AbbeyMS

using a pair of can lambda's?
 
You can order the correct lambda sensors for the Link Can lambda for replacemnts
 

Biggest is best for fuel pump control

You have a fuel pressure problem that you want to solve, so I wouldn't dismiss the sensor calibration straight away, especially when it is obviously out by a factor of at least 100.  The units in PC Link are Kpa, not bar.  Even if you think it is just a "decimal point" issue, you have 100X less resolution than you should have and the differential fuel pressure calculation wont work with it set as it is. 
Where did you get the greedy calibration data from?  Most Greddy products to use proprietary calibrations and they dont normally make the data available.  If it were me I would replace it with a sensor that has known accurate data.   

Everyone tunes a little differently , I feel 0.86 at 100kap is far to rich , these cars feel woolly when running those numbers dont spool very quickly.
Totally agree the EGT's are a little worrying pretty easy to add some fuel via the open loop lambda map now the fuelling is pretty close. Just drops the numbers of the lambda/AFR to richen the car up a little and see if it does change the EGTS at all.
As we all know controlling EGT is all about a combination of things. 

The multi throttle bodies on the RB , change a few things, if you map in Speed Density (RPM versus MAP) your have to have a throttle compensation map to adjust the fuelling at smaller throttle openings 1 bar boost @ 100% throttle  at 4500rpm needs different fuelling than 1 bar boost @ 60% throttle at 4500rpm. Moving over to Alpha n with overlay lambda removes the need to have a throttle compensation map.
0.5bar boost will not normally be seen at full throttle , it will be seen on part throttle or transistion to a higher boost level. 50% throttle at 0.5 bar @ lambda 1.0 wont cause any issues in my opinion now seen in all the years we have been tuning RB's also makes the car have super snappy throttle response .
looking at the screenshot of the log file above the map was 0.68 so was bleeding into the higher map level on the  AFR layout table, log shows 13.2/13.5 not 14.7.

 
Maybe we can see the ECU log file?
This is how I work with an RB with a Link ECU on multi throttle bodies, an RB on a single throttle body doesnt need tuning on Alpha N, it is easier to tune the car on Alpha N on a dyno thou and faster as you can pick up all the map points easily
Thanks
 
 
The EGT's are they from running 1.0 bar boost? you can try very easily to run a richer/fatter fuelling by just adjusting the AFR layout map number , try lowing the AFR number by 0.2 , the fuelling will instant track a richer mixture by 0.2AFR without any work on the main fuel map.
The RPM log looks better now it is being logged at 200HZ, so the irregularity on the RPM logs before must of been the low log frequency it was being logged at. 
 

The multi throttle bodies on the RB , change a few things, if you map in Speed Density (RPM versus MAP) your have to have a throttle compensation map to adjust the fuelling at smaller throttle openings 1 bar boost @ 100% throttle  at 4500rpm needs different fuelling than 1 bar boost @ 60% throttle at 4500rpm. Moving over to Alpha n with overlay lambda removes the need to have a throttle compensation map.
0.5bar boost will not normally be seen at full throttle , it will be seen on part throttle or transistion to a higher boost level. 50% throttle at 0.5 bar @ lambda 1.0 wont cause any issues in my opinion now seen in all the years we have been tuning RB's also makes the car have super snappy throttle response .
looking at the screenshot of the log file above the map was 0.68 so was bleeding into the higher map level on the  AFR layout table, log shows 13.2/13.5 not 14.7.

 
Maybe we can see the ECU log file?
This is how I work with an RB with a Link ECU on multi throttle bodies, an RB on a single throttle body doesnt need tuning on Alpha N, it is easier to tune the car on Alpha N on a dyno thou and faster as you can pick up all the map points easily
Thanks
 
 
The EGT's are they from running 1.0 bar boost? you can try very easily to run a richer/fatter fuelling by just adjusting the AFR layout map number , try lowing the AFR number by 0.2 , the fuelling will instant track a richer mixture by 0.2AFR without any work on the main fuel map.
The RPM log looks better now it is being logged at 200HZ, so the irregularity on the RPM logs before must of been the low log frequency it was being logged at. 
 

Bobby, car doesn't have a turbo timer fitted does it? strange as Adam says your can turn the car off with he keys but the relays stay on? With the car off , what voltage do you have at PIN 59?

G4+  doesnt have dashpot like G4X does far more basic idle set up
 

are you running a BHP set up?
 

Would it be possible to add additional Lambda tables in G4X?
For example, with a map switch we would like to alter target Lambda, Fuel Table, Ignition Table and Boost tables.

The Lambda Overlay table will be switchable by a selectable input in the next release if that helps

We need many more target lambda tables, like for: 
post start  ECT based IAT based Exhaust Temp Throttle Position average load based knock fuel trims (apply target trim instead of enrich, which the CL pulls back)  NOS compensation two separate targets for Multi fuel mode Launch  One way I can think of to do it, is use 4,5,6D and better some more tables as a target lambda or target lambda trim instead of a fuel trim. However, the ECU should just use the richest target within the calibration, so it doesn't get too rich when several conditions are meet. Like high IAT, ECT and Exhaust Temp, which are usually hit at the same time. Using target modifier for each condition, would end up in extensively rich target lambda. 
 

