Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Gav,

It all depends on the amount of power you want out of the car. MAP sensors are better for high horsepower, but will give you reduced resolution for your A/F mixture. MAF's are good if you have Z32's but even they will run out of resolution on a high horsepower engine.

I run a MAP, but that's because I didn't want the restriction to the airflow, but you can still get 900hp cars running on MAF's. If your buying engine managment then get one that has the option of MAP sensor, but allows for the use of other MAF's.

The six throttle bodies make it more difficult to tune whether you have MAP or MAF, but this is only really a problem on high horsepower cars, which will often use a large single throttle body, not something I'd worry about until you hit 400rwhp.

See'ya:burnout:

Thanks for the comments

Probably belongs in another thread, but the reason I was asking is that I am considering using one of the new Wolf 3D P&P ECUs for my GTR.

From the specs that I have read, this can only use the internal MAP sensor that comes with the unit. The Wolf, however, seems like pretty good value and should have all the functionality that I need.

I am very familiar with the PFC from my previous S15 and got some good gains by fitting an RB25 AFM on the SR20 motor.

I would have no problems with using a PFC and 2 x Z32 AFMs on the GTR, however I really would like air intake temp. correction for Perth's hot summer days!

By the time you get the PFC, Commander, 2 x AFMs and Data-Logit (if you want to log runs/ load alternative maps) you are just about into Motec territory for cost!

Hi Gav,

I am in Perth and have the Wolf 3D Ver4 P'n'P in my car, I run the map sensor but am sure that you can leave the factory AFM in if you want, don't know if it supports the Z32's though. You can still have the temperature compensation even without the AFM.

I heard from Steve at SST, who fitted my Wolf, that the new P'n'P for the GTR may contain 4WD control functionality, do you know if this is true?

Good luck with making a decision, it's not an easy one to make.

See'ya:burnout:

P.S. I am very happy with my Wolf.

Almost certainly will get Steve to do the Wolf install for me.

Glad to hear that you are happy with the work you had done.

Can't imagine how the ECU would control 4WD functionality as it would need to interact with the ATESSA computer. Still, will let you know what is possible when I get this done in a few weeks.

Cheers

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...