Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi paul,

One of the reasons that OEM manufacturers went to closed loop systems is because catalytic convertors work best at 14.7:1 for emissions.

If all you are interested in is economy (and you dont mind killing flipper lol) turn closed loop off and target the AFR's to 15:1. Due to the increased combustion temps, NOx emissions will go up as opposed to 14.7:1

Cheers,

Matt

well, I've turned off o2 feedback, and I'm already seeing much better fuel economy. Will let you all know how it goes.

Paul, as far as I can see, it looks like you can adjust what the o2 feedback sets the afr to.

Goto settings 1 tab, bottom right hand corner.

  • 3 weeks later...

after a long club event on the weekend i have the following figures;

610k's so far from 52 litres + 24litres

There is about 1/4 left of that fuel and I expect to hit around 650-680k's.

Which should bring me to around 8.5L to 100k's :laugh:

I would have easily cracked 500k's off a single tank but I put in another 24 litres in fear of running empty between towns. Will post when I'm empty

wow thats a big difference in economy when not running an o2 sensor !

makes sense though i guess, since its allowing you to run leaner then stoich mixtures for cruising

great thread by the way, ive been reading it all very keenly, alot of good info keep it up :(

after a long club event on the weekend i have the following figures;

610k's so far from 52 litres + 24litres

There is about 1/4 left of that fuel and I expect to hit around 650-680k's.

Which should bring me to around 8.5L to 100k's ;)

I would have easily cracked 500k's off a single tank but I put in another 24 litres in fear of running empty between towns. Will post when I'm empty

Paul

How did you come up with 8.5/100ks?

haha sorry i got it completey wrong, my bad ;)

ok i've ran out the tank and here are the figures

total fuel; 76 litres

total distance; 704kms (fuel light not on yet)

76 / 704 * 100 = 10.75

so on a full tank i can get

52 * 10.75 = 561's KMs

last time we did the great ocean road test run we got 540's to a full tank so the figures are spot on :D hooray for kick ass fuel economy. mind youve ive suffered an exhaust gasket failure so will have to wait 2 weeks before anything else is done.

  • 5 weeks later...

Hey

just wondering if someone can make a map for my r32 gtst or have one already

it has an emanage(injector/ignition harness)

i know this may be stupid, you guys will probably tell me to take it to the shops to tune n stuff

but nah i wanna learn my self because my friend has a dyno which i can use anytime

Mods:

FMIC (hybrid copy 600x300x75)

hks pod

Turbo back exhaust (spilt dump)

r33 turbo (14 psi)

it would be very helpful

thanks very much for your time

go easy on me

Cheers

Excel Blank page of tuning

Emanage Blank tuning page

Edited by DFAULT
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi All,

Just some further questions on self tuning. I've noticed other cars I've driven when cold heat up fairly quickly, within 2 minutes most of them.

Other cars;

2004 Honda Accord Auto (quickest of them all, like deadset 1.5minutes and its at half on the guage)

1991 Toyota Corolla Manual

1994 Ford EA (i think) Wagon Auto

So certainlty not sports cars or high performances cars by any means.

My skyline takes about spot on 5 minutes, sometimes a tiny bit more to reach past 70deg. Often I never go beyond 75deg water temp. I never EVER see 80deg water temp. This is also reflected on the stock gauge, it takes a long time to get to operating temp near ~70deg water temp.

I have altered my timing map for the 8x8 area significantly (some parts increase of 12deg IGN timing) but I have not altered my water temp correction to suit. So what I think is happening is that its runing more advanced timing than OEM apexi defaults when its cold as I've upped the map area. So when I did this I should have altered the water temp correction to suit more retard timing to heat up the engine quicker and safer.

Is my thinking correct? Alter the water temp IGN correction for the colder sections so it retards it more (as ive advanced the timing more there) until desired operating temp is reached.

Does anyone else have any problems reaching ~80deg operating temp on R33 PFC?

Any suggestions on what correction factors I should dial in for water temp correction? My settings are attached...

As you can see below from my water temp table I made the 1.00 correction for 50deg as my car would never get to 80deg, so I would always have retarded timing just slightly. So I dialed in 1.00 at 50deg as a comprimise

post-2054-1146565510.jpg

you make good points.

I will add - my car takes 7 - 10 minutes to get to full operating temperature. (75 degrees)

BUT I don't wait for the water temp to get that high. I wait for the oil pressure to drop, as the oil being hot and not as thick is more important than water being hot.

yeah i too generally just check for good varying oil pressure.

anyone else suggest if its OK to change the water temp correction to lower values for under 50deg temps to retard the timing more.

the idea being retarded timing heats up the engine more?

is that correct?

  • 2 weeks later...

We had a dyno day today and we did an attempt at adjusting the VCT kickoff point. There was no noticable difference and nothing was gained. The power chart didn't vary at all. I expected the run that we did with VCT off at 1900 to be a LOT different but it was the same.

I drove on the street with VCT kicking off at 1900 and it felt a bit more boggier and lacked a bit of top end beef. So nothing gained but still fun to try. I've left it in the default kickoff of 4700rpm.

Has anyone else seem similar results? I recall NIB saying that he has done it a few times and each time got a good result, perhaps I did it wrong?

1st run - default settings (kick off at 4700rpm)

2nd run - vct kick off set to 1900rpm

overlayed the two charts and pretty much identical, no noticable change

Attached is latest tune for anyone interested, we threw in 2 more degrees today.

It's in datalogit format, just rename to .dat

Also attached is one of the dyno runs. It's in datalogit format but can just be sucked into Excel

paulr33_20060513.txt

paulr33_20060513_dynorun.txt

  • 1 month later...

I had a look at the inj map last night and just past 5700 load points you can see the afr's plummet to near 11 on the graph and on the inj map it richend up to near 1.45 which is almost near max on the map. So I looked at what inj values we used at 4800 to 5500 and copied those across, which were 1.360 which got me spot on 12's. So it should be an even 12 now and shouldnt drop off

post-2054-1151024694.jpg

post-2054-1151024751.jpg

Paul, how well do you think the RB25 timing settings translate into an RB26? Could I use your tune as a basic guide to see where I can bump up the timings a fair bit (like I did on my GTS) or are they so different that I may as well not bother?

Just talking about the light load off-boost timings here, I will leave the power tune up to the dyno and the professionals.

probably doesn't sound very safe. have you got access to datalogit?

if not just use temp IGN adjust, crank in +8 and see how it knocks under 3 grand. if its minimal then dial in +8 onto the 6x6 area to cover the majority of the cells or even +8. this is basically all i have done. the ideal seems to be around +12 off the stock maps under 3 grand

My skyline takes about spot on 5 minutes, sometimes a tiny bit more to reach past 70deg. Often I never go beyond 75deg water temp. I never EVER see 80deg water temp. This is also reflected on the stock gauge, it takes a long time to get to operating temp near ~70deg water temp.

Mine gets to operating temp within a couple of minutes, or to be exact if I simply start and drive off slowly 2kms.

Sit it idling and it takes for ever. >_<

With regards to the rb26 ign map, the first 6 load cells (verticle) are the same as the rb25's first 8 load cells. The rb26 has less resolution due to a higher total airflow hence power capability.

At light cruise the rb26 ign. map appears to run stuff all ignition, unsure why this is, however at light usual traffic accelerating loads the rb26 map is pretty much the same, at higher rpms over 3000rpm the rb26 map runs a little more ignition.

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...