Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I wouldnt say that is safe...its a bit lean, considering the heat soak that affects the stock intercooler.

and there is no such thing as SAFE AFR's a motor will ping at 9:1 if there is too much timing and or heat.

On that set up, i had APEXi cooler.

This is the old set up graph, used it only to prove that MINES ECU is not the same as standard ECU.

HAHA oh boy i wish nissan never made the standard ecu the way it is..

Im about to get a mines and try it out. Cheers adis!

on the mods i have now, big poddie, free flow exhaust, boost t, i ran 15.3 quarter mile at best on factory boost! the cars slow has hell and cant even get near 10psi as the ecu is totally gay! Just burns up a ton of fuel for nothing.

so im getting the mines coz its about 1k cheaper then a remap and tune, i can run 12psi, and it will lean it out a bit more then the standard ecu even putting out more power. i doubt you can lean out 12psi on the standard ecu let alone the mines one. so mines should be safe as.

plus i live in nz so we get max 15' C hahaha. love that cold weather.

I also got told that id put out 310hp with a remap chip and tune, front mount, and fuel pump. so for 2k i can have that much power. or for 400 bucks max i can have about 260 hp.

adis dyno proves that hes getting that power. but under that heat its never going to run good.

Mate, i didnt run this set up at Heathcote... If i did, i would have much better time to show! With this set up i had super responsive 208KW.

What i ran was much laggier hi flow, no apexi cooler, 190kw of laggy power compare to stock turbo 208kw, and in 25 got 14s flat, so you could probably pull low 14s with that set up i had a year ago.

-only issue, first gear is laggy compared to other gears.

I don't think you should have any lag issues with 1st gear at the strip, revs should be way up there in the boost range when you let the clutch go?

Very true, but when i launched at 3000 or 3500, it would grip, and be laggy?

If i launched at 5000rpm, it looked like a burnout....

When i got 14s flat, i launched at 4300 and thats when i had least amount of lag, but ye, like i said, for some weird reason, my 1st gear is super laggy. puzzles me.

Now, to throw a bit more fuel into the fire...since i got the conversation going...

I ran the car again on dyno, with 14psi car made 205kw, but, because i now have Bosch fuel pump(left over from previous set up), the car is running rich.

Here is the dyno. (dont forget in this dyno, im running hi flow turbo, -> MINES ecu is tuned for stock turbo, and 12 psi)

sssqo.th.jpg

Generally, 100mph is a flat 14 in a 1500kg street car.

Did you have traction issues?

I'll be surprised if you really are getting over 200kW at the wheels. I'll bet it's more like 170ish which would make your time about smack on the money.

If you do have 220kW then you must have been spinning hard off the line. Try lower tyre pressures and a big smokey burnout to get some heat into em.

But then if you were spinning off the line you would likely have a faster trap speed for a flat 14, so I reckon you just don't have the power that you thought you did.

Ignore the ET. The single most important piece of evidence is the mph. Any halfwit of a driver can run a good mph. It is irrelevant of the launch, actually a slower launch will very slightly improve the mph.

The mph equates directly to power to weight. The mph lines up to around the 207rwkw the dyno shows.

Go to this site: http://www.warwickdragway.com/Calculators.html

Punch in 3100lb for the weight of the car and 105mph and it calculates you have 280rwhp which is spot on with 207rwkw. See how it doesnt care what the ET or 60' time is.

Then only if you have a good 60' launch will you net a good ET. If you use another calculator, you can punch in 280rwhp and 3100lb car and it will show you the best time you can theoretically run is 13.0.

Edited by Harey

no it wont... unless like mentioned.. the old one was totally knackered.

the pressure regulator regulates the pressure.. hence its name.

the pump just pumps.

i know its richer now.. i'm not saying its not.. but you've found a symptom not a cause.

Ohh im back to MINES topic again (sick of it).

Please, Explain to me how factory ECU will perform better than MINES ecu on 12 psi.

Mods:

    [*]Split fire coil pack / [*]Turbotech controller set to 12psi / [*]Apexi cooler / [*]K&N Filter / [*]Full exaust / [*]Greddy blow off / [*]Mines ECU / [*]Stock turbo, fuel and everything else.

    -This map here, there is nothign wrong with it is there? Not too rich not too lean? You cannot tell me that you will get a graph like this from factory ecu so please dont tell me "there is bugger all difference", thats absolute rubbish.

    Even when i just bought it, i felt the difference, so again, dont tell me there is no difference.

Umm what?

We are talking about the 16psi + hi-flow turbo setup here. Not the factory turbo one.

You know - the setup you were running @ the drags from your first post?

Car: R33-hiflow turbo, Mines ecu, 16 psi, 2.5 inch turbo back exhaust, split fire coil pack, apexi 3 inch intake, r34 cooler.

So clearly making 190rwkw + hiflow turbo + 16psi - something was gravely wrong... You asked what could have been a factor - we told you.

You didn't like what you were reading even though it's fact.

Dropping the exhaust then just made the entire problem worse.

Trent is WRONG.

Bit claim from someone without any proof.

So then - Prove it. Post up the mapping of your MINES ECU and then we can compare that to a factory one.

Totally your choice, but to call someone wrong without any evidence is a bit... odd.

And no before you try it again - a AFR run on a dyno does not count.

Oh and BTW - 210rwkw on a factory turbo just isn't going to realistically happen.

Not one person has run ~108-109mph with their "claimed" 210rwkw on factory turbos. I was running 110-111mph with 220rwkw as many others have.

Most get around 105-106 which is more appropriate to 200rwkw like 99% of more accurate results.

Fuel pump wont affect AFRs either unless the old one was half dead.

Correct.

Yes it will, car runs richer.

