Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

ok, well bombtrack and i are building a ke70 with an SR20det for a drift pig.

money is not huge on this build and we're aiming for around 200rwkw @ 950kgs stripped

planning on using an stock r34 turbo we have lying around and running e85

now a pfc is obviously the best cheapish option

BUT

could we get away with just a SAFC2 & an SITC?

e85 uses around 30% more fuel and is useless with out timing adjustment so an sitc would be needed, but will the safc be able to bend the signal far enough for the fuel? i dont have any real experience with safc's

i figure both could be had for around $500 second hand so its gonna be half the price of a pfc

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/267728-sr20-ecu/
Share on other sites

$420 will get you a nistune chip + Tuner license ($220 for chip alone if some one else is going to tune it). $120 for a consult cable(Not needed if your not the tuner)

This will allow you to remap the stock ECU realtime. This will be just as good as a power FC and alot better than any piggy back system.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/267728-sr20-ecu/#findComment-4564853
Share on other sites

R34 turbo on SR20 ...

Aren't the flanges different???

You could make 200rwkw on E85 EASILY on a stock SR20 toooobo

Ben - dont get Trent into trouble and make him advertise, just send him a PM.

Although you know what Hamish - SR20 ECU's run pig rich, so running E85 on a stock ECU might lean it up nicely - sure it might ping a bit, but it would be free :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/267728-sr20-ecu/#findComment-4568467
Share on other sites

ok, well bombtrack and i are building a ke70 with an SR20det for a drift pig.

money is not huge on this build and we're aiming for around 200rwkw @ 950kgs stripped

planning on using an stock r34 turbo we have lying around and running e85

now a pfc is obviously the best cheapish option

BUT

could we get away with just a SAFC2 & an SITC?

e85 uses around 30% more fuel and is useless with out timing adjustment so an sitc would be needed, but will the safc be able to bend the signal far enough for the fuel? i dont have any real experience with safc's

i figure both could be had for around $500 second hand so its gonna be half the price of a pfc

you can pick up a PFC without hand controller for under $700 if u shop around, and it has a better resale value than any of the other options when ur finished with it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/267728-sr20-ecu/#findComment-4568676
Share on other sites

R34 turbo on SR20 ...

Aren't the flanges different???

You could make 200rwkw on E85 EASILY on a stock SR20 toooobo

Although you know what Hamish - SR20 ECU's run pig rich, so running E85 on a stock ECU might lean it up nicely - sure it might ping a bit, but it would be free :blink:

lol... d00d that is even too ghetto for teh pig...

yeah, was thinking of using an adaptor plate for the 34turbo, as we have one lying around (and a 33 one) but after speaking to trent i'm just gonna get a 2nd hand s15 turbo

you can pick up a PFC without hand controller for under $700 if u shop around, and it has a better resale value than any of the other options when ur finished with it.

true dat, but trent has hooked me up with a nistune board in ecu an case, so i'm stoked! deal DONE :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/267728-sr20-ecu/#findComment-4568954
Share on other sites

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...