Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

god damit my carbon bonnet wont shut aswell!!!! The cam cover is hitting the second vent. We tried spacers but its just rasing the back of the bonnet and looks really crap aswell. Only option is to cut across half of that vent and then make up another bigger piece of mesh to cover the gap. Shoudnt look 2 bad. Will post pics once done

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

good glad i am not the only one...but hey..may be OEM hood fits better...and don't have to cut out a hole....??

The vented section of a carbon fiber bonnet is flat at the lowest point of each vent so they are possibly worse for clearance.

I have to space my strut brace up now as the cam cover is hitting it as it rev's up. Just going to try 5mm plates first to see if its enough.

The vented section of a carbon fiber bonnet is flat at the lowest point of each vent so they are possibly worse for clearance.

I have to space my strut brace up now as the cam cover is hitting it as it rev's up. Just going to try 5mm plates first to see if its enough.

Get an engine stabiliser bar thing man. Stop the engine twisting. The more the engine twists around, the less power makes it to the wheels.

Get an engine stabiliser bar thing man. Stop the engine twisting. The more the engine twists around, the less power makes it to the wheels.

The engine moves what.. an inch and a half? Two? You think this will stop 500hp getting to the wheels? :/

The engine moves what.. an inch and a half? Two? You think this will stop 500hp getting to the wheels? :rofl:

It's not stopping 500RWHP getting to the wheels...

But how much force is required for you to PUSH the engine by hand that 1.5 - 2" sideways? Measure this amount... Then realise that it's pivoting on the drives side engine mount, Measure in a straight line from the engine mount point, to the passenger side cam cover.

This is your distance. Now multiply the force in newtons you required to push your motor 1.5 - 2" sideways, and this is how much torque you're losing...

Now I know it's a fair amount of force required, and at say 1M, if you need 100newtons to push it sideways, then you're loosing 100nm of torque from the fly... See how quickly it adds up? Get the brace...

It's not stopping 500RWHP getting to the wheels...

But how much force is required for you to PUSH the engine by hand that 1.5 - 2" sideways? Measure this amount... Then realise that it's pivoting on the drives side engine mount, Measure in a straight line from the engine mount point, to the passenger side cam cover.

This is your distance. Now multiply the force in newtons you required to push your motor 1.5 - 2" sideways, and this is how much torque you're losing...

Now I know it's a fair amount of force required, and at say 1M, if you need 100newtons to push it sideways, then you're loosing 100nm of torque from the fly... See how quickly it adds up? Get the brace...

:blush: based on that theory then - if you brace it - how much force is required to move it by hand then? You won't budge it... so now you're losing ALL your torque from the flywheel?

What I am saying is the motor moves 1" to 2" yes, but then it stops - it happens in an instant - and now all your power is going through the drivetrain..

If you motor 'kept moving' (and spun around and around in the engine bay) then sure, you'd be losing power. Or am I missing something...?

:blush: based on that theory then - if you brace it - how much force is required to move it by hand then? You won't budge it... so now you're losing ALL your torque from the flywheel?

What I am saying is the motor moves 1" to 2" yes, but then it stops - it happens in an instant - and now all your power is going through the drivetrain..

If you motor 'kept moving' (and spun around and around in the engine bay) then sure, you'd be losing power. Or am I missing something...?

Go break an engine mount, or just unbolt the passenger one. The motor will twist around a shit load more, response drops off, and so does overall power.

And if no amount of torque can shift the motor, then you won't lose any, because there is none being USED to move it no where.

And if someone sponsors me some L28 mounts, I'll change them over...

Im not exactly sure what you guys are hoping to gain by using L28 mounts,, there is no where to lower the engine.

I have plenty of sump to cross member clearance to lower my motor in the GTS-t.

The GTR I hear has a lot less room though...

I have plenty of sump to cross member clearance to lower my motor in the GTS-t.

The GTR I hear has a lot less room though...

Ditto, I've got may 20mm if I remember correctly.

Obviously there is a lot less room in a GTR due to using adapter plates for the sump etc.

The vented section of a carbon fiber bonnet is flat at the lowest point of each vent so they are possibly worse for clearance.

I have to space my strut brace up now as the cam cover is hitting it as it rev's up. Just going to try 5mm plates first to see if its enough.

ugh i don't care about my strut brace..i just don't want my Hood to be open like that .... it's 1) ugly, 2) ppl can do stuff to ur motor when parked 3) sh*t flies in...etc

:( based on that theory then - if you brace it - how much force is required to move it by hand then? You won't budge it... so now you're losing ALL your torque from the flywheel?

What I am saying is the motor moves 1" to 2" yes, but then it stops - it happens in an instant - and now all your power is going through the drivetrain..

If you motor 'kept moving' (and spun around and around in the engine bay) then sure, you'd be losing power. Or am I missing something...?

I understand what is being said and I intend to get a brace or solid mounts but the rotational force on the engine is all about inertia being transfer d from the stationary parts into the moving parts and the friction between them. The rotational force of the engine is still there even if its solid mounted only you cant see it because the force or kinetic energy is transfer d to the cars chaise. The only way the amount of kinetic energy transfer could be reduced is by using lighter moving engine parts which will also reduce the amount of inertia at top revs etc.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or loan/give me money to get my car going and I will get dyno results of before and after.

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...