Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

my aussie 4cylinder 2L sigma turbo came out factory carby suck through with enough hp and toruque plus the fuel economy an 8 could have only dreamed of at the time. Oh and if that wasnt enough it took the title of Oz's fastest car from the GTHO phase 3 at the time until the VK brock commy was later released.

www.sigmaturbo.com

The arguments started the day little 4's strapped on the turbo'z and started showing v8's how it was done. Since then the scenes, engines and cars have evolved so much that now the argument is as pointless as it is stupid. :P

But none the less in the humour of answering the thread for you killa, If he thinks a turbo is fake power, what is a supercharger? Also fake or is that real?

The awesomeness of displacement and v8's comes out when you strap a turbo or two onto a v8 no doubt, and for that i always respect the V8 immensly. Theres no other sound like it, low down torque to strip road pavements and excessive fuel guzzling thirst is something we dont find in ours often. I always turn for a rumbling v8 to look...

But then again who can beat the sound of 1000hp rb crackin onto boost??? I think we all had a hard on at the R34 cruise when they launched that crazy GTR!!! WOW!!!

Or a rotor when its on song??? even better if its got the turboez!!!

You get my point yet mate? tell him to pull his head in and place respect where respect is due. :D

I agree 100% with ya mate I love them both esecially v8's and they're both unique in their own way, but I've always loved the fact that a 4 or 6cyl turbo could beat a v8.

Best photo ever, unfortunately the V8 ladies will be making outrageous claims that the GTR is about to be lapped.

haha not likely...natsoft holds all australian race results so they can check for themselves :D and this was a production car race so I can only run standard (12psi) of fake power.

In IPRAWA we had to make up a V8 Trophy so they had something to aim for as beating the restricted 4s dont happen often.

I spose we were a pack of ass holes after all.

That's amazing considering cars are pretty much full weight, turbo cars are effectively limited to 400hp, and the v8s can run wildly modified 6l motors. In NSW though its the rotaries that are handing out the punishment not the tubros

just wait a few years when the v8 supercars start running 4 or 6 cylinder turbos (it's going to happen). then see if they change their tune.

V6 Supercars sounds pretty homo. Almost as bad as I4 supercars.

I agree 100% with ya mate I love them both esecially v8's and they're both unique in their own way, but I've always loved the fact that a 4 or 6cyl turbo could beat a v8.

I don't understand the fascination with this. Turbochargers were invented many decades ago...why are people still in awe of a 4 cylinder engine's ability to keep up with a V8? It's nothing special beyond the technology behind it. It is just basic physics...increasing the displacement of the engine. It's no different to adding more cylinders or physical displacement to the thing, just using a different technology to do it. Here in Vic, for this very reason, it is homologated in many a race that displacement of a turbocharged engine be multiplied by 1.7 for calculation of appropriate class against N/A vehicles. As good as they are, turbochargers have had their time in the limelight...it's time to start being impressed by other add on technology.

I don't understand the fascination with this. Turbochargers were invented many decades ago...why are people still in awe of a 4 cylinder engine's ability to keep up with a V8? It's nothing special beyond the technology behind it. It is just basic physics...increasing the displacement of the engine. It's no different to adding more cylinders or physical displacement to the thing, just using a different technology to do it. Here in Vic, for this very reason, it is homologated in many a race that displacement of a turbocharged engine be multiplied by 1.7 for calculation of appropriate class against N/A vehicles. As good as they are, turbochargers have had their time in the limelight...it's time to start being impressed by other add on technology.

naws?

V8's have been using nitrous for a long time now, since the average big block nazi dosent know anything about science and they are attracted to their relatives they wouldnt know that nitrous is a form of forced induction....fake power???

Zoki Todorovic, is a typical bogan, his ignorance, and stupidity is what a bogan is, who likes stupid and ignorant ppl? not me, thats why your a bogan....

"Birds Posted 14 Aug 2009, 02:06 PM QUOTE (Killa_33 @ 13 Aug 2009, 05:20 PM) post_snapback.gifI agree 100% with ya mate I love them both esecially v8's and they're both unique in their own way, but I've always loved the fact that a 4 or 6cyl turbo could beat a v8.

I don't understand the fascination with this. Turbochargers were invented many decades ago...why are people still in awe of a 4 cylinder engine's ability to keep up with a V8? It's nothing special beyond the technology behind it. It is just basic physics...increasing the displacement of the engine. It's no different to adding more cylinders or physical displacement to the thing, just using a different technology to do it. Here in Vic, for this very reason, it is homologated in many a race that displacement of a turbocharged engine be multiplied by 1.7 for calculation of appropriate class against N/A vehicles. As good as they are, turbochargers have had their time in the limelight...it's time to start being impressed by other add on technology."

This guy is not a bogan :) , he is open minded, not stupid, and not ignornant :( good job :blush:

Edited by ragex

the jap's used nitrous oxide in there fighter planes in world war 2. during a dog fight, the used it to get out of dodgy situations, pretty smart hey

*you learn something everyday....coz knowledge is power!* lol

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

    • 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.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
    • Well this shows me the fuel pump relay is inside the base of the drivers A Pillar, and goes into the main power wire, and it connects to the ignition. The alarm is.... in the base of the drivers A Pillar. The issue is that I'm not getting 12v to the pump at ignition which tells me that relay isn't being triggered. AVS told me the immobiliser should be open until the ignition is active. So once ignition is active, the immobiliser relay should be telling that fuel pump relay to close which completes the circuit. But I'm not getting voltage at the relay in the rear triggered by the ECU, which leaves me back at the same assumption that that relay was never connected into the immobiliser. This is what I'm trying to verify, that my assumption is the most likely scenario and I'll go back to the alarm tech yet again that he needs to fix his work.      Here is the alarms wiring diagram, so my assumption is IM3A, IM3B, or both, aren't connected or improper. But this is all sealed up, with black wiring, and loomed  
×
×
  • Create New...