Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Getting ready to put all my bits I have collected over the last 6 months on -

they include -

RB20 Power FC

GTR 440cc injectors and resistor pack

Stainless Steel exhaust manifold

Maybe GTR cams later on $$ permitting

Due to my turbo being a bit of a mystery (told is was a 2510, but looks to be either 2530/35/40 but due to tag no matching up no one know) All I know is it makes dead on 200rwkw at 0.9bar and comes on boost at about 4-4500rpm

I am hoping for a conservative 220rwkw, running around 18psi boost, maybe 230 with a splash of toluene for dyno days etc

I am usure weather to use the stock AFM, or upgrade to a Z32 unit, as thelast thing I want is to get it all running on the dyno and find out that the AFM is maxed out...........

Whats everyones opinion? I have read post from Sydneykid that says it should be good for 226rwkw

Has anyone else made around that power with the stock AFM, as if its doesn't need replacing, I won't bother!

:D Chris

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/51612-rb20-z32-or-stock-afm-for-230rwkw/
Share on other sites

Yeah was thinking that myself, cheers.

I know Clint made 235rwkw with the RB20 AFM, but I guess with the Z32, there will be more 'resolution' so to speak

so you still have to run the AFM with a PFC then, its a shame you didn't get a ecu that did away with the AFM and kill 2 birds with one buy...good luck with it all..

Well my original plan was to run a Microtech, but I managed to pick up the PFC for a very reasonable price, so I went with that. Wolf3D crossed my mind, but a tuner I spoke to that would be the one having to tune it reckons they where best left alone........

Plus its plug and play, if I get defected etc I can jsut plug the old computer back in and change a few things

I don't think the AFM poses much of a problem/restriction at these type of power levels

Chris

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...