Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yes Joey, drag slips, its the only way to be sure, I'll race you for beer (no more little bloody donuts, bastards).

You will though need to spot me 5.5 seconds though.

I'm guessing you might run a 10.5ish where I might run a 16ish

Come on, my 5 has at most an astounding 80 to 90 killerwasps at the back wheels.

Put It this way, my old RWD boat on old drag radials and 380kw got a 11.008, I'm sure there's a 10.5 in yours.

The box should be fine for the first couple of runs, it might sound a bit like industrial exhaust fan after that though.

In all honesty if you take off easy and don't shift to hard the box should be fine, I believe its the drag radials and big launches on the sticky stip that eats the 1-3 gears.

Ill give you 4.9 seconds then, with a 6 pack of Crownies on the line.

EDIT: First gear?, with your torque the only time you will use first gear is in the lanes before the water box

Righto,

take this as you will, i consider that engine capacity, cams, fuel makes it a "similar" comparison

So same dyno

Both set ups have

2.6L

both have standard compression from memory

similar drop in cams

high ethenol content fuel

Both have large sufficient exhaust, ignition and fuel setups

Mine is the orange/red line

-5 line is black

To be fair, that -5 result im comparing against wasnt the most responsive run out of them all. But that particular result did flatten out alot after 5200rpm and my curve was still fatter

post-47556-0-57942700-1421911975_thumb.jpg

Put It this way, my old RWD boat on old drag radials and 380kw got a 11.008, I'm sure there's a 10.5 in yours.

The box should be fine for the first couple of runs, it might sound a bit like industrial exhaust fan after that though.

In all honesty if you take off easy and don't shift to hard the box should be fine, I believe its the drag radials and big launches on the sticky stip that eats the 1-3 gears.

Ill give you 4.9 seconds then, with a 6 pack of Crownies on the line.

EDIT: First gear?, with your torque the only time you will use first gear is in the lanes before the water box

I dont know if i want to test the waters.. maybe when i get a stronger box.

I would have just got the thing on the road and i dont feel like spending more $$$ to keep driving it haha

Oh yup similar looking results to what I got just bait higher because of the ethanol.

I might stick with the -5's until i upgrade my injectors/gearbox and then go with a 8374 1.05 A/R as my bottom end has been built to withstand hell.

and I hear you about popping the standard box. Why I haven't run mine yet.

Oh yup similar looking results to what I got just bait higher because of the ethanol.

I might stick with the -5's until i upgrade my injectors/gearbox and then go with a 8374 1.05 A/R as my bottom end has been built to withstand hell.

and I hear you about popping the standard box. Why I haven't run mine yet.

It's interesting to note that there is very minimal change in power between E45 and E85 on our boost levels. It's only an extra safety margin..

I'll be running 50/50 as a more common everyday mix

Lol, lies, I see lies :P

You can't really compair single v twin cause to many veriables like intake and dump pipes etc, dump pipes are one of the biggest issues with turbos and it's hard to get wrong on a single, especially if you have a external gate, but very very easy to get wrong on factory mount twins

Even cam timing makes a difference

So it really comes down to personal preference and what you want from your car

Haha, maybe, doubtful but maybe, but twins will get you there quicker :P

Take matty from WA's experience. Twin -5's on a 3.0 and went to a 8374/0.92 internally gate single. The EFR was back to peak boost levels in a 1/3rd of the time the twins took (Motec logs), made more power everywhere also.

However, it would be interesting to compare something like the 8374 EFR to say twin 6258 EFR's.

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

    • 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...