Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

In testing the Yaris Coil isn't as grunty as the Z33/R35 Coil.....

Any actual results for this testing? Everyone seems to rave about yaris could but can't find any solid info on the net
23 minutes ago, ActionDan said:

I thought it was just a head off situation for oil gallery mods or something. 

I'll just send you my head and you can sort it all ;) 

Good luck today btw, 

 

Mine swings 50 degrees and I modified the cam from 8.7 mm of lift to 10.25mm. It won't fit. You need step 1 for a stock donk.

1 hour ago, Sub Boy32 said:

In testing the Yaris Coil isn't as grunty as the Z33/R35 Coil.....

Quite possibly true however i'm not going for 1200 hp and i'm sure they're still good for the 800odd engine hp i want for mine

5 hours ago, iruvyouskyrine said:


Any actual results for this testing? Everyone seems to rave about yaris could but can't find any solid info on the net

Only in-house for our own decision as to what coils we would use to build upgrade kits for the RB and SR engines. I'm not bagging any one using Yaris coils as they will be better than standard RB coils, but we found the R35/Z33 coils to be better.

4 hours ago, sneakey pete said:

Quite possibly true however i'm not going for 1200 hp and i'm sure they're still good for the 800odd engine hp i want for mine

I'm sure the Z33/R35 coils won't get you to 1200hp either, but we were happier with the strength of the Nissan coils over the Toyotas.

9 hours ago, Mick_o said:

Why are you blokes talking about coilpacks in this BUILD THREAD? 

Lets keep the focus on this creature of the deep & more importantly when he chucks me the keys ?

 

haha, I think after all this time he will be sleeping in it for the first 12 months, lol

Here is one that might be OK for the coil info

https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/440409-ls2-coil-on-plug-mod/

 

 

8 hours ago, r32-25t said:

At least all of us twin fairies actually have cars that work :thumbsup: 

Throwing rocks in a glass house ain't ya? How many times did your engine come in and out and drove a total of a couple kms? 5 I think it was. 

:18_kissing_heart:.

This all started from the rear turbo packing in.

2-3 weeks and all good. 

  • Like 2
1 hour ago, Piggaz said:

Throwing rocks in a glass house ain't ya? How many times did your engine come in and out and drove a total of a couple kms? 5 I think it was. 

:18_kissing_heart:.

This all started from the rear turbo packing in.

2-3 weeks and all good. 

This all started cause a gearbox broke,

I think it was actually 4 but that's in the past and right now if I want to drive mine I go to the garage and turn the key :)

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...