Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I thought the car was already tuned?

the r33 that got tuned last week with .5 front .82 rear 3582 chra, didnt make peak power until somewhere around 185-193kmph mark

this one with .7 front .82 rear makes its power 55kmph sooner? be good to see a few other dyno sheets with rpm boost afr

I have built 2x GT3582 spec sleeve bearing turbos. One was sent to you in your KKR housing and .70 comp. The other one was built in .82 turbine with .50 comp.

With the 2nd turbo I virtually gave it away for free just to get a experience after receiving a complaint from you with the lag issue. It was not as bad as what you've experienced with the KKR housing.

That R33 had stock cams, internal gate and turbo didn't have any run in time. Straight on and dyno tune. So the polymolicue libricator that we used to stablise the shaft would have some affects on the response.

I'm going to get both cars to do another run in few weeks time so we can compare results, and see the differences that external gate and cams have made.

Nick believe KM/H is more accountable. I had a look through the dynosheet section and it seems KMH/RPM scale varies from dyno to dyno.

I'm taking a average sacle of:

1KM = 39RPM. So you can work it out:

65 : 2535

85 : 3315

105 : 4095

125 : 4875

145 : 5655

165 : 6435

175 : 6825

His dyno's analyzer is broken. it can only show Power , speed and torque at this stage. Probably can get the car to run on another dyno once its tuned.

kwickr33: Let me know when you want to run on more boost. I can cover your dyno time thats not a problem.

How is Km/h more accountable when your claiming spool speed in rpm. Wheel spin will root up Km/h.RPM/KMH ramp rate can change speed of spool slightly but engine rpm is directly proportional to engine/spool speed Unless your trying to dodge the printouts and running in 3rd. Rpm would be best to back up claims

Edited by RB26 cefiro

The tuner believed in such, all tunes he've done for me and my customers cars are in KMH. I did question about scales in RPMS which that was his answer.

Also this is a roller dyno, if it does not read the RPMS directly of the engine but accumulates it from KMH then his explanation do make sense

The tuner believed in such, all tunes he've done for me and my customers cars are in KMH. I did question about scales in RPMS which that was his answer.

Also this is a roller dyno, if it does not read the RPMS directly of the engine but accumulates it from KMH then his explanation do make sense

If it is a hub dyno like a dynapac then it would be a accurate account as long as you enter the correct diff and gear ratio figures. But the tuner is using a chassis Roller dyno which introduces many other factors the main being wheel spin, inertia and size of tyre/rim etc. Your tuner is using a mainline so there is no reason not to be able to show rpm as it can be picked up from either coil or injector unless he is either too lazy to hook up or there is a bit of smoke and mirror action going on. A log of also the boost/rpm would also show response

What ramp rate was it run up on??

Edited by RB26 cefiro
I thought the car was already tuned?

the r33 that got tuned last week with .5 front .82 rear 3582 chra, didnt make peak power until somewhere around 185-193kmph mark

this one with .7 front .82 rear makes its power 55kmph sooner? be good to see a few other dyno sheets with rpm boost afr

That would be because he rang the ting up in third gear instead of forth. Dont belive me 4th gear is 1.00:1 ratio 3rd is 1.302:1

So multipy his claimed 140km/h x 1.302 = 183kph which is close enough to call BS

You are telling me he's driven 175KM/H on 3rd gear.

This was done on 4th gear. I was present duing the tune. Go to the dynosheet section and check every one elses reading that is on the 4th gear and see what's the average KMH they’ve run.

never mind. I will take a video for you on the next tune up.

You are telling me he's driven 175KM/H on 3rd gear.

This was done on 4th gear. I was present duing the tune. Go to the dynosheet section and check every one elses reading that is on the 4th gear and see what's the average KMH they've run.

never mind. I will take a video for you on the next tune up.

Power figure is very strange after 140km/h dead flat at 300kw for 35Km/h the power to 175. The power actual peaks above the 140kmh at 154 and 164. If it was at a fast enough ramp rate you could easily over speed car on limiter till then which can give that effect of dead flat power

Well I'm not a dyno expert. I guess I need to ask Nick on Monday.

It was definitely run on 4th gear, I was watching him doing that. If rev limiter goes on and off I don't believe you will get a constraint power curve or have any incensement in speed.

Other thing is note where the peak is, The car had few slight miss up the top. which you can see from the inconsistence after 150kmh. Not sure if that could cause that.

Look. This car's coming back for further tuning in few weeks time. I will shoot some video footages so we are all clear.

  • 2 months later...

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...