Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hey ben

i got the pieces in the mail today

will install it either later tonight or 2morrow and post up the results

cheers

Eric

p.s great seller to buy off, quick replies and even quicker delivery =)

REVIEW

Hi, i promised ben i would write a review/feedback after i installed it so here goes.

I paid my money and got the boost piece in the mail about a day later (props to a great seller)

It was extremely easy to install. If I could do it in less than 5 minutes, anyone can

Stock boost on the r34 is around 5 psi low/ 7psi high (correct me if im wrong). As the boost piece replaces the solenoid, it becomes a constant high of around 10 psi (give or take 0.5 psi). This is better than the constant ground to the solenoid as it prevents the risk of damaging it. Full boost of around 10psi comes on under 3000 rpm (probably a bit less but i'm not very good at looking at the road, speedo and boost gauge at the same time). This then drops down by about 0.5 psi to around 9.5 psi or so.

Overall, its a great purchase for those that only want a little bit of boost increase. In my opinion, its only $20 or so and definately worth it for the gain.

Cheers

Eric

I got one of these delivered last week with a similar experience to ecl only on an R33 GTST sedan. 5 mins to install, great very clear instructions and the promised result of 10psi.

And for an added bonus I went to a dyno day today and with only a catback 3" exhaust, R34 stock intercooler and the magic 10psi and I recorded 176rwkw. I am very suprised at the result as there were a couple of stock 33s there that recorded the expected mid 140rwkw for comparison. Big thumbs up. Also there was no detonation but the car was quite rich :D . Big thanks!

I have sold about 14 of these and I have had feedback from about 10 people so far. All except 2 have held 9-10psi as they requested, however 2 people that have had automatics have been seeing around 13-14psi!! I am in the process of sending them more conservative ones.

I find this strange but if I find this to be consistent trend then I will have to have a manual one and another for automatics...

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...