Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fixed the problem, for now. Z32 AFM in, no dramas, and the Boost Control Kit holds boost great, once we got the wiring right!

Plugs were gapped to starndard (?1.1mm), now down to 0.8. Also looks like coil no 6 had a strange "stain" on it, not really evidence of bad arcing but it looked different to the others. No evidence of hairline cracks etc.

So we moved it from cyl 6 to cyl 1, after slathering it in Araldite. :P

Also have left the coil cover off but put the top plastic engine cover back on, in the hope of getting a little more air flow around them. No more misfire since then but I'm expecting it return at some point.

After another retune last night we picked up another 35hp and 50lb-ft of torque! (that's 26kw and 68Nm). Thanks to Greg for the dyno and Rob the Apexi guru from Chiptorque for helping! Drives like a dream now, if anything feels more linear and transitions into boost both quicker and smoother.

Gotta get it onto a Dyno Dynamics for a final set of numbers but I'm guessing something like 235-240rwkw, at 1.1bar.

Here are the dyno printouts.

It should be noted this was an older dyno (not a Dyno Dynamics) which reads horsepower in shetlands, not clydesdales!

The "before" result from this dyno (about 225 rwhp) was exactly the same tune that gave 226.5rwkw on a Dyno Dynamics dyno, so that's why I'm guessing we've picked up a fair bit more. What impresses me though is the stupendous midrandge I now have and how much nicer the transition onto boost is.

They took it for some street tuning and Greg apparently now wants one!!!

What was also interesting on the "before" result was that two consecutive power runs were quite different - the opinion was that this was due to the tune somehow not allowing enough heat to dissipate out of the engine.

We did some consecutive runs after the retune and the graphs plotted almost identically, which is apparently rare for a turbo car as there is usually a 3-5hp difference each run.

post-17890-1139028131.jpg

post-17890-1139028181.jpg

post-17890-1139028233.jpg

post-17890-1139028265.jpg

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...