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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...