Jump to content
SAU Community

Mugabetown - Whoretownin' At It's Worst.


Recommended Posts

I see him trawling this thread as we speak :yes:

Interested to see what results we all get. There is another guy on here that just got his results back on a very very similar setup to what mine is. It made 480rwkw's on 27psi. 6466 with .84

Was he running E85?

Yep..

Here is all is....

That was my car.

Couldn't go past 27 due to needing to up the breathers on the rocker covers and mainly from frying tyres on the dyno

attachicon.gifImageUploadedBySAU Community1380774170.916023.jpg

My main thing was that i wanted it be strictly streetable and wasnt fussed about the dyno figure - not that its too bad at all! Therefore I went for a 6466 with .84 twin scroll - I was concerned this would be too big as I was thinking to go for a 6266 originally - although very happy with this setup which is super responsive compared to most cars I have been in, not to mention torquey-as down low due to the RB30.

It has been running for some time on 13psi run in tune which it did 308rwkw on pump 98 - then 20psi on e85 which it did 365rwkw for about 2 weeks.

Even on 20 psi the car is a wild drive on the streets - stepping out in 4th gear once is hits about 4000rpm as if it was second gear (still waiting on half decent tyres to show up).

If I upgrade the catch can (which is small as I wanted it to be hidden) they could push 34psi but doubt I will ever need to, nor bother going to the troubble as this thing has been in the making for over a year now!

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



  • 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...