Jump to content
SAU Community

The annual SAU Dyno Day - Register your interest NOW


Recommended Posts

Spoke to Shaun re a TV... He's got a little old POS at the workshop but best if we organise something ourselves. Dean, did you want to run with this?

Shaun has a BBQ for us to use.

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FREEBAGGIN R32 GTR's have the fuse the R33 models have a bloody drive shaft you have to take out. It's only four nuts but If I am able to go I want to find out what power I can put down to all four. Hope you all have a great day if I am unable to come.

""" FREEBAGGIN"""Not sure about your problem mate but back to the 4WD vs 2WD dyno bit, you should be able to remove the FWD fuse to make it RWD only. I think that's right? So you should come along and throw it on.

The chances are the fresh RB won't be in as I can't afford to pull the car off the road during Uni (starts in march).

I'll throw the tired (overheated for many months) RB20DET on the rollers though. :)

Been away from the forums for a while and just found out about this last night. I'll be there with my 230rwkw R33.

Mods:

Excedy Twin Plate

Custom Exhaust Manifold

Stock Turbo

100mm FMIC

Modified stock Plenum

Exhaust/Front/dump etc.

Power FC+HC

Blitz SBC-iD2

Tein Coilovers

18's

Scooby

About the 33GTR 4WD disable...I heard only the VSPEC needed to have the driveshafts removed. Non-VSPEC has 2 fuses you pull to disable 4WD. It's on this board somewhere but I cant remember what terms to search for.

R33 GTR's has the front drive almost going through the gear box. No fuse only the luck ones who own R32 GTR's can pull the fuse.. Sorry to hear about the relationship problems with everyone Cheeky, Whatisname etc.. I bet it is the car thing I will always pic the car over the partner except if kids are involved. We all need hobbys and well it just these are alittle more expensive then others. Don't mean to be noseeeeeeeeee but aint you going out with Munro Cheeky ? I heard you two were a hot item?

EnricoPalazzo, yeah according to Mik@Tillbrooks it's somewhere between 220 and 230rwkw running at 13.5psi on stock turbo. When I had the work done their dyno printer died and I've never had a chance to go back and get it printed out. Reason I can get those sorts of power are due to custom exhaust manifold, big FMIC (same as Grepin's) and modified plenum (much shorter plumbing due to throttle body mounted at the front of the plenum).

Have a look at what's been done on the dyno day if you like.

Scooby

Car got dynoed today, I am ready:p

had a chat to shaun at the same time, he said he will be able to keep a track of the cars, and print out dynos at the end with a 4 or 5 different cars on it, so we can see comparisons of mods and the resultant power output.

should be a fun day, and give us a great resource for people wanting to mod, so they can see what sort of difference to expect from upgrades:)

it was interesting. although I got a higher figure than matt, he has up to an extra 60kw midrange (shaun overlayed matts dyno) - but 500rpm later (or there abouts) the tables turn.

car feels so much stronger bottom end, light throttle cruise and coming on to boost. He doesn nice work (shaun). Should have listened to you earlier Lachlan:)

Having looked at Steve's recent 'Shaun dyno tune' I must say it is a very impressive package! Steve's car & mine side by side would be a fairly close match-up, traction would play the biggest factor, although there's no denying that top end grunt!

Ahh stuff it.... sorry Steve I can't hold on any longer I'm just gunna' let the cat outta' the bag :D 862rwhp is a huge effort mate....

....especially when you multiply it by 0.746 & divide it by 2 :D

it was interesting.  although I got a higher figure than matt, he has up to an extra 60kw midrange (shaun overlayed matts dyno) - but 500rpm later (or there abouts) the tables turn.

car feels so much stronger bottom end, light throttle cruise and coming on to boost.  He doesn nice work (shaun).  Should have listened to you earlier Lachlan:)

Excellent mate, a bit of brains and thoroughness makes the difference eh.

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...