Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I used to have one but forgotten most features....but i 'think' it may have the ability to save 2 tunes??? (the SAFC-II that is)

Why you would want that i do not know but anyway, it's there.

If you already have a SAFC-I, it should be fine.

If you're looking to buy, you may as well get the SAFC-II

I think there's even a newer one that has 256 colours or something??? on nengun... looks frigin sweet !

Edited by Birnie
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

have you got one showing your afr's ?

that's some pretty steady boost there. which boost controller are you using?

he didnt give me one showing my a/f :)

it was a jammed turbosmart, full of crap and wouldnt boost past 12psi no matter how much i opened it up... untill i blew my motor.

ive got a turbotech now and it holds boost even better.

I might just hunt down a used safc1. I doubt i'd see benefits from an safc2.

Good to hear the turbotech does its job. I've got one, but waiting to fit it with safc/tune.

Joe, what's your intake setup? pod, panel, cai? You've got very decent intake temps.

hey tony, i was going to buy a safc and get it tuned by hitman for $400. JeeTeeEss25Tee was the guy who offered it to me. But i bought a power fc instead yesterday. if you want that offer, just pm him. he made a post in this thread on page 1.

cheers

I've read mixed reports about safc improving fuel economy. Many say it does, but others say it wont.

I'm not after big power, just keeping things moderate, but as a daily driver, i need the economy to improve.

I suspect it's running rich with 3inch exhaust and pod. 15L/100kms.

What's your take on this ? Safc will bring me joy, or dissapointment?

From that calculation you are doing about 433km per full tank (65 lt) ye? Mine one was about the same before SAFC (more like 410km) and after SAFC I got an average of 480 to 500 both highway and city driving. If that isn't good enough I'm sure the dyno figure will bring a smile on your face. :laugh:

yeah, i'm gonna try and get out there this week sometime.

Matt seemed very helpful. He suggested getting out there so he could suss it out, diagnostics, etc.

I will most likely be installing your safc Jerry.

thanks mate.

edit: 480kms from 65L (13.5L/100kms) isnt that great either though, is it? When ppl say eg. 450kms per tank, they arent running their tank dry (65L worth), are they? From what i've seen, claims of about 11L/100kms are common.

SECUR1TY, how many litres are you getting per 100kms, or how many kms per 50Litres?

Edited by Munkyb0y

ive just calculated it by my last tank which i got 470k's when the petrol light came on (my car still needs a tune). i calculated 13.8L/100km, so thats pretty average for skylines.

if you're looking for excellent fuel economy you've bought the wrong car. 480 is good out of a skyline. dont forget its a turbo 6cyl. you should only compare it to other cars in its class.

i get approx. 350k's out of my lancer (40L tank), and 300ish k's out of my m3 (60L tank, but its running an un-tuned EMS computer).

if you want something that wont eat up all of your petrol money you should think about buying a weekday workhorse.

damn i hate people quoting XXX kms per tank... it's such a useless figure. if you want to know fuel economy. fill your tank full. then drive 300kms. and fill it up. let's say it too in 45 litres to fill again. so it took 45 litres for 300kms = 15/100kms.

i wish I had 13l/100kms. my GTR is 22l/100kms (mix of city/highway, but no peak hour driving) and my V8 soarer is not far behind at 18l/100kms (almost all peak hour, city driving). The only decent one is the R32 GTST which from memory was around 13l/100kms. i say just deal with it, fix it, or drive less. or buy a cheap arse 1.3l econobox:)

I'm using that calculation, it's just easier for me to say per tank figure than per 100km figure. Just like kw or hp whatever. But ye if anyone using the fuel gauge to estimate then they will never get it right.

damn i hate people quoting XXX kms per tank... it's such a useless figure. if you want to know fuel economy. fill your tank full. then drive 300kms. and fill it up. let's say it too in 45 litres to fill again. so it took 45 litres for 300kms = 15/100kms.

i wish I had 13l/100kms. my GTR is 22l/100kms (mix of city/highway, but no peak hour driving) and my V8 soarer is not far behind at 18l/100kms (almost all peak hour, city driving). The only decent one is the R32 GTST which from memory was around 13l/100kms. i say just deal with it, fix it, or drive less. or buy a cheap arse 1.3l econobox:)

but saying 300kms to a tank means nothing. what is a tank size? i've tried looking it up but funnily enough there is no industry standard for a 'tank of fuel'. horspower is a standard unit of measurement so I dont see how that compares. a kilometer is a standard unit measurement as is a litre. a tank is meaningless.

it's just a pet hate of mine.

lol, calm down beer baron. yes it's agreed, L/100kms is a more useful measurement.

i'm curious as to why so many members on the numerous 'fuel' threads quote as low 11L/100kms. Maybe wishful thinking, or maybe mostly highway k's?

Anyway, yeah i'm not concerned about my skyline burning fuel, only concerned if it's burning alot more than it should be.

You know what i mean?

I went to see hitman today. very nice guy, helpful, and cluey.

anyway, while poking around, checking consult readout etc, matt pulls the ecu out and finds a unichip unit hidden behind it. lol. i had no idea it was there. he told me to keep it rather than swap it for a safc, coz it can do a bit more, like timing and possible boost.

so it looks like JeeTeeEss25Tee's safc is still for sale.

if it wasnt for the unichip, i would've had it by now.

i'm off to research unichip now. any advise for me?

  • 2 months later...

sorry to bump the thread again.

I was wondering what is HITMANS number, and where is he located??

Also another quick question..

Will a safc help me in the following:

Fix up my flat spots (real bad flat spots)

Improve fuel economy (seems like you have proven it has)

But the most important thing i want is to be able to fix my flat spots..

I dont want more power extracted with more flat spots!!

Cheers all..

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

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...