Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I don't expect people to agree with my reasoning but no i don't like those return pipe things . Can't see the sense of having a return pipe when a tank can have dual roles .

The reason I dont like bar and plate IC cores is because I don't think the air flowing through to the radiator get an easy time , round edge tubes are a better compromise I think .

I doubt a Trust turn flow is going to magically fall in my lap but there are a few alternatives to look into .

I was looking at Datalogit software with SK yesterday afternoon and he thinks the easiest way to increase the fuel injected across the board is to change the injector settings on the LHS of I think the injectors setting page from 48 to I think 62.4 . I think the logic is that 740s are twice the size of the std 370s and the compensation in my case was 48% . 48 times 1.3 = 62.4% . This is probably a crude dirty way to go about starting the Eflex experiment but I can't think of an easier one to start with . I just need to buy a length of low pressure fuel hose so i can connect it to the low pressure side of the reg and pump the 98 out into fuel containers . I've two 10s and a 5L container of Eflex to play with so if I can tip 5 or so in and get it to start and run I can pour in a bit more and see how it drives . If its not workable I can pump it out again and revert to 98 and the current "livable" settings .

I also asked him about AFR vs lamda and he reckons Tech Edges can be switched between the two . I guess its getting my head around E85 being something like 8.8:1 instead of petrols 14.7:1 . I can see where lamda cuts the confusion because the ideal ratio is always 1 not matter what the fuel is .

Working today so probably no time to get into this till Wednesday or Thursday .

A .

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I guess its getting my head around E85 being something like 8.8:1 instead of petrols 14.7:1 . I can see where lamda cuts the confusion because the ideal ratio is always 1 not matter what the fuel is .

If you leave the wideband in petrol afr's you don't have to change anything. It will still be 14.7:1 as the wideband reads lambda anyway and converts it.

Just changing injector size will get you running but mine requires 50% more fuel at cruise/light load and approx. 25% at wot. It isn't a set figure.

Nothing wrong with the turnflow concept. The air has to go back to the passenger side of the car somehow, it might as well be behind the bumper reo. I had one built from a truck core for my car last century. Still using it. Little pressure drop, good efficiency. May not support stupidly high power levels, but then I haven't had to cut any (illegal) holes in the car for it either.

The turn flow is hardly going to be an issue on a sub 270rwkw car.

The air has to turn at some point and you are reluctant to cut a hole in the other side of the engine bay so whichever way you cut it a Blitz cooler will meet all your needs.

I still think if it's not getting tracked hard the SMIC could do alright, stick a small fan behind it maybe and/or add a small water sprayer to it and you could get away with it quite easily especially if running E85

I am not sure why you just don't buy an off the shelf kit. Using a XR6 core, then fking about with piping, etc.. will end up costing more than just buying a JJR return flow kit, if you're a brand wh0re just get the Blitz return kit for like $800.

I even taken the liberty of providing direct links to each product:

Blitz: I lied, they're $699 even better

http://justjap.com/store/product.php?productid=19402&cat=339&page=1

Cooling pro: Good enough for the power levels you're aiming for

http://justjap.com/store/product.php?productid=17355&cat=339&page=1

I still think if it's not getting tracked hard the SMIC could do alright, stick a small fan behind it maybe and/or add a small water sprayer to it and you could get away with it quite easily especially if running E85

cooling isnt the issue, its airflow that concerns me, JZA80 side mount intercoolers are way bigger than R34 side mounts and the Supra ones barely flow enough for 240rwkws I just cant see the little factory core allowing enough airflow, they were designed for ~200kw at the crank not more than 300kw at the crank

no differnt to trying to make 300rwkws with a standard exhaust...you just wouldnt do it

I ended up starting with the internal cooler or Eflex .

I pumped the remaining 98 out into a fuel container via the rails return tube and a couple of meters of fuel hose . I poured a bit of Eflex in to stir up the remains and ran it until I heard the pump start to "sing" . Then it was in with 5L and jack the injector trims up 30% . With a couple of primes it fired up fine and idles better than I think it ever has with the PFC on ULP . I've been round the block a few times and it appears to drive fine so I'll fill it up later on .

The cold start tomorrow will be interesting but warm it fires first time every time .

I know the intercooler won't cope but that will be replaced in time .

Cheers A .

Just drop 80-100% into the cold start enrichment under 20 degrees and you should be fine. I have found double the fuel is required on average for cold start from my experience.

without proper specs you'll be firing it all day and pulling plugs out to dry them.. my settings turnt out to be a different from what was recommended with the formula's , took alot of hair pulling out sessions to hear it run properly... slightly less than double the fuel in my case

without proper specs you'll be firing it all day and pulling plugs out to dry them.. my settings turnt out to be a different from what was recommended with the formula's , took alot of hair pulling out sessions to hear it run properly... slightly less than double the fuel in my case

At least they don't foul, just dry them off or let it sit for an hour. :)

When I went to gas it up the temp gauge was showing zip but it started again first time . I added a bit more timing here and there and it just continues to get better . The only unusual thing it did was not return to idle as fast as it should and when starting revs briefly to 2000 sometimes . It been years but maybe I have to do that idle learning thing again .

The local Caltex Eflex servo is selling at $1.129/L and 90L cost ~ $79.60 , beats paying when the price was low $1.469/L for Ultimate 98PULP .

Will dust off the Tech Edge and see what it shows tommorow , A .

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...