Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To me that looks like a pretty crap tune to be perfectly honest ... waaay too lean. That car's probably detonating badly throughout the rev range. This is what a safe tune should look like (blue line is tuned, red is stock) approximately to have no detonations, although it's an R34 with a stock turbo: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...t&id=165598

Edited by Delta Force

ok got my car back from the tuners few things I was told is that he tunes on a dyno pack not dyno dynamic and he said the line looks like its jumping up and down cause dyno packs use alot more resolution then dyno dynamics, he told me if i put it on a dyno dynamic dyno the line would look a lot smoother......which kind makes sence as the afr on my chart goes up in .2 increments eg 11.8 12 12.2 12.4 over a dyno dynamics which goes from like 11 to 12 ect if that makes any sence hahah! One thing that is weird is the print out I got this time only reads 252kw and he said he didnt even touch the boost just adjusted the fuel??? tell me wot you think of the new graph, cheers

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e176/kellyfj/retune.jpg

Dyno thing doesnt stand with me, its AFR's, the wideband doesnt lie! You can make any resolution go up and down, its just the axis you set it on.

AFR's looks a fair bit better there now.

Is this a SR20?

Where is the boost plot?

yeh sr, just got this print out as he said he only adjusted the fuel, boost is on one of the other graphs...do u know why on this graph it reads 252kw but on the tune he did yesturday it pulled 274kw? like I said only thing he adjusted 2day was the fuel not boost???

IT just looks odd, not knowing how SR's behave but that midrange area around 4500-5500 looks like its going to be so meaty, yet it kinda drops off and then picks up again. Just sounds to me like there is something still left top open up

...do u know why on this graph it reads 252kw but on the tune he did yesturday it pulled 274kw? like I said only thing he adjusted 2day was the fuel not boost???

Comparing the two graphs, your tuners knocked half a point worth of fuel in (~12.75 -> ~12.2) where you make peak power ~6000rpm.

The fueling increase could easily account for 20rwkw loss me thinks.

Edited by GeeTR

post-1240-1213918307_thumb.jpg

Maybe its a map sensor tuning issue I am not sure as i love my AFM's...... Its much better and the car would run better. I would also say that if that was cleaned up you should be able to get more mid range and have the boost comming on a bit earlier.

maybe this guy is having issues with your ecu ? its much safer now but still not as rich as i would like it.

is the engine forged?

Looks to me like the range between 3000 - 5000 needs more time spent on it.

Your sampling rate and scale will affect how it looks in graphical form, but reading the raw numbers in a table will still tell you it's jumping around too much. Expect to see some saw-tooth effect, but it's the magnitude of change that I'd be targeting, and get him to work at it.

12.0 to 12.2:1 at higher revs looks OK, and it's easy to see the map richened up beyond 6000.

IMO you should tune it to run sweetly rather than be concerned about an apparent 20kW loss at this stage. You might find with the fueling sorted he can focus on ignition, which is where a lot of power is forfeited.

post-1240-1213918307_thumb.jpg

Maybe its a map sensor tuning issue I am not sure as i love my AFM's...... Its much better and the car would run better. I would also say that if that was cleaned up you should be able to get more mid range and have the boost comming on a bit earlier.

maybe this guy is having issues with your ecu ? its much safer now but still not as rich as i would like it.

is the engine forged?

Hi Guilt-Toy. no the engine is not forged...stock internals

I was told the reason that the mid range section afr's are higher is because right up to 5000rpm the car is not really under much load as its still in the process of trying to spool that big snail and its not until about 5000rpm onwards where it really starts to move and generate alot more power. It makes sence to me cause when I drive the car I can relate to wot he told me??? Of the car is not under to much load up until 5000rpm are thoes afr's safe? cheers

Those AFR's are much safer then before. Being in QLD with the hotter weather i would still like to see 11.8 afr across the board (on boost) for piece of mind, then I would consider the tune safe.

That tune may be considered safe by other tuners who know what they are doing so don't take my opinion as gospel mate, i just like to keep em a bit richer to help cool the cyl's which helps to reduce detonation in case of a fuel surge or a bad batch of fuel etc etc. Its my engine i spent big $$'s so I would rather see 30kw less and nice healthy engine then drive around with a hand grenade under the bonnet.

mind you those AFR's you have now are not what i would call a hand grenade....... but i would not like to run my engine like that.. thats all.

thanks for all ur help I really do appreciate it....I dont think his guna be happy if I keep hassling him but his has promised me that thoes afr's are now safe and he will be the one paying the bill for the engine rebuild if it does blow as I have told him ova and ova make sure the tune is safe....

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...