Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, fatz said:

Should also say in America where all the epic numbers come from their ponies are smaller than the rest of the world so this may also lead to disappointment cause it didn't make 400kw

The fat man is correct. 

Here is 1 American hp

Screenshot_20171111-134807.jpg

  • Like 5
  • 3 months later...
36 minutes ago, MattSR said:

What brand of trigger disc is that?

This particular one is just made here locally in NZ - just as a cheaper alternative to the ross ones you usually see. CNC'd disc and a bosch sensor. $380.

  • 5 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Komdotkom said:

Any news on this? I'm keen to hear if you have managed to pick up any hidden hp with the altered trigger.

I'm still hoping that there's a way to get the IWG EFR's to make decent numbers.

Car is just about to be painted following on from some rust repairs, will be tuned on E85 after I get a bigger fuel pump in there. I should have something within the month provided the tuner is available.

The IWG didn't cause any problems for me apart from the actuator bolts on the arm coming loose.. the boost control was fine there. Will likely be getting a harder spring too before the tune. Will be good to see what happens when we can add more timing down low and see how aggressive it can really come on!

 

Sorry for the lack of updates!

  • Like 2
  • 8 months later...

Updated results, still 98octane with the updated cam trigger.

Skinny red trace: Old tune low boost

Skinny green trace: Old tune high boost

Solid green trace: New tune low boost (10.5psi)

Solid red trace: New tune high boost (21.5psi)

ECU onboard MAP sensor is limiting boost.

 

 

IMG_20181211_172251.jpg

Edited by Dievos
  • Like 4

So that means? Am I guessing right that 75% of the improvement is fuel as E85 masks the high back pressure and any inefficiency in the setup and just gets busy making numbers? Then may the tune with more accurate ignition?

I know my old setup loved going to E85 as it simply allowed more boost and ignition everywhere over 98 when the thing just became too prone to detonation. E85 seems to make inefficient air pumps work a load better. 

Looks a far better result and imagine drives like a different beast

20 hours ago, Roy said:

So that means? Am I guessing right that 75% of the improvement is fuel as E85 masks the high back pressure and any inefficiency in the setup and just gets busy making numbers? Then may the tune with more accurate ignition?

I know my old setup loved going to E85 as it simply allowed more boost and ignition everywhere over 98 when the thing just became too prone to detonation. E85 seems to make inefficient air pumps work a load better. 

Looks a far better result and imagine drives like a different beast

What it means is that the car does not have any issues continuing to make more power at high rpm - this set up made as much as 368kwatw with power actually wanting to increase but was out of the knock threshold for 98 and we couldn't try more boost as the ECU MAP sensor was maxed. Boost control does not spike when it reaches full boost and the control tables are still quite basic.

Edited by Dievos
  • Like 1
On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:12 PM, Dievos said:

What it means is that the car does not have any issues continuing to make more power at high rpm - this set up made as much as 368kwatw with power actually wanting to increase but was out of the knock threshold for 98 and we couldn't try more boost as the ECU MAP sensor was maxed. Boost control does not spike when it reaches full boost and the control tables are still quite basic.

So more accurate ignition control paid huge dividends.  That's great news.

98 fuel is the current limiting factor, and to run more boost you will need to pull timing to keep it together?

Mid range torque looks like it should pull hard off corners with awd traction capability.  Very good - must be very satisfying to drive.  

Wonder why torque drops so noticeably around 62-6400?  Very similar trait to RB25. Be interesting to see what EMAP looks like

On 12/16/2018 at 10:31 AM, fatz said:

this Australia or nz cause that’s mythical power on 98?

Power sounds right, it's on a hub dyno. Put some wheels on it and drop it onto a Mainline and probably read about 15 to 20kW less. 

Put it onto a Dyno Dynamics and it will read more power (especially if the ambient temp sensor is disconnected or left near a heat source lol). 

  • 8 months later...

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, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...