Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

This is soo easy to fix...

Do an AFM bypass then get your PFC tuned to suit.

You will get double the range out of your AFM for free exept for the cost of a quick retune.

Basicly get a Y connector like you said but just dont have an AFM on one of them... so only 50% of air or so is messured and dyno will fix up the timing and Air Fuel mixtures to handle it.

I had recently borrowed my mates power fc kit.. for an rb25..

Power FC and a few other bits and pieces including a very large AFM.

I beleive it was off a subaru of some description..

The only difference was the wires.. so after measuring the wires around, I found that I had to change signal and common wires around... worked a charm, but was only running stock boost, and was tuned for 550cc injectors.. so naturally my car was slower than with the stock afm..

I'd say try and find a larger afm with 3 wires.. Its not that difficult to change the wires around, and you should be able to get higher values.. so therefore the result that you want.

Or otherwise change the thermistor inside your Z32 AFM to a different temerature co-efficient.. that might also get you higher vlaues with more boost pressure.. But yeah might have trouble with the amount of air you are able to pass through the Z32 area..

just my 20cents worth ;)

what if you had a twin setup? i am very interested as i have bought a working rb25dett setup, but have an rb25 power fc. i also have an safc so was going to use that, but this looks much better?

if i use a dead afm on one turbos intake, and a "live" one on the other, than they should have the same inlet restriction right... i need guidance for the cheapest/easiest way out lol.

turbos are from r33 gtr

  • 3 months later...

I'm still doing a bit of research on this area because I DO want to go for a dual afm setup if only because nobody else has done it yet :)

Anybody know where I can buy a prefabricated Y-pipe like this one on the picture? it's from a singelturbo rb26dett conversion:

dualafm-y.jpg

Makes sense to use a dummy afm as long as you have the same pod and pipe dimentions, and the filters in a spot where they can suck the exact same amount of air...

I'm still doing a bit of research on this area because I DO want to go for a dual afm setup if only because nobody else has done it yet :devil:

Anybody know where I can buy a prefabricated Y-pipe like this one on the picture? it's from a singelturbo rb26dett conversion:

dualafm-y.jpg

http://www.nengun.com/trust-greddy/suction-pipe

Was thinking of another application as well, since one of the problems with airbox's is how restrictive they are once you start getting high up in the horsepower range, could you possibly run another pipe underneath the intake (assuming its a low mount and the pipe would be heading towards the ground) pipe, this would give extra flow and be hidden from unwanted eyes.

Also if this is done on the first batch of upgrades of turbo and injectors would it allow you to keep the factory afm or would you still need to use a z32?

If the bypass pipe was an appropriate diameter, there is no reason you couldnt use the standard AFM. One thing to bear in mind, is that you would want the bypass to flow roughly the same amount of air as the AFM, and make sure you clean the airfilters at the same time, as any differential from when the car is tuned could cause a drastic change in the A/F ratio

just an update.. on my twins i have them both being fed through a single afm. this was the only way we could accurately meter the air going in, and you have to know how much is in each turbo.

so im running a big afm and rb25 power fc

  • 6 years later...

Ive been researching this topic in regards to my afm "hitting the ceiling" so to speak, if 2 afm's wired in parallel gave the same/equal voltage output but at half the value of the single afm, could i just double the percentage the power fc see's? Or tune to suit?

I believe this would be a more accurate way to measure load as aposed to the bypass inlet idea?

Ideas?

I was running a z32, but was having issues with it, it was giving and/or the power fc was reading it as a noisy signal, like it was ever so slightly out of tune?

Hard to explain, it was always 1 cell off where it should be, or the load ramp table needed modifying. I put the stock afm back in and went back to the power intake setting and was sweet. But it hits 5v at 3/4 power.

Rather than run 2, here's another budget idea. Chop up a stock afm and put it into a larger pipe, maybe 3.5 or 4 inch.

I saw a pic of a z32 cut up and put into a pipe, will try to find it again.

  • Like 1

Sweet idea, might give that ago.

Ive seen the r35 afm design, i thought about that too but I'd need the load ramp table to start off with.

Also, Can the standard table be stretched out with datalogit?

To cover a broader airflow.

Sounds good in theory, but how well will it handle 20+ psi of boost?

And how well can it correctly read air temp?

Seeing it will either be mounted on the hot side of the charge or the cold side of the charge?

Im not entirely convinced it would work 100% correct all the time?

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...