Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm liking the Option 2 ratios. Can always go to 4.375 diffs if needed.

Should have come past my place Paul...would have liked to see the OS88 first hand.

Weren't in it long, Charlie. I didn't want to start inviting half of SAU when Bob went well and truly out of his way already.

As I said, very very impressed. Slick, quick, effortless, quiet and no fuss.

Bob even slowed down and stopped at a set of lights in 4th gear. He clutched in and pushed the lever up and selected 1st. No noise, nothing. Let the clutch out and away we went.

Bobcat has bought some aftermarket shifter but it's not completed yet. He just simply clutched in and pulled the lever, next gear and away we go!

When Marcus got a quote for me, the guy that did my head suggested/recommended the OS88 straight away, $$$ being the problem. The issue is, as BigMicky said earlier, the standard casing only allows so much physical gear size, limiting strength.

I know I'm repeating myself but the level of street ability and user friendliness surprised me. I thought it would have been as agricultural as a John Deer tractor.

Now the question is

Is the 88 cheaper than an H6S?

...hang on...do hollinger still do the gtr spec boxes? I have a funny feeling they do not

Albins do one now and even Modena have a sequential that would accept the transfer case. Plus the new Quaife. Plenty of options... None a bargain.

From what Bob was saying, the holinger doesn't like more than 800 HP (not saying I'm at 800 HP). It's also straight cut.

Quaife - 750 hp

Modena - not sure

Albins - straight cut

Being a "street" car, I don't want to wear ear plugs while driving the damn thing. That's not what it's about.

It doesn't matter what way I/we go, none of the options are cheap. Even the cheapest option of the PPG 1-4 helical dog set will be the best bit of $7,000 by the time it's all done.

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...