Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lets use a real life example here...

paul diemar with his drag car TWOOGLE;

when he had the car tuned with the standard head it was within duty cycle of his injectors.

he then had head work done which gave him similar peak power, however, the torque increased substantially.

as a result, he maxed out his injectors & upgraded these to suit.

i only wish he was still on this forum to set the record straight :(

Marko I think you're just getting confused mate.

I don't doubt Paul made more torque with the mods he made. And what he was saying was that he was making more torque "at a given revs or range", ie he was making more horsepower at that rpm range. And if you are making more horsepower (as a result of more torque) then you need more fuel.

So the point is: Its not a RB30 that 'needs bigger injectors' because of the extra torque it makes.

Based on that theory, a 510 Cube V8 making shitloads of torque but only 400hp needs bigger injectors than all of us!

Also think about this. You sometimes hear people say 600cc Injectors can support X amount of 'horsepower' (ie Torque x RPM). You never hear people say 600cc injectors support x amount of 'torque'.

Here is another example.. suppose you have two motors, an RB26 and an RB30 that both make the same Horsepower. But that the RB30 makes more torque (usually at lower revs right?)

Lets say the RB26 makes 400ft/lb of torque at 8000rpm. HP = Torque x RPM / 5252.. therefore about 609hp.

Lets say the RB30 makes 500ft/lb of torque at 6400rpm. Do the Maths = about 609hp.

The RB30 makes more torque, but it only needs the same injectors to support 609hp.

What Paul was telling you (most likely) was that he now made even more than 500ft/lb of torque at 6400rpm (and therefore made more horsepower) which of course requires more fuel. (Obviously Paul makes more than that - I am just using the figures from the example I made up)

Make sense?

Well theory and flow charts are fine and can be helpful but I'll just reiterate that two different top tuners (one a Japanese tuner who gets most of the best GTRs in NZ and the other a very experienced RB man with a 7 second R32) both of whom use hub dynos and all the gear ( including fuel pressure gauges - can't believe the number of posts I've seen here of people saying the tuner "thinks there may be a fuel problem" - doesn't he know how to tell?) are independently saying when tuning between 300 - 400kw that for a single in tank pump the Nismo ones don't hack it and the O44 do.

Marko I think you're just getting confused mate.

I don't doubt Paul made more torque with the mods he made. And what he was saying was that he was making more torque "at a given revs or range", ie he was making more horsepower at that rpm range. And if you are making more horsepower (as a result of more torque) then you need more fuel.

So the point is: Its not a RB30 that 'needs bigger injectors' because of the extra torque it makes.

Based on that theory, a 510 Cube V8 making shitloads of torque but only 400hp needs bigger injectors than all of us!

Also think about this. You sometimes hear people say 600cc Injectors can support X amount of 'horsepower' (ie Torque x RPM). You never hear people say 600cc injectors support x amount of 'torque'.

Here is another example.. suppose you have two motors, an RB26 and an RB30 that both make the same Horsepower. But that the RB30 makes more torque (usually at lower revs right?)

Lets say the RB26 makes 400ft/lb of torque at 8000rpm. HP = Torque x RPM / 5252.. therefore about 609hp.

Lets say the RB30 makes 500ft/lb of torque at 6400rpm. Do the Maths = about 609hp.

The RB30 makes more torque, but it only needs the same injectors to support 609hp.

What Paul was telling you (most likely) was that he now made even more than 500ft/lb of torque at 6400rpm (and therefore made more horsepower) which of course requires more fuel. (Obviously Paul makes more than that - I am just using the figures from the example I made up)

Make sense?

Cylinder filling is at max at max torque, therefor there is the most amount of air in the cylinder and requires MORE fuel to achieve the same afr.

So the more the engine can fill (cubic inches and boost etc) the more air is in and more fuel is required.

Max injector duty cycle should be at max torque

Cylinder filling is at max at max torque, therefor there is the most amount of air in the cylinder and requires MORE fuel to achieve the same afr.

So the more the engine can fill (cubic inches and boost etc) the more air is in and more fuel is required.

Max injector duty cycle should be at max torque

You are forgetting that the cylinder will be filled more times per minute at higher revs. Demand for fuel will increase (more duty cycle) but increase in demand will not be linear if torque drops off so duty cycle curve should have more in common with power curve than torque curve.

But to get back to reading what the OP said: his tuner told him that the Nismo was running out of puff but when he hooked up a 040 it went fine. How can you argue with that? Do you want him to tell the tuner " other people can do it why can't you"?Although I would get a 044 intank.

Cylinder filling is at max at max torque, therefor there is the most amount of air in the cylinder and requires MORE fuel to achieve the same afr.

So the more the engine can fill (cubic inches and boost etc) the more air is in and more fuel is required.

Max injector duty cycle should be at max torque

no, max injector opening time is at max torque. max IDC is at max power, assuming of course that AFR's and timing are normal.

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

    • Order for the 2025 model R35 GT-R were accepted from 3rd March and 26th August the last order rolled off the production line at the Tochigi plant. Concerning the R35 GT-R replacement, current Nissan CEO Ivan Espinosa said "Nothing has been decided about the GT-R at this time, but we are well aware that everyone is waiting. The GT-R will evolve and reappear in the future. Please be patient until that day comes." Nissan has a lot of issues with management and finances so take Espinosa's words with a big grain of salt. From what discussions I've had and read about here in Japan, not a lot of people are confident about Nissan's future, let alone the next GT-R. 
    • Thanks. We getting some parts along too so he will be solving the speed issue like next week so i will let you know what he came up with.   
    • 21 is explicitly the coils detected as the issue. Is it guaranteed the actual issue? No. Just the ECU thinks it is. When you say rattling, describe it better, get an audio clip as best you can if possible.
    • Yea got me coppers. Bad news is I just put them in and the car still has the light and shakes. I also noticed I hear like rattling coming from the exhaust piping right under me. Does 21 also have a possibility of being O2 sensors?   So, coil packs are good, the harness is good, the MAF is working, and obviously the spark plugs just replaced and working.
    • Make sure you drop the GTT base tune back in, and set your injectors again, this will remove anything playing up with it you may have removed. Possibly lean there as it's normally a fast transient going THROUGH atmospheric pressure, and a turbo motor would then quickly go richer as boost builds. The only worry you MIGHT have is ignition timing, as the DE is higher compression than the DET from memory. But again, you're not in boost, so the DE motor will be a lot more forgiving at atmospheric.   Get Murray, Kinkstahs, and Johnny's input on tuning haltechs, those guys have played with tuning enough in the past to be able to help now you're past the trouble shooting stage of the MAP issue
×
×
  • Create New...