Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Isnt this turning out a little excessive for sub 400kw?

I wonder why it needs so much flow, le hmm.

Sorry mate

Didn't realize I was spending your money,

Flow is no longer in question Jez have spoken with e85 guys and they believe it's related to the fuel heating up to much second pump is to help with said issue

I think what he meant by excessive was its seems odd that your fuel system isnt coping as well as others have, I dont think he was talking about cost.

Eg some people are getting enough fuel flowing to make around 360kw on e85 using a single 044 intank with standard fuel lines and you are having to add a surge tank, bigger lines and another fuel pump. Granted I dont think they are going to be putting out quite as much power as you when your tune is finished and they werent running as much boost, but still.

Edited by Mitcho_7

Sorry mate

Didn't realize I was spending your money,

Flow is no longer in question Jez have spoken with e85 guys and they believe it's related to the fuel heating up to much second pump is to help with said issue

Sorry WHAT?

Dont be so defensive like im mocking your hard earnt layout. Good luck to you, I hope your stuff turns out well, I message Jez on the regular and get updates on how your cars coming along. The way you replied to that is almost offensive.

Mitch above is on the money. Im simply curious as to why its needing so much flow, and in a perfect world that could have lead to discussion about what other people have flowed with what setup. Who knows, maybe a few great minds would have joined in and helped troubleshoot so you can find out whats going on.

Spending my money, pff.

I think what he meant by excessive was its seems odd that your fuel system isnt coping as well as others have, I dont think he was talking about cost.

Eg some people are getting enough fuel flowing to make around 360kw on e85 using a single 044 intank with standard fuel lines and you are having to add a surge tank, bigger lines and another fuel pump. Granted I dont think they are going to be putting out quite as much power as you when your tune is finished and they werent running as much boost, but still.

:no:

360kw with single pump is the limit.... Well 357 was the final SAFE number anyway

Standard fuel lines were all over and done with above 340ish.... I had to go bigger lines and modify the fuel tank hat...

:no:

360kw with single pump is the limit.... Well 357 was the final SAFE number anyway

Standard fuel lines were all over and done with above 340ish.... I had to go bigger lines and modify the fuel tank hat...

This I was not aware of

Standard fuel lines were all over and done with above 340ish.... I had to go bigger lines and modify the fuel tank hat...

GTR/GT-t = same last time i checked... Wonder how the GTR guys are getting 400rwkw+ through stock lines & E85 (with just a Nismo pump) :unsure:

GTR/GT-t = same last time i checked... Wonder how the GTR guys are getting 400rwkw+ through stock lines & E85 (with just a Nismo pump) :unsure:

I think its a lot to do with the fuel hat itself.... It was a restriction.... Hence the modification :)

355rwkw here on pump98 and single pump no restriction. and 335rwkw on eflex no restriction all stock lines and rail. in gtst.

Well i dont want to go dribbling shit without properly understanding it myself BUT on my car the fuel pressure was unsafe at 360kw, after the mods were done and it was rechecked the fuel pressure was spot on at 357kw so it was obviously a restriction...

GTR/GT-t = same last time i checked... Wonder how the GTR guys are getting 400rwkw+ through stock lines & E85 (with just a Nismo pump) :unsure:

My original post from page 30 said exactly that.

Then I edited it in fear of a flaming :P Thanks for putting it out there though, I knew I wasn't going mad.

GTR/GT-t = same last time i checked... Wonder how the GTR guys are getting 400rwkw+ through stock lines & E85 (with just a Nismo pump) :unsure:

Sydney is warmer than Mexico. We need stuff like 15 litre sumps and 3 fuel pumps. :woot:

Sydney is warmer than Mexico. We need stuff like 15 litre sumps and 3 fuel pumps. :woot:

Hahaha exactly.

Maybe this will make a few people scratch their heads.

9a9959c5.jpg

hehe :)

I'm a bit behind on reading all threads at the moment. Too busy, so i tend to miss post replies where I usually see most even pre-edit :P

Nismo outflows a 044. Im hoping my single walbro 400 will be ok otherwise i will mount a 2nd pump in tank

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...