Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

why am i not surprised! im hearing alot of bad stuff these days. Apart from their fan boys that is

They seem to get Nitto running pretty well but, struggled to get my tune right. But they are really good to get a long with as guys and hang out with. Tuning just wasnt to my liking. and yes they are a bit on the expensive side.

They seem to get Nitto running pretty well but, struggled to get my tune right. But they are really good to get a long with as guys and hang out with. Tuning just wasnt to my liking. and yes they are a bit on the expensive side.

im not a fan at all...but thats another story! ill give em a call and find out a 6466 .84 is?

lol all good. I gave them a buzz and they are ringing me back with a price.

I must admit their run of 9.6 @160mph seems slow considering the trap speed. JW Automotive work on an R32 that did around the 9.4 or 9.2 mark @ 149mph

  • Like 1

lol all good. I gave them a buzz and they are ringing me back with a price.

I must admit their run of 9.6 @160mph seems slow considering the trap speed. JW Automotive work on an R32 that did around the 9.4 or 9.2 mark @ 149mph

This. high trap speed for no speed. Should be low 9s easily, but then dont even get me started on these guys lol

they will more than likely run with the excuses of bad tyres and wheel spin again

or they were on run in tune of 938whp and 34psi of boost

Edited by Frosty

least they have run a 9 now.

Watching the runs though, there is too much engine for the chassis setup, its all over the shop, bobbing and weaving etc.

If they get that sorted instead of throwing more power at it it will be quick

its never going to be anything other than a dyno queen

Its a 9 second street car - that's definitely more than just a dyno queen, mid 9s is serious business even if it isn't as quick as it could be.

Its a 9 second street car - that's definitely more than just a dyno queen, mid 9s is serious business even if it isn't as quick as it could be.

Its far from a dyno queen, its gets used and abused :yes:

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...