Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  R31Nismoid said:
You mean most of the time with the factory piping you will not have the issue.

Hearing it vs actually having it - are distinctly different in my opinion :P

It's well known that hard piping kits can cause the comp surge (using 2530's/garrett -5s) as the factory ribbed piping actually flexes a bit which can stop the problem from occuring at all.

There is lots to be said for some OEM stuff - and the intake piping is one of those such items.

And yes i understand factory piping doesnt look good etc, but it most certainly serves a clear purpose.

Yes Ash, and another bad thing about aftermarket piping is that it is one extra thing that the cops will pick on you for.

  im late said:
mmmmm elaorate...............

I would but it would point out my utter stupudity (see I'm not afraid to tell the world I f^$ked up)

Oh well I will then

Built motor, -5's, tuned by a mob which I thought new what they were doing, ingnored the compression surge (which the tuner pointed out as well), ignored the PFC flashing the exhaust light.....bang, crack on bore 5.

No I am NOT saying that compression surge was THE casue of the problem, but I am sure it did not help things overall.

Lets get back on topic now. ;)

Hang on... compressor surge was the reason given for your motor splitting a bore?

:P

You said it did not help things... it had nothing to do with you splitting a bore.

That was poor motor assembly, nothing more. Comp surge had zero to do with it, i don't even know why you'd mention it in the same sentence.

  R31Nismoid said:
You said it did not help things... it had nothing to do with you splitting a bore.

That was poor motor assembly, nothing more. Comp surge had zero to do with it, i don't even know why you'd mention it in the same sentence.

Same sentence or not, I was merely replying to a request from the topic starter to elaborate.

It was in the same sentence but it was not a cause of the motor failing. It was merely just another separate issue that I did not bother to fix.

Is that more accurate? Is everyone happy now? :P

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

    • 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...