Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT IT:

just want 2 know if any 1 has had anything 2 do with them..??

NISMO RACING CHARGING STABILIZER

NEW Racing Charging System

Fits all vehicle (Nismo special design for Nissan vehicles)

Benefits:

** Increase Torque ** Increase Fuel Economy ** Car Response Up

** Stable Idling ** Quick Engine Start ** Lesser Engine Noise

** Optimize Electrical Equipment performance

EBay again?

It's not genuine Nismo btw.

You're much better off spending (less than) that on some thick gauge wire upgrading your car's earthing points. See this thead for an example: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...topic=82677&hl=

That sounds like the HKS Circle Earth system. Autosalon did a review of the HKS one a while back and said for the money it wasn't worth it, and you'd be better off making one up yourself like raz0r$harP suggested. But it makes your engine bay look nice!

"Oh no it's the cops!"

"Worse, the police cops!"

That sounds like the HKS Circle Earth system. Autosalon did a review of the HKS one a while back and said for the money it wasn't worth it, and you'd be better off making one up yourself like raz0r$harP suggested. But it makes your engine bay look nice!

"Oh no it's the cops!"

"Worse, the police cops!"

Yah it is expensive !!!

But hey they are samples so I will try them out.

I have to admit that when I first put it on my car, it was idling much nicer. When I had the Metal Plus it did seem to get me more kms, then I tried the Torque one and kms per tank went down but my car does feel more torquey.

There are 3 other people trying various ones so we will see if we can come to a conclusion at the end.

Edited by beefy

Autosalon tested the HKS Circle Earth kit on 3 cars: a '94 Pulsar GTi, a series V RX7 and a Forrester XT. From memory they didn't notice any difference in the RX7, but in the Pulsar the owner said he thought it started easier on cold mornings, and his audio system sounded slightly better. In the Forrester, they did notice a gain of like 2kw's or so, but a slight drop in torque in the mid range. They also gave a step by step guide of how to make one yourself and what to buy, was very easy to make for fiddy bucks. They sound like a good idea in theory though, but I'd rather try to make my own for $50 than spend like $380 or so for a brand name one.

"Oh no it's the cops!"

"Worse, the police cops!"

well these 1's might be cheapees but for $70 they sound like they are worth a go 2 me..?? anyway i am after sound quality.. so it should help out there

The brand name ones are of questionable use: they probably make some difference of cars with poor earthing. The Pivot ones cost about $120.

Do you really think some Ebay knockoff with a fake brand name is going to be worth the hassle?

Ive had the Apexi one installed to help with Grounding and Idle issues in my car, they definitely help with the idle at the very least. Im not sure about all the other claims of more torque and better fuel economy. Seems like every mod in eBay says it improves fuel economy.

Is there specific point in the engine bay these wires are meant to go to?

Or is it just pick a metal spot on the engine and it'll be allright?

Ive been watching this topic for a while...

the actual power stabilisers have nothing to do with earthing, so in fact you are only comparing the quality of cables. Good quality cable from an electronics supplier will give you very similar earthing results. Another thing is that if the car already has a good earth, the kit will not provide a huge difference, but for older cars with poor earths it will be beneficial.

the powerstabiliser box smooths out votage fluctuations, which can help with starting and ICE. you may not even see an increase in votage tho.

in my opinion the PIVOT one is not worth it, they are relying on people to buy for the brand, I have done alot of research into these and have used similar systems on RC cars in the past.

I have built my own power stabiliser, for around $25 you can make a quite decent one that is compareable or the same as alot of commercial ones, the pivot one may be the best but imho it is not $75 better. I was planning on selling these but I did not want to supply a product that produced such a small performance gain, and testing on my car did not convincingly prove that it provided a noticable result

post-10983-1126324648.jpg

Edited by midnight

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...