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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...