Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If it's the turbo selection that is causing these issues.... Everything else is irrelevant. See what the new tuner says.

You're dreaming its not out of puff & i don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion?! As history repeats you can bet these blokes haven't done their job properly AGAIN! Odds are the boost control hasn't been played with properly or they have piss weak springs in the wastegates. But falling on its ass like that at 5500 isn't showing the 6262 being all in IMO pretty sure itd taper off more gradually then just drop off the planet like that. It is a 705hp turbo FFS and hes using over 500 of it currently.
  • Like 4

You're dreaming its not out of puff & i don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion?! As history repeats you can bet these blokes haven't done their job properly AGAIN! Odds are the boost control hasn't been played with properly or they have piss weak springs in the wastegates. But falling on its ass like that at 5500 isn't showing the 6262 being all in IMO pretty sure itd taper off more gradually then just drop off the planet like that. It is a 705hp turbo FFS and hes using over 500 of it currently.

Thats your conclusion.

Thats your conclusion.

While I don't think that turbo is necessarily the best option for this setup, I tend to agree that the turbo is not the most likely cause of what is being seen. Again a shame that there appears to not be better communication from the previous tuner.

  • Like 1

how does it go starting at low temp?

Is that not the reason xklaba didn't take his?

Never had an issue. Even down at Cootamunda in the middle of winter, left outside at the hotel. That was bloody cold that morning too.

Get the tuner to do a PROPER cold start.

The problem I have is my car was tuned to in summer where the mournings are still over 15deg so setting it up for 0 deg is a guess at best, it starts 6 deg with a bit of whinding, less then 10 seconds

It just wasn't looking like starting and at 5:30am with my fuel pump I didn't want to sit there whinding for however long it would have taking to start upsetting my already dickhead neighbours

I also have cold Denso race plugs which wouldn't cold starts

You're dreaming its not out of puff & i don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion?! As history repeats you can bet these blokes haven't done their job properly AGAIN! Odds are the boost control hasn't been played with properly or they have piss weak springs in the wastegates. But falling on its ass like that at 5500 isn't showing the 6262 being all in IMO pretty sure itd taper off more gradually then just drop off the planet like that. It is a 705hp turbo FFS and hes using over 500 of it currently.

Maybe, would be pretty disappointed if the workshop didn't sort that out.

And boost can drop like that if the the rear is beyond its VE especially if manifold pressures were to rise and this would obviously crack open the gate amongst other things. I still think the .82/62 rear is way too small for a 3.2.

Pete, seriously....Don't worry about all this response rubbish, just go and buy yourself a GT42 and be done with it. Rev the f@$king thing past 3000 and be happy with the face stretch when it comes on. Been done hundreds of times before and it just works.

  • Like 1

Fair enough.

Now, I need availability near my work or home.....

or, stick with 98.

I know what you mean, I would have to drive about 200Klm to get it and it would be just about 3/4 empty when I got home.

Different deal if you are doing something special with it, fill a few cans. Thats were the flex fuel sensor will come in, use it when it suites you :yes:

I so agree

Maybe, would be pretty disappointed if the workshop didn't sort that out.
And boost can drop like that if the the rear is beyond its VE especially if manifold pressures were to rise and this would obviously crack open the gate amongst other things. I still think the .82/62 rear is way too small for a 3.2.
Pete, seriously....Don't worry about all this response rubbish, just go and buy yourself a GT42 and be done with it. Rev the f@$king thing past 3000 and be happy with the face stretch when it comes on. Been done hundreds of times before and it just works.

I so agree

Pete, seriously....Don't worry about all this response rubbish, just go and buy yourself a GT42 and be done with it. Rev the f@$king thing past 3000 and be happy with the face stretch when it comes on. Been done hundreds of times before and it just works.

No worries mate, all good.

Had a 80klm drive this morning to get the cobwebs out, good stuff!

Take car to Jez

End thread

Yep well this thread will only ever be more supposition until the car goes to another dyno to find out what is really going on. At least if it goes to DVS Performance he can read some of the history behind it here.

Yep well this thread will only ever be more supposition until the car goes to another dyno to find out what is really going on. At least if it goes to DVS Performance he can read some of the history behind it here.

SORRY, it cannot be over until the " Final Tune " after this 3.2 build is finished, so hopefully, very soon :)

Probably will not be too much KW difference but might change were it starts kicking in ?

And boost can drop like that if the the rear is beyond its VE especially if manifold pressures were to rise and this would obviously crack open the gate amongst other things. I still think the .82/62 rear is way too small for a 3.2.

Pete, seriously....Don't worry about all this response rubbish, just go and buy yourself a GT42 and be done with it. Rev the f@$king thing past 3000 and be happy with the face stretch when it comes on. Been done hundreds of times before and it just works.

Never heard of an external wastegate opening due to exhaust pressure tbh, I'd consider it a design issue if it did - by function definition they are meant to block any flow until the reference pressures met targets - especially if it had both ports utilised.

In regards to VE dropping, that's just going to mean boost pressure will go up for a given airflow - the 62mm hot side is proven to flow much much more than Pete's setup is asking of it... so while I agree it's hotside is way too small for that setup (.8x twin scroll 62mm on a 3.2 - what the actual f**k? I didn't realise...) IMHO I think that explanation doesn't add up. In saying that, it's making good power and if Pete is happy with it then really all that really seems to be needed is making sure the mechanical and tune situation is on point and enjoy.

Things don't seem to be necessarily optimal, but I'm not expecting to see miraculous improvements in power - perhaps some improvement in power delivery if it turns out the intake cam proves to be excessively retarded in practice.

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, 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...