Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Had my 33 on the Dyno at Boostworx today, 159.1rwkw with just mushroom pod & cat back exhaust. Pretty pleased with it.

An interesting side note, is I tried using the Datalog Dyno software the other day that utilises the consult port/cable, and with that software gave an indication of 160.5 rwkw. So I was surprised to see it was quite accurate. The 160.5 was a figure with the correct air temp and atmospheric pressure correction (from BOM website at the time) so if anyone want's a cheaper way to check your cars output, I can reccomend using it :D

does anybody else think/heard that boostworx duno reads a lil high ?

There's a LOT of variables.

Placement of inlet air temp sensor, how the car is strapped down, tyre pressure, shootout mode run etc etc.

Its fairly easy to see a variance of 5 even 10rwkw depending on the above.

I believe it actually reads pretty much spot on if not a touch low. R33's with PowerFC's generally see 190-200rwkw; with cam gears or a 13+psi 210rwkw is achievable.

Mine was maxing out the afm and injectors at around 180rwkw; another mates also max'd his out at the same power.

BUT just because the afm is max'd out it doesn't mean you can't go on to make 220rwkw with the stock afm. Its just that the tune is a tad crude but it works.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Means something is not set up right, tune/calibration related.  
    • Finally replaced the previous temporary mesh indicator surrounds (temporary was the last 10+ years 😂) with a 3D printed GTR style version for the front indicators. I think it looks a lot nicer than the old setup and at least the indicators now point in the correct direction rather than angled off. Needed a little bit of tweaking to deal with the intercooler piping but got there in the end. Old and new photos below. 
    • It's weird to me that you say this because I'm pretty sure locals with relatively standard standalone tunes (boost/barometric compensated alpha-N) still have driveability issues when they pop intercooler hoses. Maybe with enough data I can just train some kind of model that spits out an expected grams/cyl given every sensor input except MAF like what FCA did with their Pentastar 3.6 ECU logic. Basically stock everything. The main motivation honestly is to have a sensor that can be a decent baseline source of truth. In scenarios you're describing obviously it won't work every time but it seems to me the number of corner cases that exist in MAF load is maybe not as severe and difficult to manage vs ITB alpha-N with some MAP/barometric compensation.
    • What are your plans for your blow off valves? Purely plumb back? How soft will the spring in them be? AFM can be tricky to get super smooth and nice, especially depending on the rest of the system, and then can be very easily upset if something slightly changes. IE, even if you run recirc blow off valves, you could still see issues getting it to behave at certain load points as turbos might start to spool, but you release the throttle but it's not enough pressure to crack the bov open to recirc, and you can end up with reversion which can cause double metering, and hence dumping of fuel into the system, and stalling the engine.   If you're going to run a map sensor for closed loop boost control from the ECU, what makes you want to keep the AFM?    
    • It's not bad, it's just not flexible. And say if you have any leaks between the MAF and plenum, well then your load axis goes out the window. Here's a real world scenario, I blew off an intercooler hose last track day, as the clamp decided to Bluetooth itself somewhere. Still continued to do 2 laps and drive it to the pub for a couple of beers then home. Good luck doing that with a MAF setup 
×
×
  • Create New...