Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ive done a 14.9 1/4, so maybe my 0-100 is around 7. This was done without a spare tyre and front bar and with only a 4000rpm launch. Might do better with a higher rpm launch and better tyres. NA 34s are not built for speed but they are quick enough for me. I only ever managed a 14.4 in my r33 s2 Gts-t, mind u it was pretty stock.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/32249-r34-na-power/#findComment-654176
Share on other sites

well, having owned both NA cars and an R33 turbo, there's defnitely positives and negatives of NA and forced induction. personally, I'm no speed demon, and almost never drive my R33 in anger, and the NA R34's still look the trick, so I'd prolly go for one of those when the R33 gives up the ghost...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/32249-r34-na-power/#findComment-654726
Share on other sites

At the moment full exhaust 2.5, pod filter, extractors, safc II. Pretty much extent of things u can do to an N/A. Looking for the 3lt conversion soon, but dont know if ill go ahead with it(its expensive). A friend of mine already had it done and he is happy but cost him more than originally planned (mind u he is in NZ so prob more in Aust). SAFC has so far been the best mod, exhaust and pod were done b4 i got the car. The car ran this time without front bar, rear seat or passenger seat (taken out for a stereo install that i didnt proceed with so also no stereo or speakers at the time), no spare tyre, no jack or tools. So yeah, I honestly dont think that our cars are supposed to be fast but they can be made to be reasonably quick.

HPI did their best time of 7.3 for 0-100 but to be honest with u I dont remember my 0-100 time. So sorry maybe u are right, I just estimated it to be around 7, maybe someone can tell me what a 0-100 time for a 14.9 1/4 mile could be. You have a four door right, just wondering have u weighed your car ? Id like to know just to compare it to mine.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/32249-r34-na-power/#findComment-655029
Share on other sites

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...