Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It seems the EGT probe should be as close as possible to the exhaust valve. It has been suggested that in the no 1 runner would be best because it will be running leanest. Can we take that as a given or can anyone who has six probes confirm that before tuning no1 will be hottest? (RB30/25 with a Sinco top mount manifold).

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/406759-egt-probe-placement/
Share on other sites

I have a GT3540 with a .63 rear and stock pistons. It has been suggested that if I run too much boost (20psi atm making 280awkw so want to go to 25psi and then look at cam timing) I can melt the pistons so want to fit a gauge to keep an eye on the EGT. So you reckon on top of the rear housing between the cam cover and the pipe that leads to the W/G?

002-2.jpg

Be more worried about the ringlands letting go simply due to age or a slightly bad batch of fuel more than melting pistons outright.

Cannot say I've ever seen anyone post here that they melted stock pistons, motors let go long before that happens (and it's usually det/age related)

I have complete confidence in my tuners. Its people on this forum that have said that the .63 rear was too small and would choke/overheat. The point of the EGT gauge is to help the tuners in their job - they know its my daily driver and only part-time track car and that I am poor so they won't tune it on the ragged edge and knowingly endanger the motor!

I have complete confidence in my tuners. Its people on this forum that have said that the .63 rear was too small and would choke/overheat. The point of the EGT gauge is to help the tuners in their job - they know its my daily driver and only part-time track car and that I am poor so they won't tune it on the ragged edge and knowingly endanger the motor!

Ahh got you :)

Sorry to hijack!

I'll be chucking EGT's in my manifold once its been made. But i'll be putting them in every cylinder.

Reason - So my tuner can trim each cylinder until they are all equal. I'll also have them hooked up to a logger.

I've heard mixed opinions, do you put the EGT as close to the manifold flange as possible? Or about an inch away from the flange?

How deep do you mount the EGT in the pipe?

Should i be getting open tipped or closed tip EGT's. Open tip react quicker, but i would think using closed tip will be better for the life of the sensors.

Cheers.

Placement of the sensor and the temperatures you look for will be determined by what you are trying to achieve. Depth? Just don't expose thread to the gas stream.

After running twin EGT sensors in the manifolds pre turbo, I will never do it again. The cast iron manifold has a higher thermal expanson rate than the inconel that the sensors are encased in. The sensors use a 1/8th BSPT thread. The combination of the differing exapnsion rates of the materials and tapered sensor thread means you have to perodically re-tighten the sensor, or risk exhaust leaks. To give you an idea of the effect of this. Sensors that were tight and leak free could be turned by fingers only after a few heat cycles up to 850 degrees. Cast iron, steel and stainless all have this issue.

If you are just trying to balance each cylinder, its just as easy to use a set of well matched injectors, and fine tune the trims on the dyno at moderate cruise load and a laser temp probe on each port as its exiting the head. A cruise load in 4/5th at 100km/h roller speed should see around 700 degrees egt with a 14.7 afr if your ignition settings are correct. If you have your injectors individually flow tested, you can run the bigger flow injectors where you see the hotter egt's, and then trim by ecu injector corrections to get it perfect.

EGT is useful for economy tuning too. You'll see hotter than 700-720ish at cruise speeds if your ignition is too retard, and it can also produce heat induced detonation. Advancing the timing further cools combustion chamber temps and EGT's, as well as it makes more torque, and then you can pull more fuel which further cools the combustion chamber in a lean burn situation (not under load).

I'm now using an egt sensor in the dump pipe in the same place as you would run the narrow band sensor. 2-3" from the turbo. Based on data I have from the pre-turbo sensors, I lose 50 degrees across the turbo. Peak EGTs meaured here are around 800-810 @ 7500 rpm with a 12:1 AFR.

Interesting read there GTRNUR.

My manifold will be a steam pipe but i'm sure it will have the same issue. That is really annoying. High temp thread lock didn't help? Surely someone has sorted this issue out, many people have EGTs, more so in drag cars.

