Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

not true

just cause u tune the AFRs doesnt mean u get better fuel economy.. ur engine is working overtime, more revs, resulting in quicker injecting of smaller mixures of fuel..

Yes it is. If everything is exactly the same, you drive for x period of time at y revs with 10:1 ratios you will use a certain amount of fuel. You do exactly the same thing with 12:1 ratio and you will make more power AND use less fuel. What do you mean the engine is working overtime? more revs? Im talking about the same scenario where your driving style doesn't change.

Of course you are getting worse fuel economy if you have a bigger turbo, a bigger turbo means more air and more air means more fuel. Use some logic next time you reply.

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I hope my post was read properly, the main reason I would look at the NEO is because of the fact that PFC has gone End of Life and in 6 months will not be $1000/unit..

Also tuning costs more for the PFC as it takes longer especially from scratch.

Personally, I don't need a PFC.. I don't have different injectors or turbo and am not chasing the dragon trying to get high power.. I'm just after getting my car out of <10:1 AFR which is what the SAFC will be able to do at a reasonable price + tuning..

THAN maybe i'll change over to the PFC or a different fully programmable ECU.

So has anyone used the NEO, I believe it now has 16 points rather than 12 which should help..

Edited by Links

Remember when you tell your ECU its at a different part of the fuel map, its also going to think its at a different part of the ignition map, so you'll be grabbing a little more advance than before.

More advance as you get less fuel... just gotta be real careful not to go for too much to quick.

I'm probably going to get an SAFC even tho i'm one to say initially NO go. But if you grab one at under 300 second hand, its worth it just as a fuel saver and a little smoother driving... i don't intend to make my car a street racer.

When i get keen for any performance at all, or even more boost, i will want ignition timing control also, so full ecu.

I see it as either the cheap option ( like only using FPR's and base timing ) , or the "my car is all but stock, just giving it a little tidy up" option.

how to adjust and lean out the safc??? i want to know and adjust mine...i think my fuel is to rich...

Take it to a tuner and get it done on the dyno, its not safe to do it yourself even unless you have a wideband O2 sensor, even then you have to be careful.

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

    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
    • Looked it up. It sounds so expensive lmao I'd rather not. Awwwww but I just love that sound
    • If you want the screaming "weeeee" sound, just let the gasket between the exhaust manifold and the turbo break a little. It'll go "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" everytime its on boost...
×
×
  • Create New...