Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I’m finding it hard to chose between a PowerFC or a WOLD 3D. They both have good tunning options and features. Can anyone who had experience confirm on what they actually found better to tune with. What had a better, smoother more powerful outcome all around?

I’ve herd a lot of PFC outcomes but not much from the wolf, would be nice to hear someone actually compare them on a tune with same/similar mods on a skyline. :devil:

Cheers,

Alex.

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This has been one of the most productive Wolf Vs Pfc threads :no:, i have learnt a lot more, thanks for all your inputs.

Paul, it is not the first time i have read that MAP ecu's have made more power than MAF. There was a HPI article were they replaced the Pfc with a Pfc Dejero, into a 32GTR, and it also made more power on the same dyno, using the same tunner. I can't explain it, but that is what happened.

there would be no logical reason why a map sensor over AFM would make power. its simply not possible. do you think if i fitted a hks vein pressure conveter on my r33 gtst in its current state and changed to map sensor its going to make an extra 20rwkw? of course not. airflow makes power.

no i still dont believe it will magically make more power

there is no phyiscal way possible. the differences between ljetro and djetro are simply the load axis is determined by different methods. one uses a hotwire airflow meter to measure the air directly the other uses a pressure sensor and based on pressure guesstimates airflow.

there would NO reason why car a and car b would have different power output, there are certainly a few differences between the two but none of which would add more power

interesting thread.

there would be no logical reason why a map sensor over AFM would make power. its simply not possible. do you think if i fitted a hks vein pressure conveter on my r33 gtst in its current state and changed to map sensor its going to make an extra 20rwkw? of course not. airflow makes power.

wouldnt the afm be a intake restriction compared to a map sensor? that could account for minor power difference

turbocharged car's don't have restrictions bofore the turbocharger. the restriction lies after the compressor outlet so it wont be an intake restriction. and even if you or the tuner deems it a "restiction" move to a bigger or larger unit. moving to a map sensor system isn't the solution

there is no reason one ecu would make more than another

it would come down to the state of the tune.

As a Wolf biased person I still agree with paulr33 here. If the tune is identical the power output should be identical.

I've run a car on the dyno 5 successive runs without making a tune change and seen variations as much as 11kw to the rear wheels. Put that down to changes in air temp, engine temp, or even wheel spin but in the end there are always some un-accountable variables that affect the end result.

The BEST advice as to which ecu to get that anyone should take is... talk to the person thats going to tune the car first.

An ideal wolf setup differs greatly from how an ideal PFC setup works. In the end it comes down to what your tuner can build and tune for you.

ECU choice isn't really a factor unless your looking to tune the car yourself, in which case prepare to spend some money on data loggers and diagnostic gear to allow you to tune your own ecu. PFC or wolf, that applies to both.

turbocharged car's don't have restrictions bofore the turbocharger. the restriction lies after the compressor outlet so it wont be an intake restriction. and even if you or the tuner deems it a "restiction" move to a bigger or larger unit. moving to a map sensor system isn't the solution

Very untrue paul. The harder it is to get the air in the harder it is to get it out. So restrictions before the turbo can have a huge effect. Inherently the airflow meter can be a restriction this is why alot of the GENIII guys do stupid shite like pull the AFM mesh(flow straightener) out or they do mafless tunes. I know that for a street car of my own it would either have an autronic or AFM's. I would rather jeopardise a little power for better driveability and consistent fueling. You've got to remeber that a street car will spend proabaly 5% of its life at WOT so how it idles, drives away, cruises and tranistions into WOT is more important to me than a peak power figure.

My 20 cents worth on 2 items;

1. AFM and resitrictions = absolute BS. If you use the same flowing AFM as the turbo inlet than it can't possibly be a restriction. I have seen cars with 1100 + bhp runnig AFMs'. Don't let that urban myth make up you mind on which ECU to use.

N/A enigne live on die on the quality of their inlet flow, zero restriction is still too much. Turbo engines are not as much dependent on pre-turbo inlet restrictions as they are on their turbo's flow rate. If the turbo has airflow to spare (to make your power target) then minor reductions in the inlet rerstrictons will make no difference. Spend your time and money elsewhere.

2. As someone who has tuned (not very well, I will admit) with, Electromotive, Power FC, Motec, Autronic, Microtech, Link, Haltec etc ecu's I can tell you the fastest ECU to tune with is one that runs an AFM as its primary load source. I can get a tune with a Power FC for $300 that would cost $1200 to get to the same level with a Motec.

So not only do you need to think about who is going to tune it, you need to keep in mind what your budget is for that tuning. Don't leave out fitting either, there is a great deal of difference in that cost as well.

Lastly the speed and accuracy of the ECU is important, but you may not see any difference in the dyno numbers. Why is that the case? Well, on the dyno you run the car up in 4th gear and relatively slowly increase the rpm and load, this gives time for the ECU to adjust its fuel and ignition. Compare that to what happens in real life when the engine rips though 1st and 2nd gear in seconds, even 3rd is faster than the dyno. This transient accuracy and speed is why you pay more for a high end ECU. As wiht everything the fast and accurate stuff costs more

For example we changed from a Link to a Motec in one of the Production race cars and it was 0.75 seconds a lap faster, but it didn't make 1 bhp more on the dyno. Translate that to a road car and it means slower response to inputs, poorer fuel economy, rougher running at all rpms etc. None of which equates to more power, but do make the car slower. I am not here to make more power, I am here to make my cars go faster.

