Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by KamikazeR33

im sure this topic already came up joe :D

I am sure it has but that is just plain wrong advertising...

Some people think they know everthing even without do research!

Man I would be pissed off if you buy that car and find out it's just plain old RWD! not 4WD as it said. wouldn't you?

cheers

Joe

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/8534-r33-gts-t-4wd/#findComment-124493
Share on other sites

The R33 GTS-t 4WD does exist, but I only know of one in WA, so I expect that they are a very rare factory production. Similarly to the R33's with the VSPEC diff and such these cars came out with a feature that was not in the normal production. I'm not sure if it was ever considered a factory option, or whether they just produced them to see what the effect was.

Anyway I can say with some authority that it does exit, although the likelyhood of seeing one is very low.

See'ya:burnout:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/8534-r33-gts-t-4wd/#findComment-124705
Share on other sites

GTS-t VSPEC. The model you are talking about with the vspec diff was released as a production model, just in very limited numbers. I did have the specs for it somewhere and it was a fair bit more expensive than the normal gtst too when new. Never ever heard/seen of a factory awd gtst tho.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/8534-r33-gts-t-4wd/#findComment-124799
Share on other sites

Yeah I feel kind of lucky to pick one up, knew that they were limited.

I'm guessing that the car I saw might have been one of the in-house models from Nissan, they do make some to order for the big tuning houses aswell.

I'm not mistaken by what I saw, I was there with a Engineering who does certification of ADR's, and he had never seen one either. Possibly not a production model, but too stock to have been aftermarket job.

See'ya:burnout:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/8534-r33-gts-t-4wd/#findComment-124808
Share on other sites

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...