Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I have been making some minor changes to my ignition map as my tuner had it running way to much advance so I am cutting it down a bit. I have been using the map tracer to locate the areas on the map that are used and noticed that the tracer never goes passed cell 11 on the load/boost axis. I guess this is due to the AFM maxing out (am i on the right track?).

Any way my question is this:

Has anybody out there got some sort of conversion for the load axis...

i.e. a conversion for the p1, p2, p3, p4 on the load scale etc etc...

A conversion for the rpm would be good as well, i.e. n1, n2, n3

I realise that these are linear and that you probably dont need to know what PSI level they map to but it would be nice to have the info.

Sorry about the long topic...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/51683-pfc-map-x-y-axis/
Share on other sites

hi, load on cell 11...seems low to me are you using std AFM? What about turboes? what boost are you running? Is it a GTR R33? All these can affect what cell you end up in at certian boost levels?

On my R32 GTR, std AFM's, highflowed GTR turboes, running 14psi I reach cell 15 on load by 3600rpm to give you an idea anyway. But remember that the AFM measure total airflow not boost (although thay are associated) and as I have larger comp/turb wheels my turbo may reach cell 15 at 14psi boost but yours may not if they are std GTR turboes.

That aside please answer the above questions first and maybe myself or other here will have a better chance of helping....

Mike

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/51683-pfc-map-x-y-axis/#findComment-1022295
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Old post revive.

What I do find strange is my Rb30DET with the PFC ALWAYS dips to load point 19 at WOT on 12psi at 2000rpm. It holds load point 19 all the way through the rev range.

It did this on the RB20DET afm and now also the Z32 AFM.

The Z32 AFM didn't 'appear' to change the map trace at all. ?!? :)

Strange. Has any one else had experience with the before/ after map trace with the rb20/25/z32 afm?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/51683-pfc-map-x-y-axis/#findComment-1350433
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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...