Depth, yeah, how far do i stick the probe into the pipe? You say not to insert the thread. But i was planning on using compression Glands for the EGT. So there will be no thread inside the pipe. But do i insert the EGT so the tip just hits the gas stream, or so the tip is in the centre of the gas stream?

I have brand new Xspurt injectors, but i'm not going to bother flow testing them. They are supposedly closely matched from the factory anyway.

Not only will i be using the EGT's for cylinder trimming, but i think they will be a good tool for diagnosing any faults with or letting me know early on that one cylinder has an issue.

In a drag car, not a problem in the intake runners. Its not as though you put 25,000km/year on a drag car... street cars on the other hand.

Thread lock won't help it. Virtually all adhesives will cook off at 800 degrees given enough time. Even using a copper gasket in the end of a bung welded onto the header pipes won't last forever as copper has twice the expansion rate of most iron based metals.

A compression gland might work depending on what the gland is made of. If its exhaust rated they might use an inconel olive around the sensor.

Sensor depth will depend on the sensor. For example, the PLX devices EGT probes have a 1/2" nipple on the end of a 1/8th BSPT thread. Only the nipple goes into the stream.

The R34 GTR EGT probe for the MFD is about 35-40mm long, and goes all the way to about the center of the gas stream in the dump pipe. The R34 sensor also uses an olive style flange on the sensor, which seals up against the surface of the sensor bung in the dump pipe. Basically the same as a compression gland.

My temps rose around 100c from dump to manifold. I have mine mounted in a stainless pipe, no issues with it coming loose. Is there a reason other fabricators aren't using schedule 10 stainless for manifolds?

I agree, an egt sensor is a useful tool and can help calm the tuner's mind on what the exhaust temps are like. What worries me about multiple sensors is their accuracy, not sure I would want to tune with them unless I tested them first, nor connected to the ecu for live adjustments either, especially long term with potential damage and carbon buildup...

Scotty with individual sensors its always best to swap them around to check the sensors for the exact reason ur worried about.

Kitto- have u priced up the individual sensor kits. Most of them only do 4 sensor kits. Gets expensive very quickly

I'll be using these, plus a kit of 2.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/110764934919?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 You can get these in enclosed tip or open tip and with stainless mounting options as well.

What depth would you suggest to mount these at?

The 0-5V signal will go into the racepak logger dash.

I'll be using E85.

Standard approx 3mm diameter thermocouples like that should lock up properly in the compression fitting. Having said that, the nut on mine keeps coming loose. I must crank it up properly the next time I get an opportunity.

As to how far to inser them.....million dollar question. In an individual runner, I would not want to stick them too far into the gas flow. This is for reasons of upsetting the gas flow (the effect might be small, but best to minimise such things.). By the same token, you have to stick them in far enough so that they will actually work, andnot be dominated by conduction too/from the manifold wall. If you stick the tip of the thermocouple in so it is only fluch with the inside wall, then it will see only a little gas directly, but will be in reasonable thermal contact with the manifold wall. So when you get onto the gas and the EGT goes up, but the wall is still cold, the TC will lag well behind the real gas temp. And of course, when you button off and the wall is nice and hot, the TC will read high for long after the gas is cooled down. Given that the junction in a ~3mm sheath is about 2mm back from the tip of the sheath, I'd say you'd need the tip inserted maybe 5-6mm inside the wall at a minimum to get a decent measurement of the gas temp without too much interference from the wall. Maybe 10mm to be absolutely sure, and hopefully not cause too much flow disturbance.

The same is true if you use a single TC in the turbine housing inlet region. If it's in the dump, you can probably stick it in a good 25mm or more without upsetting the gas flow too much (the TC occupies a much smaller % of the dump cross section than it would in a manifold runner, where the velocity would be somewhat higher).

You can get an idea of the maximum intended insertion on the kit linked above by the length of TC that can be pushed through the fitting. You'd probably only get 25mm maximum through into the gas stream. Probably too far in a runner.

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 everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...