Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

... 1) isn't the answer because Lith asked two different things..

What is controlling boost/map pressure/load when you are driving around on the street?
You can't really tune over what the ECU is seeing, unless you fudge the numbers and have the same timing/fuel at 24psi that you do at 21psi. This is really very bad for both possible boost settings, or it's perfect for one of them, and really bad for the other one.


There is an argument that when it's set to 24psi you are never at 21psi at 7000rpm, or at 21psi at 5000rpm, so you can use those cells on the map to tune for 24psi but.. yeah...


The best way to test this is actual testing, to confirm whether it's in your head or not. Phone app of some sort would be ideal to do a few back to back runs on a deserted (private) road. Especially if it "feels bad". Cars aren't ever truly intermittent.
 

Those are kind of the answers I expected though to be fair it's hard to know what is definitely going on - I obviously have my suspicions.

I should have asked a 4th question, do you have a separate boost gauge to show you what boost you are actually running?

My experience with tuning on the dyno is that it is really easy to get a consistent boost curve as the conditions will be consistent and the engine will always "pull" through the rpm at exactly the same rate.   Because the car is always following pretty much the same boost curve, it will also seem like the tune is perfectly on point - so it'll seem like you have got away with mystery tuning and getting a solid tune, however that may not be the case in the real world.

The first thing I'll suggest is entirely possible to be going on is that you aren't running the same boost curve on the road as you were on the dyno.  Internal wastegates can be notoriously finicky and often need varying inputs from the ECU/boost control solenoid to be kept on track - this is why we have closed loop boost control and why tuning the base duty cycle tables can sometimes be a fine art, this is particularly the case when you are running a fair bit over gate pressure.  Targetting 24psi when running 1bar actuators would fit well into that category, imho.

The trick here is that the ECU can only see "21psi" so god knows what it thinks it's doing when it's trying to control boost, I have no idea what the tuner would have done with the tables but I can only assume that it's utilising a fixed duty cycle for anything over 21psi to try and maintain "24psi" and there will be no adjustment if it goes over or under 24psi.  This means you could potentially be overshooting or undershooting your 24psi on the road and the ECU will do nothing at all about it, so you have the very real possibility of running mystery boost!

That all by itself could cause a certain amount of what you are talking about, as you have said yourself - it feels like it's running less boost, but wait... there is more....

If the tune "looked fine" at 24psi on the dyno, that means that the timing and fuelling is mint for 24psi.   What this means is that if you end up hitting only 22/23psi then the timing and fuel is retarded and rich for the boost levels you are actually hitting.   But wait, there's still more!   What if you overshoot 24psi?    That could get much more exciting.

What I can guarantee is that the transient areas between 21-24psi will be different in real life than on the dyno, so who knows what has been done to cope with that.   I'm guessing it'll always feel slightly flat in that range before it hits your boost target IF it is actually successfully and consistently hitting the target boost.  I honestly don't want to wager how likely that is.

Just a thought, anyway.

Edited by Lithium

No extra boost guage, not forking out the many dollars to get the Nismo MFD upgrade and don't like additional gauges. 

Am sourcing a map sensor now and will go to closed loop when it goes back in for cams and springs. 

Appreciate the feedback :)

 

20 minutes ago, ActionDan said:

Is there anything special about the Haltech sensor that warrants 3x the price of any other universal sensor? 

no... and also they already have their scaling determined however it's not rocket science to determine the max and min vs max and min of pressure as the output is linear and not exponential like temperature sensors

Waiting on tuner to give me the price he can get the Haltech one, as he gets better prices. 

Otherwise, any issues with this? 

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/151315040163?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Probs just grab the Haltech one n the end, but nothing wrong with having a backup plan. 

 

Noticed one of your posts where you posted a picture on another subject , your still running stock Fuel regulator

an adjustable regulator might be a good idea if your going to run high boost setting.

New when I did the fuel system upgrades, but I have heard that when switching to e85 you should replace it after a few thousand k's as e85 tends to clean the fuel system out of shit. 

Can't hurt to grab one as a spare when it goes in. 

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

    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
    • A 180SX has a much better look than a FD. The roofline is far superior being a fastback. It's popups look better. In a world where we all subconsciously add a little bit of low, and wheels of our preference, it's just more handsome than the FD is. The FD just looks 'bubbly' in comparison. It can come down to preference, sure. But "The FD is the BEST looking (on appearances alone) 90's JDM car without question?" Nah. Plenty of questions lol. I could think of 8 cars I think look fundamentally better, and probably a handful of ones that look about on par with a FD. (like say a SW20 MR2) I feel people like/overrate the FD because of it's mythicality/rarity, its rotary and it's unpredictable nature. It probably drives great, you can stuff a ton of tyre under there, has a unique sound, light as hell. I feel that people reading this thinking "YOU CANT RATE A 180 ABOVE A FD BECAUSE A 180 IS A CHEAP DRIFT BUCKET" prove the point about bias as to what the car represents, moreso than how it actually looks.. I feel the 80's boxy/squared off look is becoming better looking due to time, and 90's melted soap bar aesthetics have not aged well. (yet?) And this thread is purely about looks :p
×
×
  • Create New...