:P cheers ;)

Edited by Sydneykid

While we are on the subject of AFM Vs MAP

Is there a reason why OEM MAP sensor works so well?

I mean honda's have always been using MAP sensor and if you buy a PFC for say a B-series engine it still uses the MAP sensor while retaining the tuning features with no idle or fuel economy drawbacks

Is there a reason why OEM MAP sensor works so well?

I mean honda's have always been using MAP sensor and if you buy a PFC for say a B-series engine it still uses the MAP sensor while retaining the tuning features with no idle or fuel economy drawbacks

2. As someone who has tuned (not very well, I will admit) with, Electromotive, Power FC, Motec, Autronic, Microtech, Link, Haltec etc ecu's I can tell you the fastest ECU to tune with is one that runs an AFM as its primary load source. I can get a tune with a Power FC for $300 that would cost $1200 to get to the same level with a Motec.

and..

N/A enigne live on die on the quality of their inlet flow, zero restriction is still too much. Turbo engines are not as much dependent on pre-turbo inlet restrictions as they are on their turbo's flow rate. If the turbo has airflow to spare (to make your power target) then minor reductions in the inlet rerstrictons will make no difference. Spend your time and money elsewhere.

So it pretty much sums up your question Luke. :O

Map sensors don't necesarily work very well on all engines. They work well generally on single throttle body setups.

They don't work well at all on engines that have wild camshafts with crazy overlap. This is due to the pulsations in the intake manifold after the throttle body(s). One of my previous vw engines for example ran a 294 degree intake duration with 117 degree overlap. That with the quad throttle made it pull -8 to -10 on the vacuum/boost gauge at idle. Not to mention that the signal bounced all over the place. This would have made the low end tune very bad if it weren't for one of the clever load configurations the wolf can use. Basiclly it allows you to use a TPS-MAP change-over point for your load sensing. So the car tunes like a naturally aspirated car till a preset point, at which it switches to map to allow you to do the rest of the tuning. This feature is what makes it possible to tune a GTR with its 6 throttle bodies more easily.

The haltech e6x has that capability too.

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

    • I myself AM TOTALLY UNPREPARED TO BELIEVE that the load is higher on the track than on the dyno. If it is not happening on the dyno, I cannot see it happening on the track. The difference you are seeing is because it is hot on the track, and I am pretty sure your tuner is not belting the crap out of it on teh dyno when it starts to get hot. The only way that being hot on the track can lead to real ping, that I can think of, is if you are getting more oil (from mist in the inlet tract, or going up past the oil control rings) reducing the effective octane rating of the fuel and causing ping that way. Yeah, nah. Look at this graph which I will helpfully show you zoomed back in. As an engineer, I look at the difference in viscocity at (in your case, 125°C) and say "they're all the same number". Even though those lines are not completely collapsed down onto each other, the oil grades you are talking about (40, 50 and 60) are teh top three lines (150, 220 and 320) and as far as I am concerned, there is not enough difference between them at that temperature to be meaningful. The viscosity of 60 at 125°C is teh same as 40 at 100°C. You should not operate it under high load at high temperature. That is purely because the only way they can achieve their emissions numbers is with thin-arse oil in it, so they have to tell you to put thin oil in it for the street. They know that no-one can drive the car & engine hard enough on the street to reach the operating regime that demands the actual correct oil that the engine needs on the track. And so they tell you to put that oil in for the track. Find a way to get more air into it, or, more likely, out of it. Or add a water spray for when it's hot. Or something.   As to the leak --- a small leak that cannot cause near catastrophic volume loss in a few seconds cannot cause a low pressure condition in the engine. If the leak is large enough to drop oil pressure, then you will only get one or two shots at it before the sump is drained.
    • So..... it's going to be a heater hose or other coolant hose at the rear of the head/plenum. Or it's going to be one of the welch plugs on the back of the motor, which is a motor out thing to fix.
    • The oil pressure sensor for logging, does it happen to be the one that was slowly breaking out of the oil block? If it is,I would be ignoring your logs. You had a leak at the sensor which would mean it can't read accurately. It's a small hole at the sensor, and you had a small hole just before it, meaning you could have lost significant pressure reading.   As for brakes, if it's just fluid getting old, you won't necessarily end up with air sitting in the line. Bleed a shit tonne of fluid through so you effectively replace it and go again. Oh and, pay close attention to the pressure gauge while on track!
    • I don't know it is due to that. It could just be due to load on track being more than a dyno. But it would be nice to rule it out. We're talking a fraction of a second of pulling ~1 degree of timing. So it's not a lot, but I'd rather it be 0... Thicker oil isn't really a "bandaid" if it's oil that is going to run at 125C, is it? It will be thicker at 100 and thus at 125, where the 40 weight may not be as thick as one may like for that use. I already have a big pump that has been ported. They (They in this instance being the guy that built my heads) port them so they flow more at lower RPM but have a bypass spring that I believe is ~70psi. I have seen 70psi of oil pressure up top in the past, before I knew I had this leak. I have a 25 row oil cooler that takes up all the space in the driver side guard. It is interesting that GM themselves recommend 0-30 oil for their Vette applications. Unless you take it to the track where the official word is to put 20-50w oil in there, then take that back out after your track day is done and return to 0-30.
    • Nice, looks great. Nice work getting the factory parts also. Never know when you'll need them.
×
×
  • Create New...