msitpro

3 hours ago, Loadmaster said:

 

Is this the position on the inner sills, front and rear, that each have two "V" cut outs? Thanks.

Sounds like you have the right spots.

I tend to jack the rear on the 'kidney stays' - UK cars have a plastic diff cover which tends to deform greatly if you tried to jack the car on it.

6 hours ago, ilogikal1 said:

 

The interwebs tells me Wangan Blue was the "original" name of Bayside Blue. If it's on the interwebs it must be true.

Yep, what I have on my Z - TV2 code.

Newer stuff has far lower CO2.

Even something like a RC F with n/a V8 is 268 g/km CO2 vs the Z's 280g/km

A 2GR-FSE in a Lexus barge does 230 ish g/km

Bayside Blue TV2 🙂

Watched that last night 👍

14 hours ago, Azurez33 said:

The other thing I was was wondering, has anyone tried to start a dialog with the government with reducing their tax etc if they can prove their emissions are clean like this? 

Based on CO2 anyway which isn't tested because you can't really reduce it except an engine swap or significant de-tuning.

Totally normal result for good condition catalysts. Mine had basically the same result when I had stock cats on a couple years ago.

WAIT - missed the HC reading - that's not reading right. 😅

1) PAYCO - Datsun 510 SSS

2) nismoandy 350z registered & paid

3) msitpro - 350Z registered and paid

Thanks for that - will analyse a bit later. 🧐 

I assume fuel map is fuel compensation for the observed real AFR vs the AFR target?

I think a tint looks best, assuming you're not ballsy enough to open them up and spray the insides like I'm not.

The chrome of the Z lights is a bit too much IMO (especially against my blue paintwork). How about a GT4/GT300-esque dark amber tint? (less bright yellow than mine)

headlight tints no more...

Nice nice.

So what is the reason why it switches to open loop at 3k? Is that a default for the ECU? A choice you've made?

I would guess this is because the closed loop mechanisms cannot react fast enough to the changes in throttle inputs and rpm?

Out of interest, do you have a map/grid I can see for your optimal torque of the target AFR for fuel schedule (load) vs rpm? Would like to compare to mine/others.

The equivalent table to below for your ECU -

15 minutes ago, itsLeon said:

I always log when my car is running so yeah i do have the log files. But i don't understand your question about if the trace closely to the closed loop afr? 

First there is no closed loop afr, you have set the afr targets as you want across different RPM's and engine load, for example my car is targeting an afr of 16.7 at idle because at 14.7 it was way to rich (could smell and see the fuel out of my exhaust)
Second you set the closed loop control as you want. Mine is set to be only in closed loop below 3000 rpm and below x load. 
I can run the car completely at open loop if i want, everything is dialed in to be around 5% of the target AFR i want.  

Ahh that's kinda what I was asking - Sounds like something needs a little calibration. - You're saying the widebands are reading 14.7 back to the ECU but it's clearly richer than that, hence having to compensate by setting the software to target 16.7 ? Do you have some idea of the real AFR then?

From convos with Mark at Abbey, UpRev/OEM ECU will not even allow a value higher than 14.7 in software for the AFR target for closed loop. I'm not sure whether the OEM ECU runs closed loop through the whole rev range or whether it goes open loop at a certain point or load/VE or rpm.

Do you feel you'd be at a disadvantage running the whole range of load/rpm in closed loop mode? Does it just not respond fast enough? I would say, if you're a little unsure on what AFR you're running, could be dangerous to go open loop?

7 minutes ago, itsLeon said:

well that is optional. My car runs 2 widebands sensors connected to a haltech ECU i didn't see any reason to connect a third just for the dyno graph

I see - so you have or could have the logs if you wanted. Do they trace fairly closely with the Haltech map's closed loop AFR targets in your logging?

The original bolt-ons spec from everything you've said (corrections for that dyno, temps, etc) and what I've mathematically extrapolated looks very healthy - around 275whp / 317bhp @ 6500rpm.  ....for those interested.

