Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

AFR tuning is different from car to car - you can run some engines leaner than others it depends upon many factors - fuel density, chamber shape, piston dwell at TDC, piston diameter, spark plug postion, intake and exhuast design, exhaust backpressure - the list is endless.

Well thank goodness 99.99% of people are running RB's on this forum, with a large number of them running the same comparable setups :D

Edited by GeeTR
im talking low to mid (75-108k's) to be exact... you could lean on yours at least a ratio in those initial dips safely.... as im guessing the a/fs are taken from the tailpipe and not the dump..

^^^

that there is gospel...

Yes, that is the plan. I noticed this when you see the little bumb in power increase at 75kmph. I've done mostly road tuning so I am not able to see these nice AFR curves to adjust, and also, I only tuned the top end on this one to be a show off at the dyno day. And it worked :D

If it was running so lean that it's dangerous, wouldn't the PFC knock sensor detect knock and have an extremely high knock count?

12.5:1 and higher I consider dangerous but you don't have room for bad batches of fuel, a idiot driver, or hot days. And there aren't a lot of people looking at the high knock count. They are too busy showing off to their mates.

But in saying all of this, the original AFR plot should be flatter not all over the place.

Well thank goodness 99.99% of people are running RB's on this forum, with a large number of them running the same comparable setups :yes:

ohhh I'm sorry all rb produce maximum torque at 12.35467:1 AFR with 22degrees of timing at 6500rpm and 15psi of boost.

Wake up clown, no two cars are similar with even the same mods - that was the point I was trying to make. Its no good saying that there is a certain AFR or timing advance that to achieve X amount of horsepower in all situations.

Found the original dyno result for the car dating back to late 2005 - click to read, scroll down page

Scale on my dyno - 1AFR= 2 big blocks, or 10 small blocks.

Scale on original dyno below - 1AFR = .4 of a big block

therefore zoom/magnification is 5 times on my graph compared with the graph below. Perhaps that is the reason that Mafia commented that the AFR was all over the show. His AFR probably looks the same at a higher level of magnification.

crd29.jpg

Edited by futurewa

You are looking good for a power run now!

post your dyno sheet after your power run, it would be interesting to see if it has changed much over time.

don't worry about the power numbers, they vary wildly from dyno to dyno, more interested in the power curve shape and the afr.

that is what shits me about CRDs sheets. they always use such a wide AFR scale that everything just looks flat. I mean seriously is there any reason they need to have 2.5:1 to 22.5:1 AFR on there? I would love to see the same graph but with a more sensible scale for the AFR. maybe 8:1 to 18:1 or similar.

that is what shits me about CRDs sheets. they always use such a wide AFR scale that everything just looks flat. I mean seriously is there any reason they need to have 2.5:1 to 22.5:1 AFR on there? I would love to see the same graph but with a more sensible scale for the AFR. maybe 8:1 to 18:1 or similar.

Great point!

They are probably showing everyone how "flat" they have tuned their a/f ratios. Meanwhile when zoomed in its probably all over the shop

I was thinking the same thing, why the hell would they want to read 3:1 AFR ? the sensor wont even read that low !!! :(

Anyways i like to run the engine rich, 11.6:1 has kept my engine alive on 25psi so thats where its going to stay. Just seems like the guys in sydney like to run em really lean or something, maybe they get paid more money and can afford a couple of rebuilds a year ?? or they want their customers to come back in for engine rebuilds soon after ??

More blown up engines = more engine work needed LOL

*shrug*

that is what shits me about CRDs sheets. they always use such a wide AFR scale that everything just looks flat. I mean seriously is there any reason they need to have 2.5:1 to 22.5:1 AFR on there? I would love to see the same graph but with a more sensible scale for the AFR. maybe 8:1 to 18:1 or similar.

well here is a perfect example. the graph is one of mine. 32 GTR. scale is 10-18:1. Plenty of scope. on scaling like the above my AFR would probably look ruler flat too... but that is not what I wanted anyway.

0517002ui9.jpg

thats a good AFR too! nice tune there

well here is a perfect example. the graph is one of mine. 32 GTR. scale is 10-18:1. Plenty of scope. on scaling like the above my AFR would probably look ruler flat too... but that is not what I wanted anyway.

0517002ui9.jpg

yeah it's pretty much what I asked for. 11.8:1 for most of the rev range and richening up to 11.5:1 closer to readline to give it a little insurance up top. in reality it's probably a little rich overall, but it's still very punchy, not doughy at all as the extra fuel seems to allow a little extra timing. :cool:

Had a quick read through and one thing I think everyone is missing , correct me if i am wrong ?

The tuner said there was too much TIMING !

no matter how much you look at a dyno graph is never going to show that ! You need your dirty paws on the hand controller to see the numbers.

That original graph is pretty wavery up top. Also as beer baron pointed out the scale is 2.5 afr points, so will be VERY up down on a different scale.

Yes you should be seeing knock levels, assuming your knock sensors are working and not disabled.

What knock numbers were you getting on the street ?

I think you will find a good portion of WA tuners will tune on the cautious side of AFR's. There have been a couple of breaker tuners that given WA bad rep, so most tuners very careful now days.

Your car is at what I understand to be a good tuner.

Also Beer barons tune would be the sort of AFR"s i would be aiming at !

Edited by Butters
It says 12.4:1 to 12.6:1 in the mid range.... why do you think that is "way to rich"? If you thank that is way to rich, then you need to re-think your idea of tuning..

