Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I just realised... I thought you were going for 2 Bar SuperStar? Why only 24PSi now?

Oh and steve... My 880s on 98 are already hitting 70% dc from the calcs I did... And that was on 14psi only revving to 6500...

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well the exhaust is restrictive now so a bigger one is needed, the kw's were going up with more boost but not by much cause its choking so instead of stressing it out for every last kw, Yavuz made it safe enough to hammer everyday and turned the boost down.

Also, its pretty much quick enough for street duties as it is so why bother with more. Ive pretty much done what i set out to do on this motor, if i find a nice 4" exhaust thats another tune :banana:

Your fuel system just wont cope, ID's :D

No. I grew up on Oatley Bay and had friends round Connells Point and Kyle Bay. Haven't heard bout the N1 yet ,but Knowing my guys it will be pretty close to landing

Ah cool cool!

That's such an awesome buy, are you keeping it stock or going to town on it? It's a great base to work with :)

Steve... going by the injector sizes im assuming thats on E85?

You assumed correct.

Based on the boost it ended up on, it shouldve stayed pump98 but can be switched over at anytime (did tunes for both, just need to flash the ecu)

Steve, is that torque graph right? Looks to be 730nm...

Yep 730nm at wheels. Tractive effort was sky high, but that's not the number that matters.

Why doesn't it look right to you?

Yep 730nm at wheels. Tractive effort was sky high, but that's not the number that matters.

Why doesn't it look right to you?

i was just questioning the number mate, nothing more :)

my previous gtr with 26bottom end & gtrs's made 750nm torque...my current 30bottom end with -10s makes 930nm.

our kw are almost identical but the nm is very different? maybe my ported made the difference?

would a similar engine setup with e85 @ 24psi (i.e. yours) v's 98 @ 24psi (i.e. mine) impact the peak torque? maybe its just a case that e85 truly works better on higher boost?

Marko do you have more graphs?

I'd like to overlay them and see what differences there are

the only graph i have is here: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/post-a235105-

i might have another 1 @ home, let me check later a/h

just to add, 405awkw = approx. 450rwkw (it was 1 of the 1st q's i asked my tuner when it was done on his dyno, my mates who drive fords & holdens always ask "whats kw is that rear wheels?")

Edited by Marko R1

I think the port job would be making some difference but the tune and turbos would play more of a large part.

It's not peak figures I'm looking at, i want to see what they're both making at every 500rpm point so yeah if you've got one and can send it that would be great.

How do you know it's 930nm without a graph though? A lot of people think the N on the side axis is torque, it's tractive effort not torque

jim (tuner) told me that the shown axis on my graph is in fact torque.

i'll see what else i have at home but come to think of it, im 99% sure the other 2 graphs are KW v's AFR & KW v's PSI

sorry steve, this thread is about your car & not mine :)

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...