Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

7's would be an absolute pig (no disrespect Piggaz!!) to drive.

Fine for a drag queen auto car that you can build boost on the line but useless to drive as a street or track car.

Less comp means you can throw more boost into it but at the sacrifice of off boost driveability.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6952331
Share on other sites

7's would be an absolute pig (no disrespect Piggaz!!) to drive.

Fine for a drag queen auto car that you can build boost on the line but useless to drive as a street or track car.

Less comp means you can throw more boost into it but at the sacrifice of off boost driveability.

pretty much this.

mine is pretty responsive, even off boost.

which is a good thing, because I have to wait a looooooong time for boost.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6952383
Share on other sites

7's would be an absolute pig (no disrespect Piggaz!!) to drive.

Fine for a drag queen auto car that you can build boost on the line but useless to drive as a street or track car.

Less comp means you can throw more boost into it but at the sacrifice of off boost driveability.

Errr? I'm asking why so low? I wouldn't want it that low. I wanted 9.3:1 in my own engine.

Edit. Oops, read out of context. Haha!!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6952455
Share on other sites

Sensitive!!!

Continuing Lukes post, E85 is always going to be a challenge if it's your only fuel choice. Flex fuel is always a great option. 98 and taking it easy on cruises, E85 and cane it for track work.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6952471
Share on other sites

Yep, these were comp ratios that were from a time of (all that was available at the pump)low octane ULP and non intercooled motors :-(

Yeah good call and totally correct. Fuel was shite back in 1986! No premium or ultimate back then.

You need to work out what turbos you're running and what is the intended purpose of your car before you choose your comp. If you're running a massive single and focussing on drag racing or a HP dyno hero then go a bit lower comp and pump in huge boost. If you want a driveable street car or track car with good response and minimal lag out of corners then go a higher comp and smaller turbo/turbos.

Do what works for you, not what everyone else has done as we all have our own goals and uses for our cars!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6953949
Share on other sites

just getting some ideas input what they run wit cars , some say low or high comp - work shop says low but I would prefer some info from owners first how it drives ect.

42r 1.01 rear 3L block full race head 260inlet/270ex 10.25 lift powerglide

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6954213
Share on other sites

just getting some ideas input what they run wit cars , some say low or high comp - work shop says low but I would prefer some info from owners first how it drives ect.

42r 1.01 rear 3L block full race head 260inlet/270ex 10.25 lift powerglide

I have gt42 china, 26/30, 256 9.15 lift, 9.0:1, 4" turbo back zorst.

turbo is thrust bearing, so takes a while to kick in.

still driveable due to comp ratio.

6 speed box helps too. (manual)

but, as stated, what use?

track weapon?(guessing with glide).

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429590-rb2630/#findComment-6954582
Share on other sites

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

    • 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.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...