Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So i was installing my RC injectors in my new greddy manifold today and ran into some confusion

how far in are the injectors supposed to sit in the manifold?

look at the pictures

DSCN7523.jpg

DSCN7524.jpg

DSCN7525.jpg

DSCN7527.jpg

DSCN7530.jpg

is the rc injector supposed to sit flush with the big oring and stick out inside the manifold like the stock injector?

cause the bottom doesnt clear the hole in the manifold, the hole needs to be like half a mm larger for it to go through

is it supposed to be this way or do i need to make the hole a little bit bigger?

the injectors are VQ35DE injectors which may explain the inconsistency

I would adjust mine so that the outlet of the injectors are positioned as deep as the stocks but its not critical. People run 'em the way it looks now too, only downside i guess is that the spray-pattern might be effected in a negative way.

its fine as is, the stock injector you have fitted is not really indicative of its ACTUAL protrusion as its not in the rail.

The RC's seems to be pretty well placed, nearly perfect even :down:

Just for a comparison the rb injectors would protrude about 2-3mm more only, if you look at a 1jz or 2jz that use the tri hole pintle like the RC's they are about 15mm RECESSED into the plenum.

Fit, start = thrash.

its fine as is, the stock injector you have fitted is not really indicative of its ACTUAL protrusion as its not in the rail.

The RC's seems to be pretty well placed, nearly perfect even :P

Just for a comparison the rb injectors would protrude about 2-3mm more only, if you look at a 1jz or 2jz that use the tri hole pintle like the RC's they are about 15mm RECESSED into the plenum.

Fit, start = thrash.

great!

only thing im not following that last sentence of yourse

fit, start = trash?

great!

only thing im not following that last sentence of yourse

fit, start = trash?

I think he means fit the injectors, start up the car and f**king thrash it. BUT i dunno :P Love lunch time at work :D

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...