Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i got 840s atm which are pretty flat out under full load >90% duty . now you need 30% more for e85. now 840 x 1.3 = 1100. so i doubt the 1000s will be enough. which is why i need to talk to martin, see what he thinks

yeah they will be fine ask Martin how much more fuel pressure you can squeeze into the injectors

he was telling me @ the dyno day he was running 150psi through RH9

ok if u could find out if they will fit my Sard rail, and they do, im keen on a set of 6

ok Dean the Sard fuel rail should be a 11mm hole and if so you will be ok with these injector kits

also someone asked for pictures i think of the ID2000 fuel rail??

just had a chat to martin. says its a lil bit of messing around to convert it to high impedance. might have to pass on these :(

what sort of messing around is he talking about? im also keen on some 1000cc's for my gtr

ok Dean the Sard fuel rail should be a 11mm hole and if so you will be ok with these injector kits

also someone asked for pictures i think of the ID2000 fuel rail??

I was after a pic of the id2000 rail

Cheers

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...