Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

hmm i dont like that little dib on the curve..

But still good figure none-the less..

What gear was that tune in?

wait is yours auto isnt it? how does the dyno reading work?

anyways where did you get your safc2 from?

Stupid apexi :P

im fairly certain its 1.1, its not harmful to the car is it?

0.8 are better.. 1.1 is too big..

I just changed the GTR ones last night.. wooo!

SAFC have aids and are so ghay to tune!

p.s your a/f are all over the place!

With regard to gaps, you go for the largest gap you can use without getting misfiring. Stock gap is 1.1mm but generally when you start upping the boost you need to drop the gap to about 0.8mm. If you have to go lower than that it's because your coilpacks aren't up to the job but in regards to your car Paul, if it's running fine now, great. Don't change anything. Equally don't be surprised if that misfiring comes back at some stage. It will be the coilpacks if it does.

I don't think the AFR's are too bad considering it's just an SAFC. You'll never get a flat line with that.

The dip in the curve is fairly typical of a stock ecu/fuel computer piggyback.

Guilt-Toy - Not denying that's a good tune but it's a happy dyno too.

I don't think the AFR's are too bad considering it's just an SAFC. You'll never get a flat line with that.

The dip in the curve is fairly typical of a stock ecu/fuel computer piggyback.

Thats true, Thats what I don't like about the SAFC's you can never get them perfect..

And in regards to replacing coil packs, i won't have a problem with miss firing as the spark plugs are more than cable of running the car with the standard turbo.

I will only need to replace coil packs say if i do a high flow and start pushing for close to 300rwkw or so...

If u run the right plugs at the right gap, and the right sort of fuel, say good buy to miss firing!

Yeah, in optimum condition the standard coil packs are up to the task of working correctly with low/mild boost. Yours aren't in optimum condition though, they're more than likely 100,000+kms old. You will need to replace the coil packs WHEN (not if) they fail, regardless of whether you're pushing 200rwkw or 300rwkw.

The issue with setting your gap too small is that the spark duration will be very quick and the spark will be weaker. The consequence is high exhaust emission levels due to the mixture not being burned as completely as with a fatter hotter spark. It'll result in an increase in fuel consumption and potentially a minor decrease in power. Rather than 'curing' your misfiring at 1.1mm by gapping directly to 0.7, it's smart to decrease in increments of .1 until the problem goes away. Often tuners wont do this though as it can be time consuming. If you are confident with doing this yourself you may save yourself some petrol..

Exactly what promordial said.. i seriously think gapped to 0.7 is way too much..

Refer to the thread ages ago about plugs. There was a huge debate about it. Someone dig that thread up lol..

so anyone keen on explaining that graph to me..

Or is all the power coming on after 80kms?

lol= no idea with this graph!!

cheers..

Edited by siddr20
Hey homo-spec lol...

My boot is still going to look better than yours at S'n'S

Sif Doof is HOMO Spec :blush:

What are you putting in the boot ?

yeah probably... i dunno if mine is gunna be done by then...

What the...... I hope it will be :w00t:

Yeah I agree those AFR's are pretty good for a SAFC. its hard to get a SAFC to read that straight. If you changed that to lambda it would be much better to look at :blush:

The dyno is not as happy as some people think.. it read 100hp less compared to the auto salon dyno the next day. but every dyno is different.

With regard to gaps, you go for the largest gap you can use without getting misfiring. Stock gap is 1.1mm but generally when you start upping the boost you need to drop the gap to about 0.8mm. If you have to go lower than that it's because your coilpacks aren't up to the job but in regards to your car Paul, if it's running fine now, great. Don't change anything. Equally don't be surprised if that misfiring comes back at some stage. It will be the coilpacks if it does.

I don't think the AFR's are too bad considering it's just an SAFC. You'll never get a flat line with that.

The dip in the curve is fairly typical of a stock ecu/fuel computer piggyback.

Guilt-Toy - Not denying that's a good tune but it's a happy dyno too.

Paul: Auto :):O:blush:

Graph looks good AFR wise and power I suppose.

Get new coils now! :) They make heap a difference.. Just ask Ed.. Bastard too my coils :w00t:

I miss my car :(

BTW Can I ask how much was the tune at C&V? How long did they take?

Oh and for dump and cat, just get them ones from Justjap. They work fine :)

Someone explain that graph to me dammit!!

Some tuners prefer to display the km/h on the bottom axis instead of RPM.. It looks like a 4th gear run judging by the speed. Why you would want to know power vs km/h i dont know? I would think power vs rpm would be much more useful. There's probably some reason why they would choose km/h instead of rpm, no idea what that is though? :thumbsup:

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, 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)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...