Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

well

sounds stupid i know, BUT its true (in my case)

Normally i average 200-250Km a tank

well, after i put this new to4e turbo on....i got 280KM to a half of a tank...

ao thats over 500KM to a tank if i calculate it correctly

ill do a test since i have to fill it up anwyays and i will have a week before i get a tune.

more on that later

yeah, im curious to see gas mileage between rough tune and after Rom tune with more fuel delivery parts installed.

im hoping 450+ KM a tank...if i can get 300 id be happy

this 250km a tank is killing me

its huge

i had to grind part of the compressor housing to fit it on the stock manifold (stainless had a huge ass crack so i threw it away)

its a t04E size compressor

50 trim

i get 10psi at 4k rpm

im imagining 1 bar at 4300-4500rpm

when i get home i will throw up a picture of it next to a stock turbo for comparrison

well sounds stupid i know, BUT its true (in my case)

Normally i average 200-250Km a tank

well, after i put this new to4e turbo on....i got 280KM to a half of a tank...

ao thats over 500KM to a tank if i calculate it correctly

ill do a test since i have to fill it up anwyays and i will have a week before i get a tune.

more on that later

What did you do, run it on 2 cylinders only? :)

Whats that knocking noise I hear? :(

lol

nah

AFs are in the low 13s accross the board

i had liek 2 horus to tune it on the highway.

and nah, i drive my car like a bat out of hell.

thats why i have to maintain it all the damn time.

im never out of boost normally

yeah, im curious to see gas mileage between rough tune and after Rom tune with more fuel delivery parts installed.

im hoping 450+ KM a tank...if i can get 300 id be happy

this 250km a tank is killing me

Should have gone Autech Grant. 650hp, 400kms a tank.

well that makes no sense to me .. hopefully someone will tell is what the go is

same here, thats why i was like WTF

so far 67 kms of hard city driving and it is still at hte full mark.

Yep, big turbo would be to blaim, when you're cruising along on the highway or whatever it is making less boost and the ECU runs is leaner.

It was the same for me with my old R31 that a HT-18 on it. Most the time was off boost, so fuel efficiency was awesome. As soon as you get up, you can just about watch the fuel needle dropping! A friend of mine with an R32 also has similar affects.

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...