Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

saw this on youtube, must say that they do some pretty impressive work!

good work guys!

I wonder what would happen if Rigoli built a light datsun for his RB30 ? or Martook? those datsuns weigh 1000kgs yeah ?

1200's are more like 720/730kg. Perfect weight to start off with. Rigoli had a tubbed 1200 ute at an expo 2 weeks ago that looked FJ powered (bonnet wasnt up enough to really see at the time).

1200's are more like 720/730kg. Perfect weight to start off with. Rigoli had a tubbed 1200 ute at an expo 2 weeks ago that looked FJ powered (bonnet wasnt up enough to really see at the time).

yeah rigoli's ute was fiat powered, he has had that for years no ???

Im talkin a rb30 powered datto like RIPS

pretty sure anothy with vl god from mautouks racing will braek it very soon

Rigoli's built that engine in their car. Its always at their fabrication shop next door.

Rigoli's VL has no weight reduction in it at all either or it didnt last time i was sitting in it.

  • 2 weeks later...
1200's are more like 720/730kg. Perfect weight to start off with. Rigoli had a tubbed 1200 ute at an expo 2 weeks ago that looked FJ powered (bonnet wasnt up enough to really see at the time).

1200's used a 4cly engine, whereas the zed's used a 6, which saves a lot of fabrication putting the engine in.

this thread reminds me of my dato 1600 i built 10yrs ago with an fj20t

what a beast. cheap fun except 4 traction

i had a 180b sss with a FJ20det in it as well. had around 260hp at wheels. traction is a interesting topic with those saggy rear ends hey ? :)

  • 3 weeks later...
I wonder what would happen if Rigoli built a light datsun for his RB30 ? or Martook? those datsuns weigh 1000kgs yeah ?

The 240z race weight was 1277.5kg as it was REALLY over built when they did the rear end, lots of thick heavy box section in the rear.

The new car which is getting the 240z motor is quite a bit lighter so hopefully we'll get the times down some more and keep the Aussie's (who are obviously on the way) at bay :P

Rob

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...