Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yeah, i have an fcon pro v at home gathering dust!! came with the car, impossible to tune in melbourne.

Which really sucks coz they are a fantastic ecu, 32x32 mappings and heaps of features.... had to downgrade to a powerfc :D

Edited by MerlinTheHapyPig
Guest Mashrock
BD4s is the only licensed tuner in Australia.

CRD borrows the software from BD4s when they tune.

ah i knew it was in some mess like that.

who is actually good for tuning these computers??

as there is no way i'm putting in a power fc.

and how does this guy access his fcon files off the computer? can i link it to a laptop etc??

needs to know.

actually, without getting into some sort of argument here on powerfc vs other ecu's

Im not such a fan of powerfc's either, whilst they have their advantages in being a plug-in replacement ecu, they also aren't very flexible. and only have 20x20 mapping... (compared with wolf 3d v4 for example which has 16 load points and rpm points every 125rpm (which between 0-8000rpm equates to 64 points eg. 16x64 point mapping...)

Also i don't think power fc's can control additional injectors, thermofans, aux outputs, etc...

BD4s aren't too bad price and they are pretty proficient tuners (they also do other ones eg PFC). My brother's car came ex-Japan with an FConV which we got Yoshi to tune up.

Only reasons we switched to a PFC:

- BD4s is too far from us

- Piggyback vs standalone (plus someone stole the FCon :( )

actually, without getting into some sort of argument here on powerfc vs other ecu's

Im not such a fan of powerfc's either, whilst they have their advantages in being a plug-in replacement ecu, they also aren't very flexible. and only have 20x20 mapping... (compared with wolf 3d v4 for example which has 16 load points and rpm points every 125rpm (which between 0-8000rpm equates to 64 points eg. 16x64 point mapping...)

Also i don't think power fc's can control additional injectors, thermofans, aux outputs, etc...

Apples and oranges comparison. The Power FC uses the AFM as its primary load source, so it has very fast and accurate details on the actual airflow going into the engine. The Wolf uses a MAP sensor as its primary load source, which of course is useless once the max boost is achieved and held. So it NEEDS more loads points to make up for its deficiency in load sensing.

Looking at it another way, the Power FC arguably has more USEABLE load points. Because the AFM is showing changes in airflow while the MAP sensor is showing no change in manifold pressure. All the Wolf has is RPM changes, that’s one dimensional tuning. If max boost is achieved at 5,000 rpm, it could easily end up with only 20 X 1 (= 20) load points between 5,000 and 8,500 rpm. Compared to the Power FC with 6 X 6 (= 36) load points.

Use one of the Datalogit outputs to control the thermo fan, and other items if necessary (eg; we control the intercooler spray)

Much more efficient (more power, better economy) to run the right sized injectors, than band aid in a separate fuel source. It could be argued that the PowerFC runs larger injectors so much better than the other (similarly priced) ECU’s and that’s why they have to have extra injector drivers.

:( cheers :dry:

ah, wondered about aux outputs on power fc, because never seen it being used, thanks for clearing that up...

wolf3d can be set up to use either MAP / MAF / TPS for load reference. (actually you can use MAP as primary sensor, and MAF as transient sensor to detect fast changes in load)

Edited by MerlinTheHapyPig

now looking at MAP and TPS they don't operate on a wide scale. so when you floor it TPS will be the max voltage it can show and MAP will also do the same when you reach target boost. so from that point onwards your map resolution goes from say 20x20 or 30x30 to 30x1 or 20x1 as you are only showing increase in map points by the rpm increasing. configurable or not thats the operation, which lacks the resolution of th airflow meter equivalent.

with an airflow meter setup the airflow meter "load" or signal is always increasing as more and more air is being ingested by the engine.

so if the wolf (or XYZ ecu) use MAP and/or TPS then they are no worse off than each other and don't provide a better method. the best being airflow meter and measuring the air directly. the rest appear to be workarounds or bandaids to work around the age old "airflow meters are a restriction".

if its a restriction get a bigger one, if its too small, get two

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...