Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

They do know the main 120L tanks capacity, but they don't know the level in the 10L swirl pot that's inside the tank bladder.

The car should start with 120L and a full swirl pot.

So in theory using 1.2L/km they should be able to go 108km's at race speed which the other 3 nissans did.....

Problem rick would have had was that he had several cars wanting his position so he'd have been using more fuel during the race to maintain position.

Who knows why but the older engines are still running group fired injection and single coil dizzy setups. The nissans and Mercs are fully sequential multi coil arrangements but they can't get onto the consumption of the dinosaur push rod engines, they are just that efficient.

Brad, I was under the impression (from the Motec V8 support personal) that the COTF engines are all sequential and individual coils (powered by the new M1xx series ECU's) The teams had the option of running either group or sequential firing on the old engines (with the M880 ECU), with most using group fire as it left a few outputs available to be used elsewhere on the car, prior to the development of PDM's E8xx and SVIM's.

They are correct.

The COTF engines are run sequentially. The holden version is based on the LSX engine frame from GM performance.

The older aroura engines most of them are using are still being run in the exact same way as they were last year. Grouped with single channel CDI and coil.

I'm not aware of anyone using the V8 supercars supplied and homologated engines that are seq run. Perhaps when other manufactures come that don't produce a V8 we will see those engines being used.

The pace built and V8 supercars owned chassis do have the homologated "off the shelf" engines fitted.

  On 19/05/2013 at 8:35 AM, Risking said:

They do know the main 120L tanks capacity, but they don't know the level in the 10L swirl pot that's inside the tank bladder.

The car should start with 120L and a full swirl pot.

So in theory using 1.2L/km they should be able to go 108km's at race speed which the other 3 nissans did.....

Problem rick would have had was that he had several cars wanting his position so he'd have been using more fuel during the race to maintain position.

Who knows why but the older engines are still running group fired injection and single coil dizzy setups. The nissans and Mercs are fully sequential multi coil arrangements but they can't get onto the consumption of the dinosaur push rod engines, they are just that efficient.

Thought the COTF tanks were 112 litres or similar?

  On 18/05/2013 at 10:46 PM, Duncan said:

he looks good in a dress :wacko:

Nissan threw away 6th by neglecting to put enough fuel in....who would make that sort of error :ph34r:

Just hit the fuel pump with a hammer and she'll be right hey?

  • 4 weeks later...

Nobody mentioning that Gary Rogers will be running two Volvos next year?

Good to see the series kicking a few goals re manfacturers. Next test will be to get some satellite series going and then have a 4 World Championship rounds. Spa, Bathurst, a US circuit and Silverstone or something

  • Like 1
  On 17/06/2013 at 9:13 AM, Roy said:

Nobody mentioning that Gary Rogers will be running two Volvos next year?

Good to see the series kicking a few goals re manfacturers. Next test will be to get some satellite series going and then have a 4 World Championship rounds. Spa, Bathurst, a US circuit and Silverstone or something

Yeah good on em for taking the punt!

It will upset a lot of people but i like the fact that its not just the old Bogandore and Foulcans!

  On 18/06/2013 at 2:56 AM, Roy said:

I don't think it will upset many at all.

There are a LOT of diehard fans... They may not be upset now but when the other makes catch up and start winning races they might ;)

I don't see any of the new manufactures winning races anytime soon. I think the mercs will probably be the first to do it, followed by the volvos and then the Nissans (if they ever actually win, which I doubt with the current driver lineup)

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

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...