Jump to content
SAU Community

  

311 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

when buyin my car

my first choice was a supra as i've always wanted one since i first saw them

Yeah, I was lucky enough to be allowed to test drive one when I was shopping around with my dad for my car & I'm still drooling from the experience hehe.

I love how the dash seems to wrap around you and the electric seats were fun to play with too :headspin:

However I am forever loyal to skylines now so I voted for the GTT

hmm you sure about that release date ??????

cause mines a March 98 build........... No. 216 off the line....

According to the details that i have er34 was released for sale may 98 and bnr 34 , january 99 .

I guess they would have built some cars before the release date .

I have no reason not to believe the info that i have ..

Ok what about 4 door versions

R34 GTT 4 door

       vs

JZX100 chaser mkII

I still can't decide.

Oh geez, here we go! I vote the JZX100 for sure. Ok, maybe i'm bias, but they're hot. And no where near as many on the roads as the 34's, so relatively unique. However that works against you when you're modifying it, as i've found out recently....

One other factor I guess you also have to take into consideration is vehicle age and price. A majority of RZs going around are 93/94 (pushing to say 1995) models, while the oldest R34 is a 1998 model. You look at 1998 model supras and your looking at big $$$. We all know what I am getting at

...

Go the R34 :rofl:

i love my nissan. i really do. the gtr is a much better package than the supra when it comes down to driving. the supra FEELS heavy, when the line feels much more sporty. compare an RZ to a GTT??? supra any day.

and anyone that thinks toyota's better engines (1j, 2j, 1uz among many others) aren't performers better get their facts right. if it weren't for my loyalty to nissan engineers, i'd drop one of those engines into my gtr anyday. the 26 is nice. very nice. but its not as nice as a nice toyota six or eight imo.

2c

d

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

    • 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.
    • 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...