Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Cheers mate, i was looking into the kits last night coz i think it will be easier to just chuck in a 2.8 crank rods and pistons into my engine already as thats all id need to change instaed of going 3L.

you can re use the existing head studs and all that stuff right? just need new head gasket and bearings?

you won't regret going 2.8, I remember driving Paul's when it had the gt-rs's still on it and the bottom end torque was amazing, I actually made the comment that day "the only thing I'd change is put 2530s on it"

you won't regret going 2.8, I remember driving Paul's when it had the gt-rs's still on it and the bottom end torque was amazing, I actually made the comment that day "the only thing I'd change is put 2530s on it"

yeh in reality i should of done it when i built my motor 3 years ago.

its going to have a t51r strapped on the side of it so it should make it pretty fun ( not that its not fun atm lol)

yeh in reality i should of done it when i built my motor 3 years ago.

its going to have a t51r strapped on the side of it so it should make it pretty fun ( not that its not fun atm lol)

We are still to sing whistling dixie down the freeway Chris! ;)

I know the feeling...done that!!

I always dummy fit first especially with new/modded/rebuilt turbo's.

It's too much of a pain to re-clock once they are in...

Well you would think when you took them down and said "reorientate to fit a GTR" you would expect them to fit!!!!!! :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: :domokun: .

Bit of an update;

Got the turbos back this arvo, they said they were out by 10 degrees. Don't know if it was that much but they're fixed. The hot side is complete bar the turbo supports and one water line.

Tomorrow I pick up my balance tube and idle garbage from Hypertune. Too hard to explain so I'll take some pics what I've done.

wasnt it just a simple case of clocking the rear or front covers?

Not the point. I wasn't gonna sit there pulling shit on and off trying to get tr correct angle. I know what you're thinking "it ain't that hard". But with two of them that need to be the correct angle its a pain in arse.

Either way, how did it get messed up? Have a look at the 200 gtr turbos out the back and make it the same.

belt the crap outta it! be keen to see what the -5's can produce. Still got my dollars on the 470kw :)

Haha. It would be nice. I'll be stoked with 450 at a reasonable boost level.

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...