 75hp sounds alright.

If you insist on staying N/A and not going FI, bang for your buck - cams and power fc ... it would make the engine much more elastic in the rev range, might lose a bit of bottom end depending on what cams you going.

Little concerned about the placment of the NOS jet Cara, being in only one side of the two intakes you may not get an even distribution to all cylinders. As a general rule of thumb they should always be at least 6 to 8 inches before the throttle body for an even distribution to all cylinders.

I was at High tech dyno today fiddling with the fueling on the dyno as my tune was alittle too rich, just on idle chatter about various cars with one of the tuners, your atmo Nitrous+PFC subject came up and coincidentally I see the topic here today.

Very interesting to say the least, good luck with everything :)

true but go race a turbod car. :)

See how it goes.

why? i don't like the smug tone of your post.

race your car against an F430, see how it goes.

this is the naturally aspirated section and more specifically cara's thread about her nitrous progress... please keep it on topic.

why? i don't like the smug tone of your post.

race your car against an F430, see how it goes.

this is the naturally aspirated section and more specifically cara's thread about her nitrous progress... please keep it on topic.

You got the wrong tone.

I'm pretty sure i read clearly that this is the NA section also, what this thread is on.

I'd be more than happy to go up against a F430. Wouldn't you want to try?

Have i said something off topic? I was just saying to take it against a turbod car and see how the nos goes.

I wasn't saying, that this idea was stupid and that putting it up against a turbo it still would have no chance.

Geez.

if that's the case then i take back my comment and offer my apologies.

very often we get people in here who preach 'turbo'. reading your post in different light, i agree - that would be a test to try out. however where do you draw the line in terms of comparison? same power output or same amout of money spent?

with what you said, going head to head with a mild GTSt/GTT would be evenly matched - driver pending.

CARA!

YOU SAID YOU WONT BE STINGY ON THE PICS!

:nyaanyaa:

Hows she go?

agree with john. i think 3 & 4 would get a larger amount of nitrous than the others.

direct port injection :w00t:

I dont think so.. The pistons cause vacume and hence suction at different times.. the valves will be open to allow the piston to create suction and taking in the bulk of the NOS. Because not all 6 cyl's are creating suction at the same time ther isnt much "comptetiton" from others. Residue may be left near cylinders 3 and 4. But they wont be getting significantly more NOS than the others..

Not sure if this makes sence.. cos I have a feeling it dosnt..

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



  • 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...