Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well i've had my HKS3037 .68 E85 (Same core as the 3076) on 5 different Dyno's around Adelaide(Mainline and DD) and power has ranged from 348-359rwkw at 23psi.

That's high for a .68! Any other mods?

Guess i'm only running 18psi as well...

Edited by gwilkinson34
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 psi of boost wont be getting you from 273 to 358........adrian or lee would be the people to speak about in regards to the E85 side of things.....they both have their cars on that frying fish oil :verymad:

5 psi of boost wont be getting you from 273 to 358........adrian or lee would be the people to speak about in regards to the E85 side of things.....they both have their cars on that frying fish oil :cool:

its a different fuel krish, theres more to this than just adding boost :verymad:

the reason is the extra boost extra timing and cooler cylinder temps all add up to being able to push the engine harder then you could

on PULP. i picked up 55rwkw from e85.

but was that on same boost???

anything is possible on e85, and definatly talk to adrian about tuning to e85 he has been tuning my car for a year and a half and also convinced me to go to e85 and i wont go back :) amazing how much difference it made

dooo eeet :) it's worth the drive if it's a bit aways from you. If it's not a daily driver, just take the car and 2 x 20l jerrys with you. Use to drive about 50mins to get my E85, now it's 5 mins up the road. karma :(

but i guess not too handy if it's a daily.

how many kms are we talking gwilkinson?

id love to go e85 but since the car is my daily, id need many more petrol stations to sell it for it to be viable for me, esp given the reduced range involved

that said... who doesnt want an environmentally clean fuel that just happens to give u a bunch of extra power... heh

-D

id love to go e85 but since the car is my daily, id need many more petrol stations to sell it for it to be viable for me, esp given the reduced range involved

that said... who doesnt want an environmentally clean fuel that just happens to give u a bunch of extra power... heh

-D

part one highlighted.....everyone wants the enviro clean fuel......part 2.....the popo/gov/old farts

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...