Jump to content
SAU Community

New Cobb Tuning Maps


Martin Donnon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Today we will be datalogging and publicly reporting on the new Cobb Tuning upgrades to the GTR which we have been providing input for over the past month. The brainchild of John in the UK and Joe from Cobb, the new mapping system does away with Air Flow Load inferred Wastegate Duty Cycle, and converts the R35 Boost Control system over to an RPM vs Duty Cycle output curve. What this means -

Stable boost control without the big boost spikes on 'flat foot' gearshifts that haunt most GTR tunes (no good for engine or transmission)

The ability to hold more consistent and greater boost pressure in the top end of the rev range.

No need to change over wastegate actuators on the GTR to higher rated versions

No need to add aftermarket boost controllers etc.

An exhaust equipped GTR using this mapping with stock actuators and boost control hardware just went 10.8 at Santa Pod a few hours back :P

We will be performing some mapping and datalogging using our new Mainline AWD dyno to provide the most consistent and repeatable data that we can give back to both Cobb and present to the public before the software is released. Exciting times ahead for GTR owners, and obviously we are happy to be part of the professional testing and development team for Cobb ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting.

At a recent practice day (Oran Park) running an AP tune, i found my lap times actually went slightly backwards. Personally, i think it was due to the power coming on too strong, too quickly, turning the tyres and invoking power sapping traction control. I guess the solution is to drive with TC off, and anticipate wheelspin more delicately, however something that guarantees a better/smoother and more progressive application of power may just turn that situation around for me.

Edited by LSX-438
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linear power that doesnt upset the balance of the chassis has always been the key.

I have never been one much for a big midrange rush than a curve that falls flat on its face. Great for the odd squirt between the lights (if anyone actually does that kind of thing anymore) but no good for a genuine motorsport application :O

Link to comment
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
 Share



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
    • https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2021-nissan-skyline-400r-auto-rv37/SSE-AD-17857548/ Well there you go 
    • Chris won't reply. He doesn't visit the forum much anymore. You can try these guys https://www.facebook.com/autotainment/ They did mine many years ago
×
×
  • Create New...