Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Still waiting on the clutch. I've got to chase that up today as its been a couple of weeks. It is a custom made NPC unit though and I have no idea what their turn around time is.

  • Like 1

I don't believe square, under or over really makes any difference to be honest. It is just one of those facts that IS about engines.

A lot of people have a differing opinions about what works and what doesn't. What it comes down to is more displacement is better if you are after more torque and power, and less lag. Simply because your moving more air.

This is an 89mm bore and 90mm stroke too. Although the sleeve design will support a 90mm bore still, while retaining more cylinder thickness than a 24U block would have with an 87.5mm bore.

Edited by GTRNUR
  • Like 1
  On 03/06/2015 at 2:07 AM, GTRNUR said:

Still waiting on the clutch. I've got to chase that up today as its been a couple of weeks. It is a custom made NPC unit though and I have no idea what their turn around time is.

What is the need for custom Ian?

Based on recommendations from Trent @ Mercury and Dan (owner of LK Motors who's dyno we used), they actually agreed on the same type of clutch and I am fairly certain it is a custom setup. There is a pull to push converter required, and I believe it uses 1 x carbon and 1 x copper organic disc although don't quote me on that. I believe it is identical to the setup in Mercury's Nitto.

To be honest I left it in their hands to sort out and just paid the bill. I've been too busy with other work this past 3 weeks, which is good considering what will end up being a 4000-4500 change over cost.

Not to mention the brand new exedy carbon twin plate that is in the car is probably a paper weight now. It would be interesting to know if it is salvageable, or if its now looking completely shagged.

Once you receive the new clutch will you be re tuning it or should it still be fine given the last was slipping?

Or just doing a power run to see numbers and confirm all is fine?

And what is the price on rotating assembly for this being it's a custom crank?

Edited by anon32
  On 03/06/2015 at 3:51 AM, GTRNUR said:

Based on recommendations from Trent @ Mercury and Dan (owner of LK Motors who's dyno we used), they actually agreed on the same type of clutch and I am fairly certain it is a custom setup. There is a pull to push converter required, and I believe it uses 1 x carbon and 1 x copper organic disc although don't quote me on that. I believe it is identical to the setup in Mercury's Nitto.

To be honest I left it in their hands to sort out and just paid the bill. I've been too busy with other work this past 3 weeks, which is good considering what will end up being a 4000-4500 change over cost.

Not to mention the brand new exedy carbon twin plate that is in the car is probably a paper weight now. It would be interesting to know if it is salvageable, or if its now looking completely shagged.

Are the plates munted on the Exedy? If they are, I would think they are very expensive to replace.

The slippery clutch is still in the car. Not sure how shagged it is yet.

Yes when the new clutch arrives the wick is being turned up.

My goal is still to make 500kw atw on a soft E85 tune, which it should do with ease. 450kw looks to be easily achievable on a low boost 98 tune. Trent wants to turn up the boost to 30 and see how it goes in top end. We'll see, I might have to go for some drinks if that happens and just leave him to it.

  • Like 1
  On 03/06/2015 at 6:51 AM, anon32 said:

And what is the price on rotating assembly for this being it's a custom crank?

I was lucky with this Nitto crank as it was a one-of that they had on the shelf, so I got a good deal.. Not sure why they made it either. Possibly just because...

I've just made a new crank for one of the next two engines which is 87.8mm. All up cost for that came to about $5700 I think, as it is essentially a customised Nitto Rb31 crankshaft, however using GTiR rod journals and it retains the oil squirters in the RB26 block. Prototypes aren't cheap.

Edited by GTRNUR

I'd rather not go putting any kit style guestimate pricing out there just yet. I am planning on doing 2 more prototypes.

Once they deliver some fruit, I will be asking for a production run of crankshafts and the necessary components as a bulk order. This will significantly reduce the costs as well as raise the bar on the quality of the product at the same time.

  • Like 2
  • 3 weeks later...

The new NPC clutch is here but the push to pull converter must have fallen off the boat on the way from Japan, MIA.

I did put an R35 brake setup on the car though, which makes stopping as much fun as accelerating!

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...