+100000000000000000000000

Would be cool to have a little more flexibility for sure. Anything which has the ability to be enriched in open loop should really have the ability to also adjust the target lambda so that closed loop doesn't just over-ride it. Overlay tables can get you part of the way there, but you quickly run out of axis' and need to carefully consider the compounding effect like Mapper mentioned.

Hi, Alex we can help you out, we run a Link in our 350Z race car and been tuning Link for 15+ years, in house dyno as well
send me a email to [email protected], I can help with any work remotely thou but these cars need tuning on a dyno to set the cams
Thanks
Mark
 
 
 

With the system type set to FP sensor the ecu will correct for changes in differential pressure - say for example your fuel filter blocks up and restricts flow, then the ecu will see the loss of pressure and open the injector for longer to try to inject the correct amount of fuel.  So it is a good strategy to have.  But my only thought in this case why I suggested a test with it turned off is because your fuel pressure is sitting at zero initially so the ecu is massively increasing the injector PW on initial crank until pressure builds.   
 
A quick adjustment if you think it has too much or too little fuel is to change the engine capacity setting.  Halving the engine capacity will halve the amount of fuel injected.  Obviously this setting eventually needs to be set correctly, but you can use it as a crude adjustment to help troubleshoot whether you have too much or too little fuel.

My view is if this is only a VVT trigger and I presume the VVT doesnt start to work at a high rpm, just looked at your attached CAL (1800rpm)
, I wouldn't worry about this issue , maybe the gap to the sensor is a little wide once the speed is raised the sensor can give the correct trigger signal.

During cranking it gets a hard coded 80% dc, once above 400rpm it moves to base position + start up step.

The pressure compensation is non-linear and applied to the pump current before conversion to lambda (also non-linear) so it is a fairly complex relationship, generally done with look up tables.  I suspect that RBR calulator linked above uses some simplified equation as it seems to give very optimistic results for the NTK sensor.  They are typically about 4 x more sensitive to pressure than the LSU4.9 in my experience. 
For the LSU4.9 there are a few slight variations of the pressure compensation curve but this is the one that is generally used from what I have seen:

So a couple of examples (not properly calculated, just eyeballed from graphs):
Observed lambda measured with un-compensated meter = 0.80.
If exhaust pressure was 150kpa absolute when measurement was taken then the actual lambda would have been about 0.81
If exhaust pressure was 250kpa absolute then actual lambda would be about 0.83

I would still convert to a crank trigger, but leave the sync in the dizzy.  This will give you much more consistent ignition timing by eliminating the slop from the timing belt and cam/dizzy drive.
 

A little update.  This issue has come back where the car will be idle'ing perfectly fine and all of the sudden the car just shuts off.  
I've noticed a few things as I was watching the computer while the issues occurred.  In my most recent occurrence the car would hit ECT of 180, go rich and die out.  
I initially thought it was something to do with my post start but didnt make complete sense as the car was out of Post Start.  Then checked Warm-Up Enrichment.  This was my next logical progression as the car might be looking for a little fuel adjustment?  so I copied my values from the cells where the car was idle'ing fine but no change to the dying at 180degrees ECT.  This didn't make complete sense bc the car was dying rich and copying over cells from the warm-up map would mean it'd be adding fuel.
I was poking around in my fan settings and I that I had them set at 180 degrees (which is relatively low but I run a single 10" fan and I give it a little bit of a head start).  I adjusted the engine fan activation temp up to 190d and the going-rich and dying out followed the 190d temperatures I set the fans to.  What was strange the Link has Fan #1, Fan #2, and Fan #3.  While OEM only has Fan #1 and #2 but the car would die even if Fan #3 was trigger by the ECT rising.
Did a little poking around, unplugged the fan, and the go rich and dying continued. Back in the PCLink Software (embarrassingly, right in front of my face) my Idle Gain Trim was set to 2ms for the engine fan.  The fan activation temp would activate the fan and the Idle Gain would add 2ms of additional fuel, run my mixture rich and it'd kill the engine.  
I set the idle gain trim to zero and the engine idles like you'd expect.  

I work with a lot of race cars, and usually my aproach is to leave it to the driver, I dont wont to shutdown the engine in the final corner if he is fighting for the championship, I leave that to him or her to decide, in that case the best way is a Dash, and make different alarms,  he or her can decide what to do and when. In those car I just make corrections to try keep everything undercontrol if something goes wrong. If is not that series the competition then aggresive protections is a good way to save the engine. 
 
If you just need to turn on a light to warn the driver, you can use aux that under over X afr and X amount of load turn the light.

Try running a power wire straight from the battery to the wideband power supply.

Im not sure if you are asking a question or making a statement?  Of course the fuel table and ignition tables (and all other tables) will need to be tuned to your specific engine before it will run well.
 
It sounds like you dont even have a good grasp of the basic fundamentals yet so Im reluctant to advise you touch it yet.  I would not attempt to tune a turbo car with this level of understanding.
I would suggest you start by doing something like the low cost EFI tuning fundamentals course here to get a better understanding of the theory behind it:  https://www.hpacademy.com/courses/efi-tuning/  If you try to tune without a good understanding of the basic theories then it will just end in disappointment.