Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have a c35 S1 rb25det manaul laurel, running an apexi fc and few small mods boost controller, fmic, cat back and air filter.

During the map time on the dyno, results where very low.  The tuner was expecting figures closer to the 290 range and instead it came around 236.  Since then compression, engine timing and many many other things have been checked and all came out correct. 

The only thing that is puzzling me is that the base timing is set to be 15 degrees.   This was done from the loop wire at the back of the car.  This shows at 15.  Then checking the white centre wire into the coil on no.1 still shows 15.  But through reading where many people have suggested the ht lead directly onto the sparkplug tactic for accuracy, there is then about a 5-7 degree difference in ignition timing???

It seems as though a lot of people get the same result either way, so people swear by each method.  but with this amount of deviation between the 2 it could be a cause of low power.  Compression is fine, standard AFM is almost maxed out, it does not lean out so fuel is there, compression is correct, 7 heat range iridium plugs, they are aftermarket coil packs from in japan...

 

Any help or information about why this occurs, or any other ideas would be brilliant as i've got a long way to go with this car but i need the base to be correct.

 

Thankyou 

If the car isn't taking timing and the base timing is correct try dropping your cat completely and running it on the dyno without it, ie dump pump to down pipe to atmosphere 

Could be a restrictive cat or cat back exhaust or both. 

Also just re reading are you running the stock dump and down pipe? 

(I'm assuming you're referring to wheel HP not kW) 

Yeah exhaust is standard except for back basically...was wondering about exhaust being an issue. 

Just unsure as to why there is such a difference between the two ignition timing readings. And if people are tuning from the direct to spark plug method then they could well be putting +5 advance on from the 'nissan approved' loop wire?. As the delay in the coil charge time must be in there calculations for ignition timing.  Has anyone else taken readings from the both methods? 

Car sounds and runs healthy with a decent amount of pull in the torque band But just missing the expected power

Yeah but why is there such a difference between the two? Though the loop wire gives a constant reading. Hear some people the loop jusr flashes all over the place or something. I'm just getting 5 degree difference after the coilpack? 

6 hours ago, Andy-p said:

Or has anyone got a picture of a spec 1 loop wire/colours or wiring diagram? Because one wire in a loop at the back of the engine is pink with a black stripe? Chrz 

Don't worry about that measure between coil and plug.

But why? I can understand if they give the same values, but if they are different then surely it needs to the correct nissan way otherwise it will be incorrectly set by a few degrees? I get that people get all sorts of pulses though the loop wire, but mine reads accurately?. The extended loop wire I'm using my even be the wrong wire which is why I'm getting very different readings. Even if someone knows ecu pin numbers or something for that loop wire so I can confirm/find it? Chrz

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

    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
    • Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder whether there is bias as well. It's the cheapest fuel, so it is used for all kinds of ill-maintained shitboxes which are bound to have issues regardless. Nicer cars tend to require higher octane rated fuel and can't use it anyway. FWIW, the official NSW E10 facts page is decent. 
×
×
  • Create New...