Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

I got some stuff done to my skyline during the week. FMIC, 3" Cat back zorst, High Flow Cat, 3" Dump pipe,Bigger fuel pump, Apexi air induction, Apexi Digital boost controller and then I got the Nistune to 0.9 bar of boost. I was reading in some old topics that people with same car (R34 gtt auto) same stuff done to there car and they were getting 173wrkw at stock boost. And at 0.9bar of boost I got 158wrkw. Is this the power you would expect from a R34 gtt auto?

Trent

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/227476-power-for-skyline-r34-gtt-auto/
Share on other sites

Yes the car was tuned yesturday by Hyperdrive. They used Nistune to remap the ecu.

They were saying that it was the first R34 there to use the software.

hmmmm..

doesn't sound right..

not 158

hey sell that car and buy mine. :whistling:

Edited by rice boy

Does sound a little low, though Hyperdrive do seem to have a reasonably accurate dyno (as in it tends to be lower than some) but that wouldn't be that much of a factor.

My manual R33 GTS25t managed 190rwkw with similar mods (though my boost curve isn't great).

Post up your dyno sheets and maybe we can figure it out.

Hi mate,

I have a 1998 nissan skyline gt-t auto sedan, mods are fmic, turbo back exhuast 3inch, greedy electronic boost controller, k&n pod filter. Car on 10.5psi made 189.5kw, and stock boost which was 8psi made 183.3kw. Mind you this is with std fuel pump and std comp. This is the safest level to boost a 34 running a stock ecu. As if you go past the 12psi mark they usually start to cut out thats how the std ecu's are designed. Your figures don't seem right, i would be expecting a little bit more power. Post the dyno sheet up if possible. Hope everything goes well

Cheers.

Edited by DRFT31

I would post a picture of the dyno run but last night when I was at a mates house, I was about to leave so I started the car to warm it up then and it was running for about a min then it just turned off. So I tryed to turn it back on but it wouldn't start, so I waited for about 15min came back the car started for about 30sec's this time and I couldn't get it started again so. wtf :) . So now the car is stuck at my mates house and I will need to take it back to Hyper Drive to fix it. O yeh and the Dyno Sheets are in the car so I can't get them.

Hi mate,

I have a 1998 nissan skyline gt-t auto sedan, mods are fmic, turbo back exhuast 3inch, greedy electronic boost controller, k&n pod filter. Car on 10.5psi made 189.5kw, and stock boost which was 8psi made 183.3kw. Mind you this is with std fuel pump and std comp. This is the safest level to boost a 34 running a stock ecu. As if you go past the 12psi mark they usually start to cut out thats how the std ecu's are designed. Your figures don't seem right, i would be expecting a little bit more power. Post the dyno sheet up if possible. Hope everything goes well

Cheers.

Where was the dyno done for yours, I'd be suspecting that your numbers are a fraction high.

I dont understand, I thought you lose around 30% of power from the fly through drivetrain in his case 158kw making thats 211hp at the fly making that around 150rwkw....

On my dyno sheet i got 270hp at the fly i dont have 270rwhp...

Edited by Dani Boi

It doesn't just depend on what mods you have bolted on, what about the condition of the engine?

And judging from what you said how the car wouldnt start properly before. I think your plugs might be fouled or ro0ted. Might be responsible for a proportion of the power loss? m2c.

34 GTt's are 206kw flywheel stock (take about 7 or 8 kw for auto so ~198kw) and i dont think you would lose that much to the wheels without any mods. so with those mods its definately low. Did u get ur car from ur mates yet ??

You don't lose a percentage, a drivetrain will sap a certain amount of power but that doesn't increase with power.

158rwkw does seem rather low. I made 183rwkw with a similar turbo on the same dyno.

If a tuner is giving you a dyno sheet reading flywheel horsepower yet it's a chassis dyno, it's just a guess. Ask for one at the wheels.

Edited by bubba

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

    • 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...