Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

By base I presume you mean idle?

It will depend on your cams, and if you want it to idle nice... and not stall out when the aircon comes on.

I set 20 degrees at a 900 RPM idle, and advance to 22-23 degrees below 900 rpm, and also in the next load cell up. When the aircon goes on, or electrical load increases, the engine produces more torque with the ignition advance and it will auto-stabilise back around 900 again.

RB25's advance the intake cam at idle which improves vacuum and decreases lobe seperation making the idle smoother. You'll find that auto's vs manuals have differing idle advance settings too, to accomodate for the load of being at idle in gear with a torque convertor slipping but on the verge of engaging. Im pretty sure the RB30 manuals are 15 as per the manual, and 20 for the autos. Rb25's with VCT change the rules by making the idle more stable by advancing the intake cam. It is then retarded off idle and advanced again for top end power.

By base I presume you mean idle?

It will depend on your cams, and if you want it to idle nice... and not stall out when the aircon comes on.

I set 20 degrees at a 900 RPM idle, and advance to 22-23 degrees below 900 rpm, and also in the next load cell up. When the aircon goes on, or electrical load increases, the engine produces more torque with the ignition advance and it will auto-stabilise back around 900 again.

RB25's advance the intake cam at idle which improves vacuum and decreases lobe seperation making the idle smoother. You'll find that auto's vs manuals have differing idle advance settings too, to accomodate for the load of being at idle in gear with a torque convertor slipping but on the verge of engaging. Im pretty sure the RB30 manuals are 15 as per the manual, and 20 for the autos. Rb25's with VCT change the rules by making the idle more stable by advancing the intake cam. It is then retarded off idle and advanced again for top end power.

Yes base timing at idle is what i was talking, mine seems to like 15 degrees rather than 20, using the rb26 head, with some decent cams.

need to plug in consult and lock it then set to whatever the ecu is reading... can never assume. Its common for the factory ecu to swing 5 degrees at idle and if you dont lock it its very easy to get it wrong... base ignition is the root of many engine issues... i reckon it is one of the most common owner induced mistakes we have to rectify for customers....

Running autronic sm4.

Just wondering why some rb motors are 15degrees and some 20?

If you running an SM4 you can run delta ignition control. It also has an rpm rate varaible so that you can apply positive or negative ignition changes based on the direction of rpm change - not just under or overspeed rpm event. Great ECU btw - my favorite. Who's pushing the buttons?

Ah, yes i seen that function, would be great for cars without idle solenoid.

After some fiddling with settings, i got mine running well using the stock solenoid.

Its great for cars with idle control valves also. You will find that most manufactures run both an idle control valve and delta ignition control. Engine speed responds alot faster to a change ignition request than a change in idle air flow....

PM sent..

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...