I think you're headed for 340-350whp @ 8000rpm when you're fully mapped.

Just now, itsLeon said:

Cosworth: 11:1
Eagle rods: 
Cat cams 290 duration 12mm lift (IN) 274 duration 12mm lift (EX)
3.5inch intake
75mm Throttlebody

Sorry I meant the pre-built motor bolt-on mods. Don't worry.

Looking forward to more progress!

Also, don't suppose you have the WOT AFR traces between those two runs?

That's fine. Others (like myself) like to compare, with all knowledge taken into account.

Out of interest, what spec is that bolt ons car, for comparison?

5 minutes ago, davey_83 said:

I'm still a paste wax sort of guy once a quarter with spray sealant top ups in-between. 

I wish I had somewhere to apply ceramic to the whole car.

On wheels it's like magic. Well, Gyeon one is on my Advan TC-4. Carbon Collective wheel product not as good it seems on my Work D9R.

2 minutes ago, 350Butcher said:

 

 

Chill out Mr.....Let’s not rubbish this guys build thread eh. 
 

My opinion for what it’s worth is that accuracy between the 2 graphs is good and that what anyone would be looking at 

Read what I'm saying - I'm the guy saying it's already at 342hp - that's rubbishing his build? 🤣

The scientific among us will be 'looking' at both - who doesn't compare. Of course, all facts need to be taken into account, altitude pressure, temp, dyno type , etc etc. With knowledge of all of that, you CAN make a good estimate of real flywheel power.

33 minutes ago, 350Butcher said:

With any dyno the numbers are largely  irrelevant. What you need is a comparison which is what Leon has provided in the graph. 
 

His engine will lose out down the bottom and gain at the higher end of the Rev range with strong gains in torque and power above 4K rpm and that’s exactly what the graphs show. 
 

If you keep using the same systems to measure on then you have a consistent reading that reflects the gains youre making from where we were and where you are now. 
 

I’ll be following your progress Leon. 
 

 

No @*!# - I'm not saying they're not useful. Just very inaccurate values.

2 hours ago, itsLeon said:

Well that might be true that the build motor is making less torque then the stock motor at low rpm.

 

My engine is using 290 duration cams with 12mm lift so we had to turn off vvt (that is making power at low rpm) the manufacturer has warned me about is that these cams don't like 3000rpm and below.

 

But I did some research about the dyno last night and most owners of these dyno's use a 15% hp correction for drive train losses we had it set on 5%

15% would be around 342hp then, and that's a lot more realistic considering the build, with lots more rpm to go.

I suspect but hope not, that the Kinetix will be the bottleneck as you head towards 400hp+. I hope not as I also have it, but from the parts you have it's the only unproven thing at this level of power/rpm flow.

Tbh, even my bolt ons DE with VCT running only comes alive around 3250rpm and up. If you look at dynos of older engines without VCT, you'll see a torque 'hole' below 5000rpm you'd not have on modern n/a engines. I looked up my old Clio F7P graphs the other day - that thing was like it had VTEC/ VVEL, the change was so dramatic around 4500-5000.

2 hours ago, Ekona said:

You might want to add in the time-stamps for when the Zeds are, as otherwise people are likely to fall asleep watching that before they turn up  honestly, how did they manage to turn a bunch of cars at the track into such a snooze fest?!

5:30
6:25
11:26-12:00

Couple of Zs making some sweet sweet noises at Ebisu -

IMO, EASILY the most exotic sounding cars in the vid.

The accuracy is well out!

According to that dyno, the built motor making less torque than a stock motor! (Stock is 274 lb-ft peak) Not to mention the bolt ons one.

..I'm gonna say that's wheel hp/torque, looking at the peak torque numbers, 247 lb-ft for the bolt on, 260 for the built - around 300 lb-ft at the fly most likely.

Very impressive both the bolt on car and the built motor - although could be a slightly high reading dyno?