Seriously, a safe tune is 11.7:1 to about 12:1 afrs..

12.5:1 and above is considered very dangerous, but I can get away with it due to a fairly obvious reason - WMI

If circuit GTR's can run around with 400rwkw and 13:1

12.5:1 obviously isnt as 'dangerous' as you make it out to be now is it? :cool:

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally had a chance to scan my dyno runs -

11LBS AFR Taken at each exhaust (Twin System) (Possibly injectors need cleaning, as the run was terminated due to the knock count going up to 50)

15Lbs Boost 336HP - No knock issue

20Lbs AFR (Not sure which exhaust?) - Run cut...too much knock, up to 50

11Lbs Boost 300HP

12Lbs Boost 308HP

14Lbs Boost 325HP

By my calculations, the 20Lbs run reached 169km/hr in 4th, generating 380HP. The run shown earlier in the post but in 2005, looked like it would have had 10-20hp more at the same speed in the same gear. Possibly the dyno? Possibly my calc?

some quick advice mate would be to find a work shop in perth that tunes rb26's often and get them to check out then possibly retune to your needs and wants ( xspeed, top racing ect ), then you know whats safe and whats not.

Edited by monga

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

    • Me, I would happly spend some more coin on better tyres for my street car  Will they work, yes, of course, but why substitute some dry grip/braking distance, and wet weather grip/braking distance on what is really old tech to save some coin on your "precious" street car In the end it might not be you that farks up, it's the thousands of other idiots on the street that you need to worry about  For a street car that gets some "fun time", I have found that a quality tyre that can handle dry, wet, cold (Canberra gets pretty cold) and hot conditions, which may costs a little more, is great insurance  From my experience with them (driving around Goulburn in the winter) the RE003's are pretty poor in cold and/or wet conditions on the street If RS4's didn't hate gripping in the cold I would be running them always on the street,  great in the dry, OK in the wet, but, they do hate the cold, with a passion, I run PS5's year round now, basically, I've found the PS5 to be a great year round street tyre for all conditions, they last well, and are mid range pricing wise TL;DR. Tyre choice is probably like what brand and grade oil you should use, ask 10 people, and get 10 different answers... LOL
    • Extend the sensor out of the car, put it in a pot of oil, heat oil up. You'll get to 80-120 then 😛
    • Yeah - I tried throwing the formulas from ChatGPT and it tried it's best as it told me that the Formula in HPTuners as requested is a Linear function, but the original data I provided it (resistance to temp) is not linear and thus it kept trying to suggest formulas that would be more accurate in regions I actually want it to be accurate in. But I didn't quite understand it at the time. I have now thrown the data into graphs and can clearly see they're all different shapes. Given it's an oil temp sensor I probably want it to be most accurate between 80 and 120c - So I don't really see much alternative other than driving the hell out of the car and letting it cool down from 120C, noting the voltage on the sensor as it chills out. But at that point if I write it down, well, I'll be able to know this from the voltage. Would look pretty stupid on a datalog or a video showing me going down the straight at 0.265V Oil temp 
    • Yeah, it looks like it's being ran as a constant current setup is my guess. Get some more data points, reading the degrees C on the gauge, and what the voltage is you're seeing out of it. The sensor itself is not linear, even in smaller ranges of like 20 - 60 it's non linear. But if we can get some good plots, particularly at those 5volt steps, it will be very easy to work out, and then I can give you a logarithmic formula if its you need an actual formula. Also, very likely ChatGPT will lead you astray with some of this stuff, as it totally depends on how the circuit is built.
    • So to further complicate things or hopefully explain better: This is a VDO sensor. It clearly does this math inside the gauge itself... because it displays a temperature in C to me instead of a voltage. The signal wire to the gauge is in Volts, not Ohms. I have just teed into this and sent it to the ECU. ChatGPT spat this out: Temperature (°C) Thermistor Resistance (Ω) Voltage Output (V) -40 36563.56 4.973962698 -35 26284.63 4.963854097 -30 19149 4.950518086 -25 14127.68 4.933166097 -20 10504.68 4.910527969 -15 7721.35 4.879055954 -10 5720.88 4.838133512 -5 4284.03 4.786165799 0 3240.18 4.721119717 5 2473.6 4.640900563 10 1905.87 4.543692515 15 1486.65 4.429695182 20 1168.64 4.296344225 25 926.71 4.144091368 30 739.98 3.972492431 35 594.9 3.782907287 40 481.53 3.577860996 45 392.57 3.361217186 50 322.17 3.136573398 55 266.19 2.908608143 60 221.17 2.68039363 65 184.72 2.455599277 70 155.29 2.239608872 75 131.38 2.035132288 80 112.08 1.846579676 85 96.4 1.674774149 90 82.96 1.511882199 95 71.44 1.359001674 100 61.92 1.222169588 105 54.01 1.100403407 110 47.24 0.989775394 115 41.42 0.889528391 120 36.51 0.800974069 125 32.38 0.723478416 130 28.81 0.654148313 135 25.7 0.591893137 140 23 0.536380597 145 20.68 0.487551867 150 18.59 0.442640126 155 16.74 0.40213318 160 15.11 0.365841848 165 13.66 0.333073247 170 12.38 0.303758956 175 11.25 0.277572169 180 10.24 0.253917873
×
×
  • Create New...