Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

im considering swapping from my current power FC to another computer as i dont want to use an afm. I have a 4" mouth turbo which will look stupid if it narrows into a 2.5" Z32 air flow meter. what is another good computer to use? can power FC be used without an afm? what is the power FC DE-Jetro?

Thanks..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

the FAQ covers all these questions and many more, but in summary

djetro = map sensor driven (ditch afms)

for most applications the ljetro (airflow meter) version is more suitable and easier to tune. i would recommend single Q45 in your case which is 90MM opening diameter which is one of the bigger airflow meters, natively supported by the powerFC also.

i cant see you getting any other out of the box good support from other ECU's im afraid

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2241861
Share on other sites

going by personal experience from puttin a power fc on, having it tuned as good as it got and then putting my AUTRONIC SM4 on it, was ridiculously different, u want an awesome ecu get an autronic sm4, its mapping, and every other part of it, is phenominal and personally well worth the money...

i like it with no afm hehe

ben...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2242598
Share on other sites

agian, if you read the FAQ you would have learnt how AFM and MAP is different in terms of mapping. in summary;

airflow meter is better and more tunable

map sensor gives you less load points that are usable

as you can see lots of people agree with keeping the AFM, so its likely there is a good reason for it

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2242860
Share on other sites

you relocate the AFM in the pipework after the intercooler but before the throttle body. like where the rb25 pipe work joins up with silicon joiner, near the NISSAN 2500, relocate it to there in between the pipework and you can have the turbo opened mouted with whatever air intake you see fit

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2242931
Share on other sites

agian, if you read the FAQ you would have learnt how AFM and MAP is different in terms of mapping. in summary;

airflow meter is better and more tunable

map sensor gives you less load points that are usable

as you can see lots of people agree with keeping the AFM, so its likely there is a good reason for it

Mate its got nothing to do with the amount of load points!! I've got to agree though and if you do go to a MAP based system go the SM4 without doubt the best MAP based ECU and in my experiences I would stay well away from wolf.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243169
Share on other sites

airflow meter is better and more tunable

Why do you think so? I've seen a number of GT-Rs gain power when converting to D-Jetro from std PFC.

map sensor gives you less load points that are usable

Again - why? The D-Jetro has 20x20 load points that are configurable.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243181
Share on other sites

the problem doesnt stem from max power or how it performs on the dyno. the problem stems from how a map sensor system guesses the amount of airflow in the manifold. as its a guess based system it will never be as accurate as an airflow meter measuring it directly.

once you reach max boost as designed by your gate, controller, solenoid or what not the map runs across a horizontal axis, so you don't scale down as more and more air coming into the system increase. this is due to the way map guesses airflow based on pressure.

volume and pressure are two different thing

the map setup says

if i have 0.50kgcm2 pressure and my guestimation calcuation is:

pressure x magic-number (lets pretend its 10800) = amount of air we get;

0.50 x 10800 = 5400

so our current airflow equals 5400 units. now the AFM version would say lets pretend 5400 airflow units also. now as boost pressure increase more and more air is coming into the system so the AFM signal goes up.

so lets say we now have reached target boost (say 1.3bar)

1.3 x 10800 = 14040

and our AFM says there is 14000 units of air present

now we are at 4500rpm so theres lots more RPM to go

AFM = 14000 units @ 4500rpm

MAP = 14040 units @ 4500rpm

now lets pretend we have had full throttle nailed for some time and are at 6500rpm

using our same equations (we are still at target boost)

MAP

1.3 x 10800 = 14040

AFM says 18000 units of air present

the AFM has clearly shown more air has come into the system ,as RPM increase more air comes in, despite the same fixed pressure.

So what happens in turn is the djetro version or map sensor version shoots across the RPM axis as load never changes, as the MAP guesses air present based on pressure, which never changes.

The AFM version keeps scaling across both the RPM and Load axis as more air slowly is coming in and RPM is being increased. so it scrolls diagnoally if that makes sense.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243236
Share on other sites

Mate its got nothing to do with the amount of load points!! I've got to agree though and if you do go to a MAP based system go the SM4 without doubt the best MAP based ECU and in my experiences I would stay well away from wolf.

why avoid the wolf? they are quite similar in specs to the SM4

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243246
Share on other sites

yes the map points for djetro are still 20x20 and you can confgure them via datalogit but the same base problem is still there. once you reach the same base pressure in the manifold, ie: target boost the load axis never increases

and this is where you loose load points, as from that point onwards you just run in 1 dimensional tune. whereas the airflow meter still has 2 dimensional as there is always more airflow

assuming the airflow isnt maxing out and flatlining, but thats another problem in itself

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243247
Share on other sites

Why do you think so? I've seen a number of GT-Rs gain power when converting to D-Jetro from std PFC.

