Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My opinion, ethanol makes more power due to the lazy way it burns, right through the piston stroke, which in turn makes more torque. That's why you can pump so much timing in without going backwards or detonating. As the exhaust is cooler and less dense (less carbon?) it actually causes more lag than a petrol tune I have noticed.

i was reading something a few days ago where a guy had put e85 in his mildly tuned honda with factory engine mgnt, his friend had the same car with the same mods but on pulp so they raced. His friend got the jump on him by about a car length.. He caught him in second then pulled 2 car lengths in 3rd..

He monitored the car for a few weeks then gave up cause he didnt want to do damage or install a piggyback :down:

i assumed it was cause it wasnt tuned, but maybe it has more to do with what your saying..but if its less dense why are egts rising?

Not to mention when I first put e85 in the tank, we gave the car a full pass without a retune and it made around 10kw more over the 98 pass directly beforehand

(this wasn't at status)

No its still in its box at the moment . I wouldn't mind giving EFlex a go in that car because it does so few miles that an exotic fuel wouldn't be a problem . It has 740s a Z32 and PFC already , and a 33 GTR pump .

I'm wondering if EFlex and a bar of boost would give it the 250-260 RWKWs .

Also people keep asking about the mythical perfect RB25 turbo and they want to hang an RWKW number on it . Id prefer people to have an "adequate" performance level because a set number seems to bother them . If they get it their chuffed and if they don't they're crestfallen . The performance level could be great for them but its the number that worries them .

This is a personal hack formula and quite conservative , I think along the lines of 100Kw/Liter capacity being quite good ie RB20-200 RB25-250 and RB30-300 . Its not difficult to think that if you throw an extra 50 Kw at each engine size you possibly risk losing that nice bottom squirt road cars thrive on .

In the case of E70-E85 you can possibly get a bit without increasing the boost pressure and that most likely comes from more efficient combustion - timing set around best torque rather than best detonation protection on PULP .

The trouble with going larger than the 100Kw/L state of tune is that you begin to need larger turbine housings biased more towards high performance exhaust flow than lower engine speed boost response , and so an unhappy compromise starts to set in .

Typical examples might be say RB20+GTRS/RB25+GT3076R/RB30+GT3582R . Now you can come back on turbine housing size on all except the GTRS and unfortunately its the one you can't easily go larger on either .

Personally on my hack formula to not really lose anything but gain everywhere it looks more like RB20+GT2530/RB25+GTRS/RB30+GT3076R . Now as mentioned not much can be done with the GTRSs turbine housing aside from flange adapting a T28 flanged 0.86 housing but you can certainly use a 1.06 GT30 housing on an RB30 with a GT3076R .

With turbos its virtually always the hot side that causes all the grief , the cold sides by comparison are generally easy . 16yrs ago I wanted T3 flanged GT30 IW turbine housings , now they are here but now I want them twin scroll and IW . I still want that 60mm NS111 turbine in 76 trim and I'm off to another board to chase more on them .

A .

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

    • 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...