Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

no one got pics of that red34 that made 910 hp on the dyno? that thing was insane and that bass tunnel was extrermely loud i was fairly impressed and would be THE loudest bass ive ever heard by a mile.

That dam tunnel gave me a headache! Had to keep as far away from it as possible. It was good to drop by the SAU display and have a chat to a few members (mainly JMW and Damo_R34). Oh and I also found Kristian (Iron Chef) which was good. :verymad:

no one got pics of that red34 that made 910 hp on the dyno? that thing was insane and that bass tunnel was extrermely loud i was fairly impressed and would be THE loudest bass ive ever heard by a mile.

I wanted to but every time I went over to it there was a massive crowd. Very impressive car.

no one got pics of that red34 that made 910 hp on the dyno? that thing was insane and that bass tunnel was extrermely loud i was fairly impressed and would be THE loudest bass ive ever heard by a mile.

What that the one that looked like absolute AIDS with the chrome 20 and BALLERZ sticker on it? Seriously.....wtf. Way to make the car look like a bag of dicks.

What that the one that looked like absolute AIDS with the chrome 20 and BALLERZ sticker on it? Seriously.....wtf. Way to make the car look like a bag of dicks.

nah there was another red r34 gtt with a 26/30 combo under the hood cranking 678rwkw......but apart from the motor the car was pretty much stocko.....even the damn brakes were stock brakes......

nah there was another red r34 gtt with a 26/30 combo under the hood cranking 678rwkw......but apart from the motor the car was pretty much stocko.....even the damn brakes were stock brakes......

Yes ... I found it amusing he was claiming to have Porsche brakes in the R34, but they were stock GTT brakes.

that thing had impressive hp, but i couldnt work out what the purpose of the build was. it has a very impressive engine bay and fuel system, but like it was stated, it had GTT brakes, it had standard GTT seats with seat covers, a TV in the din compartment and what looked like lenso (AVS 5 copies) that would have made them 7-8inches max width. how would you get all that power to the ground? it would just oversteer and spin at the touch of the accelerator wouldnt it?

^ lol at the above comments...you guys!!

My guess is he spent all his money on the motor. Apparently it was a bit of a rush to get it there... maybe brakes and interior are still to come?

None the less they were impressive numbers.

Yes ... I found it amusing he was claiming to have Porsche brakes in the R34, but they were stock GTT brakes.

Yeah i read that on his list of mods that he has done lol........the calipers still had nissan on it :P

^ lol at the above comments...you guys!!

My guess is he spent all his money on the motor. Apparently it was a bit of a rush to get it there... maybe brakes and interior are still to come?

None the less they were impressive numbers.

The only thing impressive is those dyno figures.....from what i can gather he has built the car purely for dyno/power runs......dont think he is too keen on putting it on the streets.......maybe there is more to come in regards to the build.......would like to see what he has planned for it though......mallala it????

The only thing impressive is those dyno figures.....from what i can gather he has built the car purely for dyno/power runs......dont think he is too keen on putting it on the streets.......maybe there is more to come in regards to the build.......would like to see what he has planned for it though......mallala it????

It certainly was impressive on the dyno. Perhaps a dyno king? As I said on the day, the fuelling system is serious!

I'd like to see what it would do on the track. Perhaps he does have Porsche brakes coming for it ... would certainly like to see if that power and anticipated brakes would get him in the sub 1m20 times.

That red R34 gtt, were the plates ceaser? if so its had a paint job, it use to be white, and use to have the plates PHAT 34. It has had about 80k spent on the motor, 3 or 4 rebuilds, i cant remember which

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



  • Latest Posts

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...