Wrong, again.

The Fuel Pressure Regulator controls how much fuel goes across.

The only time you will see things become richer is if the pump you are taking out is dying and unable to meet demands.

Changing a perfect working R33 factory pump with say a 700hp Bosch motorsport pump will show zero different as the the FPR controls it.

Punch in 3100lb for the weight of the car and 105mph and it calculates you have 280rwhp which is spot on with 207rwkw. See how it doesnt care what the ET or 60' time is.

R33 wet, with driver etc comes in a bit over 1400kg's mate.

~105mph is around 200rwkw in a full weight R33.

~110mph is around 220rwkw " " " " "

I raced on a fortnightly basis with around 1470KG's and 220rwkw. I would cary between 109-111mph with 220rwkw.

Wrong, again.

The Fuel Pressure Regulator controls how much fuel goes across.

The only time you will see things become richer is if the pump you are taking out is dying and unable to meet demands.

Changing a perfect working R33 factory pump with say a 700hp Bosch motorsport pump will show zero different as the the FPR controls it.

The man speaks the truth. Fuel pump change will definetely not affect tune, afr's etc. (unless as said, old one was f**ked).

Edited by PM-R33
R33 wet, with driver etc comes in a bit over 1400kg's mate.

~105mph is around 200rwkw in a full weight R33.

~110mph is around 220rwkw " " " " "

I raced on a fortnightly basis with around 1470KG's and 220rwkw. I would cary between 109-111mph with 220rwkw.

1400kg = 3086lb

1470kg = 3241lb

So its pretty close. I dont think its worth arguing about 207 and 200rwkw dyno figures as we are all know the inconsistencies involved. My only point is the car had a genuine 200rwkw to run 105mph. And if the launches improved a lot there is a low-mid 13 on the cards.

no it wont... unless like mentioned.. the old one was totally knackered.

the pressure regulator regulates the pressure.. hence its name.

the pump just pumps.

i know its richer now.. i'm not saying its not.. but you've found a symptom not a cause.

spot on.

there is no way the pump can alter the afr's unless the stock one was on the way out and not pumping enough as it should.

here is a very basic analogy of the fuel system

there is a bar that serves drinks to a set number of people every mintue. depending on how people are in the bar determines how many drinks it serves (this is the injectors). there is a doorman who only lets a certain number of people in the door per mintue, reguardless of how big the line is (this is the fuel pressure reg). then there is the taxi company who drop people off to the bar (the fuel pump). the taxi company can drop people of in a regular size taxi and there can still be a line up of people waiting to get in the door if they deliver at a faster rate that what the doorman lets people in. when all the taxis are operational then this is easily done. if the taxi company has 1 or 2 taxis broken down and can't drop as many people off then the people will be able to hop out and walk straight into the bar. if the taxi company stops using taxis and starts using buses to drop people off, no more people are going to get into the bar because the doorman still limits how many people get in. it just means the taxi company doesn't have to work as hard.

and there you have a very basic analogy of a fuel system, although it is a bit more complicated than that. but it does an example of proving how the fuel pump can't affect AFRs unless the old one wasn't working properly.

The man speaks the truth. Fuel pump change will definetely not affect tune, afr's etc. (unless as said, old one was f**ked).

Hmm okay, i was led to believe (by mechanic) that its now running rich due to pump, he even offered to swap it back for stock one... maybe he wanted more work.

So why is my car running rich now with hi flow turbo, when it used to run slighly lean on stock fuel pump and stock turbo...?

spot on.

there is no way the pump can alter the afr's unless the stock one was on the way out and not pumping enough as it should.

here is a very basic analogy of the fuel system

there is a bar that serves drinks to a set number of people every mintue. depending on how people are in the bar determines how many drinks it serves (this is the injectors). there is a doorman who only lets a certain number of people in the door per mintue, reguardless of how big the line is (this is the fuel pressure reg). then there is the taxi company who drop people off to the bar (the fuel pump). the taxi company can drop people of in a regular size taxi and there can still be a line up of people waiting to get in the door if they deliver at a faster rate that what the doorman lets people in. when all the taxis are operational then this is easily done. if the taxi company has 1 or 2 taxis broken down and can't drop as many people off then the people will be able to hop out and walk straight into the bar. if the taxi company stops using taxis and starts using buses to drop people off, no more people are going to get into the bar because the doorman still limits how many people get in. it just means the taxi company doesn't have to work as hard.

and there you have a very basic analogy of a fuel system, although it is a bit more complicated than that. but it does an example of proving how the fuel pump can't affect AFRs unless the old one wasn't working properly.

lol, im learning =)

Hmm okay, i was led to believe (by mechanic) that its now running rich due to pump, he even offered to swap it back for stock one... maybe he wanted more work.

So why is my car running rich now with hi flow turbo, when it used to run slighly lean on stock fuel pump and stock turbo...?

The only time you will see things become richer is if the pump you are taking out is dying and unable to meet demands.
Bit claim from someone without any proof.

So then - Prove it. Post up the mapping of your MINES ECU and then we can compare that to a factory one.

Totally your choice, but to call someone wrong without any evidence is a bit... odd.

And no before you try it again - a AFR run on a dyno does not count.

Oh and BTW - 210rwkw on a factory turbo just isn't going to realistically happen.

Not one person has run ~108-109mph with their "claimed" 210rwkw on factory turbos. I was running 110-111mph with 220rwkw as many others have.

Most get around 105-106 which is more appropriate to 200rwkw like 99% of more accurate results.

I cant prove anything, all i have is a dyno sheet, a car that hasnt "blown up or cooked" like some suggested, i also have personal experience running stock ecu and this ecu, and on this ecu, the car is faster. Thats all i honestly have.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...