Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey mate

Yes i did lose quite a bit of power. I still have the same cat on since the test i think its 2 and 3 quarter inch.

not interested in power atm.. i gotta upgrade the fuel pump and retune it on boost to go for around 350 - 380rwkw so I am going to invest into a 4" high flow cat which will cost around $400.

For now i will go back to using my xforce 3" highflow

Is it restrictive?

Did you loose much more power when you used this cat?

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IF it does cost that much in VIC to get the test then you should look for a tuner that has a 5gas sensor system and pay him to tune it so you can pass the test the first go.

i cant stress how important it is to get a HIGH quality cat that has been proven to remove emissions. Catco is the way to go - i believe there is one that is a little better.

What was the procedure for the test? What did they do...

Max 4 min test on a dyno designed to simulate various load conditions (eg normal driving). Will stop earlier if it has clearly passed/failed the test, otherwise will continue for the full 240 seconds (hence the name).

The full 240 second test simulates driving over a 3.1 km course with an average speed of 47.3 km/h and a maximum speed of 91.2 km/h.

wooahhh.. nice answer :(

but they never stopped when i went the first time and leaned it off and the nox went up like nothing else :) they kept going and gave me a print out.

if you look at the sheet that i posted you can see the different gas's and the speed that the car was going as well. the top line is the speed the bottom is the emissions - as you can see its very low on bottom one. i should scan my first test and show you.. its pretty interesting the differences between the 2 tunes.

They drive it for around 30 seconds and then they come to a complete stop then keep going and then get up to 90ks an hour and cruise then come to a complete stop.

I think a stock turbo r33 would go into boost - so maybe disconnecting the actuator might help ;)

Max 4 min test on a dyno designed to simulate various load conditions (eg normal driving). Will stop earlier if it has clearly passed/failed the test, otherwise will continue for the full 240 seconds (hence the name).

The full 240 second test simulates driving over a 3.1 km course with an average speed of 47.3 km/h and a maximum speed of 91.2 km/h.

UPDATE !!

I passed the noise test today!!! just scraped in by 1db :)

got 87db at 3500rpm and 89db at 4000rpm

So now its smooth sailing to my engineers certificate !! just got to brace the huge hole i got the 3" intake pipe going through and take it back and pay my money!

UPDATE !!

I passed the noise test today!!! just scraped in by 1db :ninja:

got 87db at 3500rpm and 89db at 4000rpm

So now its smooth sailing to my engineers certificate !! just got to brace the huge hole i got the 3" intake pipe going through and take it back and pay my money!

how have you been advised to do this bracing?

  • 2 months later...

Congrats on passing the emissions testing!

I wonder though, what the point of it was? You say that you pro-actively submitted your car to these tests because you "wanted your car to be legal"...

But you say that you are going to replace the very restrictive catco cat with a 3" and possibly a 4" cat. That will render this passed test obsolete and irrelevant? Are you going to keep this tune, or are you going to lean it out again for greater fuel economy?

Fantastic job building and tuning your own car to a degree that you can control gas emissions to such a fine line, but I have to wonder what the point is, if you're just going to continue modifying your car and render this passed test useless?

The reason i did this was to get my car legally engineered. The way it works is that you must get the IM240 test to get a engineers certificate to prove that the modifications you have made ie - intercooler and plenums and exaust manifolds and injectors and ECU etc etc do not change the emissions of the car.

I have heard that EPA can do road side tests and when they do the legal limits are different to what the RTA is - i have heard that the RTAs IM240 is twice the limits as the EPA so if you get a good high flow CAT the EPA tests will pass without any issues.

Oh and i have not touched the cruise tune since the testing at all as it is fine as it is and still gets good fuel economy but not as good as it was.. bit of a trade off i guess.

Edited by Guilt-Toy
  • 5 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Good to hear is all clear..

I got detoured to an epa station last night.

They got me for;

* Exhaust (noise)

* Air Filter (induction noise)

* non-standard intercooler - turbo

* adjustable fuel pressure regulator

* catch can has a filter on it

Can anyone give me some more advice as to what i should change or do.

Car - 1990 R32 GTR

Current Mods

* PowerFC dejetro

* cams

* Single hi-mount turbo

* bigger fmic

* airfilter

* exhaust

* Fuel pressure regulator

* External Gate

* Catch can

Your help would be greatly appreciated

Dave

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

    • Yeah everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
×
×
  • Create New...