Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am excited to see the results of this, great stuff.

Quick question, with regard to the wideband, why did you not go with the Innovate Motorsports WB which is reccommended to be used with the Vipec ECU's? Geniune question, I am not just being a d**k.

Red R Racing use Tech Edge, thats pretty much the reason. I went with their recomendations.

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The vipec ecu was designed to work with what ever wideband sensor you want to use rather than one specific brand/model.

Yes, however in the manual it recommends the Innovative Motorsport WB. No drama, I would like to know why the Tech Edge was chosen by Paul. Good information to know especially to those (like myself) who don't have WB yet.

Anyway, sorry Bakes to digress.

Mike

maybe Mr. Dirt can elaborate...

its what we use and are familiar with...no need to change as they are very accurate.

Peter gives me a good discount too which helps.

All Mainline dyno's use Techedge units to read AFR...good enough for them...plenty good for me. :down:

Cheez Bakes those rims are growing on me they might just end up on that 32 next to yours LOL

:D Hahah Dave, I hope my car is not sitting on bricks when I come round next, or discover that I mysteriously have a new set of wheels that look a lot like yours ;)

Glad to hear you are looking forward to working on it Anthony. See you later in the week.

Yeah no probs, I had to give up Friday night races at WSID to get your car running so it can be driven to the Dyno.

Never mind plenty of time for the track.

I prefer Techedge Wideband, they are simple and easy to use and work great! Much smaller then the Innovate unit and much much cheaper as well and we are buying local for overnight delivery, and the support Peter gives us is second to none.

I prefer Techedge Wideband, they are simple and easy to use and work great! Much smaller then the Innovate unit and much much cheaper as well and we are buying local for overnight delivery, and the support Peter gives us is second to none.

Thanks for the info Paul and Guilt-Toy.

Sweet choice in turbo :woot: Let us know how it goes once it's done!

I should be getting my GTR back this week, with a freshly rebuilt forged motor with my own pair of GT2860R-5's strapped to the side... can't bloody wait!

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...