Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yehh, results would be excellent :glare:

Haha would use E85 if it was an option here, but I'm not paying $3 a litre. Until it becomes more available, I'll be on PULP.

It'll happen man!! No rush ;)

Hope you get the E85 over there one day soon!

Haha yeh, would be good. At the moment I'm more likely to go WMI, it's just way easier. To be honest though, I think any more engine mods are on hold for awhile. Whatever power it makes with this tune is where it will stay for now. I just want to drive the damn thing again. The original plan was to have it ready for the reopening of Barbegallo, but I've overshot that by about 2 months now :( Dying to hit the track again.

Actually next money might be on a lap-timer, I still don't know what I'm getting around Barbs :unsure:

So the saga continues... Engine failed on the dyno today. Valves are sticking open. Don't even know where to start, but tomorrow I have to pick the car up and get it home. No idea where it goes from here.

So the saga continues... Engine failed on the dyno today. Valves are sticking open. Don't even know where to start, but tomorrow I have to pick the car up and get it home. No idea where it goes from here.

Boo

Timing belt?

Unfortunately RBs are interference motors :(

So sad to hear this man!

Nothing so obvious. If it had been a complete engine failure then I could just buy a new motor. But according to Sean, mine is still drive able. It's only when he tried to do a full load power run that the engine loses compression and he has to abort.

Nothing so obvious. If it had been a complete engine failure then I could just buy a new motor. But according to Sean, mine is still drive able. It's only when he tried to do a full load power run that the engine loses compression and he has to abort.

This has been burning my brain man! It doesnt add up....

  • 5 weeks later...

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...