Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah, they've changed the way you search for outlets, pretty shitty change...

NSW seems to be

Rozelle

Dee Why

Drummoyne

East Blaxland

Conversely, just had another look at Melbourne outlets... got a stack more! :D :D :D :D

im from northern suburbs melbourne

closest to me is united in doreen

ive called up 4 times to united headoffice acting as a qualified tuner that i require e85 at mahoneys rd Reservoir and they said that location is on there " to do list"

my cuz has e85 on -7s (standard 26) made 379 on chequereds dyno and what a difference to my -7 setup it just revs so friggen harder

i told united headoffice, obviously its not a money maker in doreen because you have no hoons up that way, bring it to thommo and you'll see the line up (would look mint actually seeing all performance cars for the one bouzer)

dw about caltex thats pox rubbish

pull ya finger out united :D

official word from Caltex as far as i know... we'll all know in a couple weeks when i or someone else with a sensor tries a tank :)

would be great to let us know on feedback and even a PM to myself as im waiting on doing the e85 setup, but i want it as local as possible

  • 3 weeks later...

interesting list... who gave you that?

what car do you have? GTR or rb25?

1200 is overkill i would think, but not sure of your setup

Driftsales

http://www.facebook....06731592759916/

R33 gtst RB25

GCG higflow, apexi power fc, fmic, splitfires, "walbro was rated for 350hp or 255L"

When tuned putting down 222 - 236 rwkw @15psi

Edited by jukic.j

afm, probably (i maxed out around 250rwkw mark on my GT-T)

walbro might do you (i had drop-in walbro handle 280-290rwkw on my GT-T) - if not, get the new walbro one that is more suited to E85, has a '400' in model name i think.

injectors are overkill, and get the bosch style ones. If you're not planning on up'ing your turbo, some 725cc sized ones will be fine (injectors online for injectors, local place for us)

Fuel filter thing? haven't heard of that and i haven't run one in either my cars on E85

fuel lines??? wtf? that really sounds like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.... they're fine.

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...