Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi people, just wanting to hear peoples thoughts on High Octane coatings. I have used Competition Coatings, HPC, Jet Hot in the past and have my thoughts on the respective pros and cons of them....I have not used High Octane coatings in the past.

Anyone used their black manifold/turbine housing coating and can speak to its durability?

http://www.performancecoating.com.au/turbocharger-coating

My own experience has HPC the best for quality and durability...no surprise they are they most expensive. Competition Coatings and Jet Hot about the same, with perhaps Jet Hot being a tad more durable but less range of colours and finishes.

I've used Techline ceramic coatings on my manifolds and turbine housings on 2 of my cars. Coatings are inside and out of the manifolds and turbine housings.

I've proven the coatings hold up to sustained heat around 850 degrees no problems. Looks good too. I don't know who of the companies you mentioned use the techline products, but the key is in the application. I have an aluminium oxide/ceramic base under the black TurboX coating.

Competition Coatings did a set of CP pistons for me in one of my other engines. The finish looked great. Never produced any performance data with that engine though. Changed the recipe before getting that far.

I used a local ceramic coating a few years back. The ceramic held up but i swear the black that i paid extra for was just heat proof paint. After tuning on the dyno the black was peeling off from the collector.

ive used competition coating for my manifold and turbine housing, the high temp black one,

seems to have reduced my coolant temperature a fair bit , could be the larger turbo contributing though, seems ok so far.. not fancy to look at though, just faded black looking..

craved coatings did mine too, after a couple of dyno pulls the exhaust housing was measuring 300c on the surface (manifold and housing ceramic coated a cast iron/gunmetal grey colour inside and out)

competition coatings did both my manifolds, both sides of my turbo, cooler piping, TB and dump pipe.... looks sick and works really well... Ive got a few lines which are really close to my dump pipe and im so supprised that they havnt melted... without the coating im sure they would have.

All encouraging, but how long have you been running the manifold, turbine housing coatings. This ca is driven around 1000kms a month and does some sustained wide open throttle stuff so will get plenty of heat in it doing some fun days at the track. I have decided will be givign Comp Coating a go in Coburg and see how they go

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


  • 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...