Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, had my SAFC wired up and took it down to Unique Autosports to have it tuned. On its base run the car only managed a pathetic 120.8rwkw (down almost 11rwkw from its previous) and was leaning out fairly badly, about 13:1AFR on stock maps. SAFC was adjusted to increase fuel by 10% from 3000rpm-5000rpm and 3% at 6000rpm (12.6AFR) and the car gained 2.8rwkw :(. Got the car booked in for a smoke test at Unigroup Engineering to check for vacuum leaks, changed fuel filter today, will drop in a Twin Turbo 300ZX pump and get fuel pressure checked over the weekend. Kinda weird that the car had lost so much power yet still trapped 95-97mph at WSID only 3 weeks beforehand with nothing changed since then. Any other idea's as to why it could be running so lean?

would you even feel the difference of 11kw.. could of been some lower octane fuel or the dyno, hows the fuel pump?

definitely need some turbo action to do that beast some justice. :yes: ive driven an NA that was much better than a twin turbo though so make sure its not clapped out.

Edited by SliverS2

Its an NA and they usually run 11.5:1AFR stock so 13:1 is a huge difference on a stock ecu. Also i'm currently the 2nd fastest NA 300ZX on Aus300zx so its definately not "clapped out".

Its an NA and they usually run 11.5:1AFR stock so 13:1 is a huge difference on a stock ecu. Also i'm currently the 2nd fastest NA 300ZX on Aus300zx so its definately not "clapped out".

you should be making more power at 13:1 than 11.5:1 unless it is pinging it's head off and the ecu is backing the timing off

you should be making more power at 13:1 than 11.5:1 unless it is pinging it's head off and the ecu is backing the timing off

This listen to this. You want to be as close to 14.7:1 as you can without pinging and compromising timing.

This listen to this. You want to be as close to 14.7:1 as you can without pinging and compromising timing.

Actually, no you don't.

14.7:1 will provide a perfect stoichiometric burn, ie, all fuel is used, and all oxygen is used.

15.4:1 is a good mixture for cruising on.

12.0 to 12.5:1 has been shown numerous times to be the AFR that an engine will produce it's most torque from.

At 12.5 :1 you can really hammer the timing it and get it producing maximum combustion pressure at top dead centre rather then when running 14.7:1 where it makes maximum combustion pressure after top dead centre.

Its an NA and they usually run 11.5:1AFR stock so 13:1 is a huge difference on a stock ecu. Also i'm currently the 2nd fastest NA 300ZX on Aus300zx so its definately not "clapped out".

If you're running an AFM, clean it with CO Contact cleaner.

Check your air filter too.

Make sure you're running the same oil type as last time (throw in some fresh oil with a fresh filter!)

Check your TPS is set right and sending the correct values.

Check your coolant temp sensor is reading correctly. (voltage VS temperature check)

Pull your injectors and have them cleaned and flow tested.

Have you check your fuel pressure is still good?

Is your cat all okay?

This listen to this. You want to be as close to 14.7:1 as you can without pinging and compromising timing.

As mbs206 said, you don't want to go as lean as 14.7:1. However, at 13:1 it should still be making good power, but if it is tuned to be at 11.5 then it is probably pinging and the ecu backing the timing off

Actually, no you don't.

14.7:1 will provide a perfect stoichiometric burn, ie, all fuel is used, and all oxygen is used.

15.4:1 is a good mixture for cruising on.

12.0 to 12.5:1 has been shown numerous times to be the AFR that an engine will produce it's most torque from.

At 12.5 :1 you can really hammer the timing it and get it producing maximum combustion pressure at top dead centre rather then when running 14.7:1 where it makes maximum combustion pressure after top dead centre.

hmm this is interesting, I'll have to do some reading on this. Is this for all NA engines or does it noticeably change engine to engine

that is for most NA engines. to put this into perspective, the stock ecu on the missus SSS pulsar (natro sr20) runs around the high 11:1 mark in the mid section of the rev range and drops to about 11:1 at high rpm. NA's can run a fraction leaner at WOT than turbos can, but not that much.

just like turbos, natro cars still run between 14:1 and 15:1 at cruise via the o2 sensor

hmm this is interesting, I'll have to do some reading on this. Is this for all NA engines or does it noticeably change engine to engine

for petrol piston engines.

Specific engines will change slightly depending on design, but mainly the above.

Ah ok I always thought NA's could run a lot leaner than turbos. I suppose the added compression and timing makes up for that.

You can run it leaner, the difference is, lean is not where the power is made.

Once you start tuning with an SAFC you will find you want to adjust your timing as well. You could use an SITC if you can find one or if Nistunes work on N/A you would be better to do that.

Few things done, did a dodgy fix on the Vacuum leak till i can sort some stock Intake pipes out and dropped a Twin Turbo 300ZX Pump in yesterday and took it for a quick drive tonight, Injector Duty Cycle was stable(use to get random spikes) and car felt a bit sluggish in comparison to before so i'm guessing the AFR has lowered back to stock(plus the SAFC adding more fuel in) but can't confirm till i get a wideband on there.

Edited by Super Drager

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...