Again - why? The D-Jetro has 20x20 load points that are configurable.

also curious how an ljetro vs djetro setup magically makes it gain more power?

was it maxing out the airflow meters in use? i dont see you would make more power on a map sensor setup, they both achieve the same goal, albeit the map sensor has a crapper version of it

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243272
Share on other sites

the AFM has clearly shown more air has come into the system ,as RPM increase more air comes in, despite the same fixed pressure.

So what happens in turn is the djetro version or map sensor version shoots across the RPM axis as load never changes, as the MAP guesses air present based on pressure, which never changes.

The AFM version keeps scaling across both the RPM and Load axis as more air slowly is coming in and RPM is being increased. so it scrolls diagnoally if that makes sense.

Actually, i have found, if you have a look at actual data it doesn't really make much difference.

The load calculation that the ECU makes is also influenced by the engine RPM (if you look at actual calculation for TP), so the calculated "LOAD" figure will still increase even when you are at full boost. (it is then referenced on a graph of TP vs RPM, so RPM is really used twice here by the looks of things!)

Personally, i think AFM's are fine, but they do pose a problem when they run out of resolution, or the AFM poses a restriction on the intake. MAP sensors are handy because their resolution is only limited by the amount of boost it can read (typically 50psi or some insane value)

I think it would be rare for a skyline motor to exceed the voltage limit of a Q45 afm, but i'm sure it's been done before. Maybe look at what some of the top GTRs in japan use for engine management and make a decision based on what the experts use.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243292
Share on other sites

once you reach the same base pressure in the manifold, ie: target boost the load axis never increases

"load" isn't just the boost, it also takes into account RPM and a few other factors (see my previous post)

-- for stock ecu, i don't know if djetro powerfc's use a different formula

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243300
Share on other sites

you relocate the AFM in the pipework after the intercooler but before the throttle body. like where the rb25 pipe work joins up with silicon joiner, near the NISSAN 2500, relocate it to there in between the pipework and you can have the turbo opened mouted with whatever air intake you see fit

i dont understand? are you saying you put the afm on intake side? i have a trust plenum so the afm should sit after then plenum? how would that work?

rb26s13 i am using a gt3540.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243371
Share on other sites

Actually, i have found, if you have a look at actual data it doesn't really make much difference.

The load calculation that the ECU makes is also influenced by the engine RPM (if you look at actual calculation for TP), so the calculated "LOAD" figure will still increase even when you are at full boost. (it is then referenced on a graph of TP vs RPM, so RPM is really used twice here by the looks of things!)

Personally, i think AFM's are fine, but they do pose a problem when they run out of resolution, or the AFM poses a restriction on the intake. MAP sensors are handy because their resolution is only limited by the amount of boost it can read (typically 50psi or some insane value)

I think it would be rare for a skyline motor to exceed the voltage limit of a Q45 afm, but i'm sure it's been done before. Maybe look at what some of the top GTRs in japan use for engine management and make a decision based on what the experts use.

i have read down this path before and end up at the same result, when it was discussed some time ago and gary brought up the refence to HPI talking about ljetro vs djetro. the TPS when on max load would be fixed 3.98volts as you have the throttle nailed, so its still a 1 dimensional increase.

load is purely AFM or MAP

and lets pretend it was TPS as i just said its fixed when on max load so that doesnt help either.

sure if a given airflow meter is a restriction (given most people use 2.5" intercooler piping so it cant be that bad) and that turbo's have restrictions AFTER The AFM and NEVER before. then move to more than 1 airflow meter or get bigger ones that can measure more -> twin q45's should be big enough

if you think the AFM mouth is a restriction the move it to after the turbo compressor inlet

althought the restriction is after the compressor, not before

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/121584-power-fc/#findComment-2243518
Share on other sites

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

    • Even with the piston at TDC there was room for it to drop, but I don't think it can drop fully into the cylinder, the problem you have is that you need something pushing against the valve to hold it up so you have enough room to put the new stem seal on and the spring etc.  I used compressed air only because putting rope in the cylinder seemed a bit risky to me, I know people have done it countless times before like this. Overall it's a pain in the ass job. Honestly you'd probably be better off taking the head off because the risk of dropping something in the engine and the finicky-ness of it all is very stressful. If you are going to attempt it though i 10000% recommend a 36050 valve spring/keeper tool. I had both the traditional lever type and after doing 1 cylinder it was absolute pain to get those valve keepers in place, even with 2 people. That 36050 is amazing, you do have to push hard to get them in place but it works perfectly almost every time. Back to my actual issue I think my engine is just tired and old and the rings have gone bad. The comp numbers (cold, no oil) were: Cyl 1 -129psi Cyl 2 - 133psi Cyl 3 - 138psi Cyl 4 - 137psi Cyl 5 - 157psi Cyl 6 - 142psi   Cylinder 5 and 6 having the most carbon on them.
    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
×
×
  • Create New...