Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

it'll mainly affect idle. if the rest of the map is good then it should idle much better. when i went from stockers to 555s i used the settings i posted on the previous page (albeit with a pfc) and it started straight away and ran perfectly, even drove it that way for a few weeks.

I can't see anything on the page?

It says the part about:

"This is by far my most popular addition, a preliminary version has been in circulation to Nistune users for some time. So those who don't use Nistune, here it is"

But then bellow it is a white screen?

Everything else on the site looks to work though. Good website by the way man, you do it yourself?

dunno bout every voltage but it should be close enough. im assuming when you enter +.18 into the power fc it just uses the same correction accross the board

yea in the pfc there are the two columns(injector) that you enter the change in size% and one for the change in ms...this is on the hand controller

Now noticed in datalogit there is the same two columns as the hc and also an Inj lag(ms) vs. batt V table similar to the Vipec table so do you adjust anything in this table when you change the injectors or just the two column (injectors) table and leave it at that??

PM-R33 .... maybe vipec has this same overall setting change in the software so you dont need to change that actual table you mentioned??

U don't have to adjust the ms/Volt table unless ur AFR changes when electical loads are applied to the engine.

Then to set it disconnect ur alternator and as the volt slowly decrease set the ms/Volt table at the current Voltage to keep the AFR at idle constant.

what about the minimum injector pulse width?

I've adjusted my lag time to work well, but when I'm say cruising on a slight down hill, and only slightly touch the accelerator, i get spluttering, i watched and noticed my AFR's leaned out in this situation.

Am i correct in thinking it's got more to do with minimum pulse width than injector lag times?

fine with no throttle, fine with normal throttle. It's just that really low almost like resting the foot on the pedal kind of throttle.

When i say lean i mean about 17-18:1

14.7 with low throttle, 20+:1 (no fuel) with no throttle. But just the interchange between throttle and no throttle basically.

using NIStune with seimens deka injectors

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...