Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

900nm, nice.. my car was making around 1080nm to 1180nm but it never had a aggresive tune, 500cc don't make too much difference.

If you look closely enough it reads 1107 and 1051 nm's :down: ........If you had of asked me 12 months ago i would of been all for a 3ltr but now 2.5ltr is plenty for the street on E85 imo.

standard internals? 23psi??

what's with people running massive boost on un-opened engines?? i think hamish is like 23psi as well on his 33?? :down:

Yes and Yes

At the end of the day if the engine says enough is enough well then its time to reach in the back pocket for a full house rebuild, but until then if it aint broke.......

+1, that's the theory that i'm running on too.... but if mine pops i'll be thinking very seriously about an ls2 conversion.....

fwiw i'm running 19psi with a 21psi spike :)

  • 2 weeks later...

if E85 has 70% less emissions, etc... could you run a big flowing cat, that doesn't pass EPA, but claim it would be fine given the fuel being used?

i'm thinking wishful thinking... but also think that if it's tested, you'd still be good?

Yes frying 4th at 160klm's.

He wasn't using the water injection in that 503hp dyno run.....insanely enough there is more power to come.

So he's found and extra 50 odd rwhp from the bigger ex housing, 1 psi more boost, upgraded fuel system, M&W CDI and retune.

He also mentioned EGT's were way down with the larger ex housing - as you would expect.

PJ's car just ran a 10.4 at 136mph with the 3037 on E85....which I understand is possibly a record for an s13 on radials.

Went for another cruise the other night. And even with a blown turbo gasket PJ still manages to bake the treads in 3rd :P

Also my car has just come off the dyno with a nice 363rwkw(490hp)@23psi makes 706ft/lbs :D

GO THE 3037s!

Went for another cruise the other night. And even with a blown turbo gasket PJ still manages to bake the treads in 3rd :P

Also my car has just come off the dyno with a nice 363rwkw(490hp)@23psi makes 706ft/lbs :D

GO THE 3037s!

Excellent power and torque - would be a responsive rocket no doubt....you got it to hold boost....what was the secret....boost controller?

Good to see your finally making some decent power Dave. :P

E85 no longer being available in adelaide I'm jumping to the GT35r with a hks cast manifold and ext gate, with cams etc I'm hoping for a solid 350rwkw on pump. Aim low be happy when I make more :)

Edited by SLAPS
  • 2 weeks later...

We are now trying to source ethanol in the sphincter of the universe & Georgia in Eastern Europe.

I have a rally car in Georgia who wants to run the stuff and the drifters in the sphincter of the universe are keen also. Will keep you guys updated

Looks like it will only be available in 100%. so it will be e100 so I will be able to mix it with 98 octane depending on the car / combo.

Has anyone had issues with a tank of E85 forming vapour and running badly after being left for a day or more? I spoke to my mechanic about using e85/98 blend and he said what one of his customers tried (some 'ET' stuff in 20L drums) had consistency issues. The car was filled up with it, tuned, left on the dyno overnight and the tune was way off the next morning.

Anyone else have issues similar to this?

  • 2 weeks later...
Went for another cruise the other night. And even with a blown turbo gasket PJ still manages to bake the treads in 3rd :)

Also my car has just come off the dyno with a nice 363rwkw(490hp)@23psi makes 706ft/lbs :)

GO THE 3037s!

Haha finally fixing it tomorrow then it's time for a full cage. Damn I'm kicking myself hearing about all these mad cruises that I'm missing out on!

Hungry for power yet Dave or what? If mine is all over the shop, I couldn't imagine how yours would be with the 6 bangers torque!

Pulled the head off to remove the blocked rear oil restrictor and shove 2 x 1.2's in there. IMO one 1.5mm up front for a hydraulic head isn't too good for the fat left exhaust side of the head)

The car hasn't done too many km's on E85 as its not street driven but a few things I've noticed.

1. Any carbon sitting on the pistons has basically dissapeared. What is left isn't hard and crispy like it usually is but soft and gooey.

2. There's slight surface rust on the turbine outlet and inside the exhaust manifold. Not so much a complete cover but tinny little dots of really light rust.

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...