Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Fair enough

I no each car is different i was hoping to help you and others further just need base figures to work with

but never mind thanks anyway

All good!

As mentioned in PM, im pretty sure im at my upper limit RE: SAFC tune. As from that point on, no matter what we did with timing/airflow adjustments, it never got any better. Seemed to be the sweet spot. And id rather fiddle with it on the dyno if you were to forward a bit of info. And i wont be spending any more on it untill i can afford /ask the mrs if its ok/etc etc, to buy a G4 :D

GotRice? is all about the US imports :blush:

So you're going to skip the GTSLink idea?

Te he he. Too Troo!

Not entirely... maybe just a G4 GTS link :D If i go with what Keith said, getting the later one would be a better way to go.

Speaking of.. can he get them?

Fair enough

I no each car is different i was hoping to help you and others further just need base figures to work with

but never mind thanks anyway

If you're in Sydney, I can have a play with your SAFC for free and get the A/F to what you want. I used to run the older SAFC in my 180SX.

But saying that, I've hopped on the band wagon and am running a power FC

Its cool mate thank you but my cars not even in the country.

I have info given to me from Apexi regarding settings for different states of tune plus other setting from other cars set up on dyno

I just thought i could help but its all sorted via pm

Thanks

Speaking of.. can he get them?

I would say speak to Dan first. Adrian is going G4, as well as possibly others :D There could end up being a group buy, so don't go running off without consulting TLR HQ.

I am quietly horrified at peoples reliance on S-AFCs, and even more so the whole "Base numbers to work from" concept. If someone made a robotic arm designed to give cut-throat shaves, but having it hard coded to suit the face of the guy who created it - a base to work with as most people have roughly the same looking face... would you use it?

Much the same thing, except your engine is the one who gets pwnt.

something to start with would be simple bending the signal around 5% under full load if you have a standard ecu with more boost. but if you cant figure that much out for yourself you really shouldnt be playing with it

something to start with would be simple bending the signal around 5% under full load if you have a standard ecu with more boost. but if you cant figure that much out for yourself you really shouldnt be playing with it

So you're saying do this regardless of knock or AFRs? And you're saying who shouldn't really be playing with it...?

5% is no where near enough to make it too lean when running higher boost. standard ecu AFR's dip into the 10s under full load most of the time, even if it was holding 11.5:1 5% correction would bring it up to 12:1. even 12.5:1 isnt gonna hurt a standard motor. same goes for timing, 5% would move it up 1 row tops, worst case scenario you'll end up in knock maps which barely have enough timing to run, let alone knock.

of couse you'd atleast use premium if you were going to do it.

something to start with would be simple bending the signal around 5% under full load if you have a standard ecu with more boost. but if you cant figure that much out for yourself you really shouldnt be playing with it

Did you read my posts?????

Edited by jjskyline79

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...