Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with Ash,

i really dont see how by just adding E85, you can take a great -7 result like 325awkw ^^ on pump and make it go 370 plus on other cars

at the end of the day, if you have the MPH we really cant argue

I never thought I'd get anywhere near 370 with -7s but I was wondering if 350 was too much to ask for.

I'm not too sure what GT-R's are like with power to mph as I've just come from an XR6 Turbo that ran 118 mph with 297rwkw. If I could get around that sort of mph I'd be pretty happy.

I never thought I'd get anywhere near 370 with -7s but I was wondering if 350 was too much to ask for.

I'm not too sure what GT-R's are like with power to mph as I've just come from an XR6 Turbo that ran 118 mph with 297rwkw. If I could get around that sort of mph I'd be pretty happy.

350 would be the norm result and somewhere around 120-123mph should be a good goal. Cams will stretch you out further. im a strict 98 no cams believer but add E85 into the equation and MILD cams are a viable addition.

Well that was what I was hoping to here. 350 and 120mph would be about my goal. Not willing to change cams. I've spent enough money for the moment.

Also what times would i be looking at with 120mph? High 11s?

Well that was what I was hoping to here. 350 and 120mph would be about my goal. Not willing to change cams. I've spent enough money for the moment.

Also what times would i be looking at with 120mph? High 11s?

350rwkw in a R32 GTR would see you closer to 124/125mph, this would be low 11s easily.

In my 33 GTR which is heavier, i ran 123mph with 340rwkw and 11.3

I'd be over the moon to run that time and mph but i'm a bit more realistic and would be happy with a high 11.

Any idea whether a 3" exhaust would be holding me back at this stage and whether upgrading to a 3.5" would be of much benefit?

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...