Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GTS-t VSPEC

    20904

  • Nizmo

    13582

  • SHUTO-BOY

    6636

  • skyzerr33

    5353

33Spec2, the old theory goes that a completely stock car will have a had an easy life, so it'll be ripe for mods. Heres another theory: A completely stock car has been owned by captain old guy/poseur head who wouldn't have cared much for mechanical maintenance. They wouldn't have warmed the car up before putting the boot in, they wouldn't have changed the oil every 5-10k km, they would have bought lower quality lubes and taken the super budget route with repairs in general.

I've seen examples of both theories, but the latter is far more common. Safest way is to inspect any car *very* careful regardless of the level of mods.

Yeh the Nissan Xtt has the fwd Ca-18 in it and its spewing oil from just near the CAS. Gonna give it a look this weekend and ill see how i go. if i start pulling my hair out wanna have a look on sunday? ill pm on sat nite if ure interested.

Hey at the very least u will see a very rare car

Originally posted by Gradenko

A completely stock car has been owned by captain old guy/poseur head

My baby ^

I have seen a 50 year old with 400kw Line - one of the best kept machines around.

I have taken on line same year, same transmission but had been thrashed by chinky bloke - haha it got chopped in a big way, feels even better when the ex was driving. So they go better for sure when they have been fully looked after by old codger.

I think no matter what you get just have it checked out as thoroughly as possible - and on a wing and a prayer it'll be fine - these cars ar emade for a bit of punishment anyway :uh-huh:

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...