Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lol. i only weigh 64kg.

so mid to high 200's with the basic mods that i have? i could run 10psi as i have a r32 actuator kicking about but im just worried about the turbo spitting its impellor fins.. and i dont have the cash to upgrade to a hks turbo. i did a boost run this afternoon an it made exactly 7psi on full throttle with standard 25 actuator in 4th gear with no boost controller or stock boost solenoid, just straight boost to the actuator.

Eat less burgers
lol. i only weigh 64kg....

Eat more burgers

Seriously, whip the spare out, any spare tools. Given the weight of the car and the hp your making it wont make much difference. Fibreglass gurads and hood might help a bit.

This thread is halarious.

The only "practical" things to remove to save a bit of weight (however given that your car is stock I don't see the point as you will notice nothing.)

Spare wheel

Factory jack and tools

Factory floormats

Boot lining

Problem is the rear of the car is not the main area that you want a weight saving. The front is where all the weight is on a R33 and what causes it to understeer, thats the hard area to remove weight from.

Honestly one of the best upgrades weight saving wise on a R33 is replacing the factory bonnet with a lighter carbon item. Good weight saving of 10 odd kg (dependent on quality of bonnet) and you are removing weight from the front. Problem is the legality side of things and the quality of the bonnet.

There are heaps of weight saving oppotunities if safety and legality aint a concern, hence for a track car.

Edited by PM-R33
Problem is the rear of the car is not the main area that you want a weight saving. The front is where all the weight is on a R33 and what causes it to understeer, thats the hard area to remove weight from.

Easy to remove wieght from front :P

When you say Alloytech do you mean the Alloytech V6 found in Holden Commodores?

If so I don't think that counts for the purposes of this thread :blink:

LOL asked how to get the kilos out , this is how just piss off the 25det junker :D

10290.jpg

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...