Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Jer this is all you need to notice an improvement like what zebra said

Nistune = $400

Tune = $750

Total = $1150

Optional addons

AFM = $200

Injectors = $600

Fuel pump = $200

Coilpacks = $450

Turbo = $900

Plus any parts that aren’t working that are discovered at the tuning phase... :unsure:

I had some nice surprises...

- Coilpacks = $450

- VCT Solenoid = $200

Even after buying an aftermarket pump (bosch 040) It wasn't working properly. Threw in a Walbro = $110

Great surprises!

It was totally worth it though. Fixed some small bugs I had plus the power. Best 3-4k spent on the car

Edited by dontyellpl0x

Jez no need for a turbo.

You could go from 150-160rwkw now to 190ish just with nistune and a bit more boost.

Believe me it makes a difference.

Not to mention you can get a big gain in the midrange which makes them a lot of fun

The benefit of a Nistune would be the option to retune for more power with more supporting mods down the track.

ie. injectors and Hiflow etc. (SAFC won't really do this)

I thought the gains would potentially be greater than that for just a Nistune and tune though.

For 2.5k-3k. I would get a Haltech, RB20 Wastegate actuator, a walbro pump and a tune. Should be about $2.7k. Would make about 220rwkw which is heaps.

- Injectors should handle up to 235rwkw

- R34 Stock Turbo should be a OP6 so it's big anyways

- Haltech is better than Nistune.

I think the above prices are not installed, so you would need to include labour. Labour is expensive at between $90-$140 per hour. Haltech, wastegate and pump should be easy to install yourself.

  • Like 1

Yeah :( I am kicking myself that any direction over 200kw is at least 3k. Hmmmm

edit: Cheers guys for the info. I think a hard decision will need to be made in the coming of weeks.

Edited by RosieR34

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 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...