Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Check the size of ur front pipes. Theres alot getting around that are tiny 2.5 inc or so. Upgrade if required

Like my ones when I first came for the tune, had 3" HPI dumps going into 60mm then 70mm merge front pipes

Major restriction not to mention added lagggg

Changed to twin 3" to 3.5" merge = winner :)

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's what id like but atm I've only got a 3" cat so Im not too sure if it's worth it. If i was going to change the front pipe to that diameter id be better off going 3.5" all the way through. Id also be looking at a couple of $ to do all that.

just leave the small exhaust and see how you go, worst case scenario a 2nd tune will set you back a couple more hundred. Once you start changing everything you end up spending more then you need to for little gain. I've seen 2.75inch go well north of 350 on 98, without a doubt it was a major restriction by that power level but that's not say it can't be done.

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I picked up the car yesterday and it made 325rwkw. I ended up going with a set of ID1000's and a walbro 460. The boost spiked to 20psi and tapered back to 16psi as I've still got standard actuators. I was also told that the clearances in my head were a little out so I was down a little on power from that too.

All up I'm very happy with the power it made, especially the mid range torque. Not too bad for the little -7's.

That's the plan eventually. You can tell that it is a little lagier than it should be. Once the rest of the car is sorted and I decide what exhaust and what ever else I'm going with then I'll fit new actuators and get a retune.

At the moment fuel consumption is looking to be around 13l/100. Im running a tank right down atm so i should get a good indication.

Mid range and top end definitely feels better/stronger.

What else? Ethanol is really nice to drive on.

Car hauls ass

Since my car isn't registered I can't really test out fuel consumption at the moment but it feel awesome on the street. There is so much midrange torque. Chris at Racepace said I needed to sort a few little issues before I could make any more power. The main 3 being standard actuators and AFM's. Plus the clearances in the head were a little big so the valves aren't opening fully.

I don't think I'll end up changing anything too soon as I'm pretty happy with how it is. Lets see if there is a high 11 in her.

Since my car isn't registered I can't really test out fuel consumption at the moment but it feel awesome on the street. There is so much midrange torque. Chris at Racepace said I needed to sort a few little issues before I could make any more power. The main 3 being standard actuators and AFM's. Plus the clearances in the head were a little big so the valves aren't opening fully.

I don't think I'll end up changing anything too soon as I'm pretty happy with how it is. Lets see if there is a high 11 in her.

i've got 2 x NIsmo AFM's if you want :D

good to hear you made the switch though, E85 ftmfw!

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...