Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I put a cooler on my car approx 2mths ago and since then I noticed a flat spot from around 3500-5000 rpm. The piping is 2.5" back to both the standard piping

(ie routed behind the cooler). However, on the left end tank of the cooler (looking from front), I've got a 180 Deg Bend that was cut and modded (made it a mitred 180 Deg bend) to allow the bend (as i'm still using standard front bar) so i can route the piping behind the cooler. Would this be a problem for pressure and flow?

Also the size of the cooler is a 800x600x73 (i think 73 anyway). I've also got a 3" turbo back exhaust running 10psi boost.

Another factor is my coil pack were crappy at that very time as well and i have taped and siliconed them..No longer misfires but i have read that main "missfiring thread" and in that thread some people where getting flat spots roughly around that rev range.

As a result, my car is running slower than it was with just a stock cooler and 3"exhaust (9psi)

So is it my cooler size, cooler piping or is it the result of dodgy ignitor coils?

Any help would be great.

++++

Greetings All.

I think you will find that the intercooler is too big...unless you DID mean a 600x300...other wise your cooler would be WAY too big for only 10psi...

Flat spot eh...over fueling issues...? Something to do with fuel or fuel delivery??

Cheers,

--Tonba

++++

Why would the FMIC be too big?

They are essentially just a heat sink between the compressor and combustion chamber, so a larger heat shedding capacity = more reliable/greater power production.

I must say that my R33 running a 600 x 300 x 76 did suffer the std ECU flat spot.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

cheers

Your mods sound the same to mine.

I suspect your ecu is richening the mixture and retarding ignition. Time for aftermarket engine management.

Whack it on the dyno if you want to really see what's happening instead of just guessing though.

PFC plugged in with standard base maps immediately removed the flat spot - it did feel like ignition retard was the issue.

Perhaps a significant reduction in pressure drop (vs. the std R33 cooler + piping, + exhaust) means the engine was ingesting enough air to make the std ECU go into a fail-safe, even though the actual boost pressure was unchanged?

You have removed a restriction, therefore more airflow (boost is irrelevant). The AFM is sensing more airflow and telling the ECU (AFM's are blabber mouths, just can't keep a secret). The ECU knows that much airflow is too much, so it hops onto Rich & Retard mapping to protect the engine. Time for some tuning, DFA, SAFC, PFC or equivalent.:D

I'm suffering a simalar flat spot, after installing an EBC. I'm only running 9PSI but it gets there much quicker than before.

I'm guessing the computer sees AF/RPM. so in the mid-range where the boost is incresced it plays up but then over 4500RPM things are just about back to normal so she takes off again.

Well that's my theory........ :confused:

I'm hoping that playing around with the gain will help, if not i will be searching for a vacuum/pressure leak, and then look to the computer. Besides i don't have any money to buy a computer just yet!

You have removed a restriction, therefore more airflow (boost is irrelevant).  The AFM is sensing more airflow and telling the ECU (AFM's are blabber mouths, just can't keep a secret).  The ECU knows that much airflow is too much, so it hops onto Rich & Retard mapping to protect the engine.  Time for some tuning, DFA, SAFC, PFC or equivalent.:cheers:

I'm happy that my deductions about the std ECU were correct - it really means Nissan engineers defined fairly tight engine performance parameters, enforced by a fairly tamper-proof brain. I've gone down the PFC trail, but what degree of success could be expected with an intercepter (eg. Jaycar kit) that fools the ECU into accessing different parts of the factory maps?

cheers

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

A mate of mine told me to clean the AFM so I cleaned and the car now seems to go alot better. I havent pushed it hard all through the gears (only 1st and 2nd) but the lag as mentioned between 3-5K rpm is now gone. I'll do more testing this weekend and let you all know the result.

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...