Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 2 months later...

race day sunday at wakie - hoping I can crack into the 1.13's!!

I have also aquired a set of slicks....dont know if I'll use them in this race...may wait for a supersprint to get used to them!

  • 4 months later...

Long time between updates...

Raced at wakefield in June - car felt really off power.

I even had a swift Gti pull away from me down the straight.

I only managed a 1.14.3, had brand new semi's too

so took the car to a mates place after it, had 105-110 psi across all four.

after some research and talking to folks, got it to monaco performance just near newcastle - turns out the timing belt had skipped a tooth on the exh cam and put the timing all out. good job it is a non-interference motor. got it all fixed, oil change too, new plugs, back upto 170psi

car feels good once again so have entered a supersprint 2 weeks time just as more a practice run before MRA in october

now I want 1.13's!!

clappa - already done! according to natsift I am 3 seconds quicker - and according to his hand timing he is 15 seconds quicker LOL

ryan - no chance unless I have turbro powahs

clappa - already done! according to natsift I am 3 seconds quicker - and according to his hand timing he is 15 seconds quicker LOL

ryan - no chance unless I have turbro powahs

I thought you had a hair drier... Oh wait...

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Update!!!!

Best now is a 1.12.8 at wakie and 1.06.1 at SMP south.

Latest mods are straight through exhaust (no muffler!) and v70a semi slicks.

Bought a second hand adaptronic ecu, loom and map sensor too.

Just dropped car off at DVS tuning to fit it now.

Did a base run before ecu and got 77.6rwkw. When I got the exhaust mod done at mx5 mania it made 92rwkw. Yep, manias reads mega high!!!!

First race for the year is jan 27 for MRA in mx5 challenge

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...