Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Bear with me on this one.

SAFC (Super Air Flow Converter) is a device alot of people take to tune their cars.

it cheap, it's effective and it's better than nothing.

however, I have a question which came to mind during a conversation in another thread about the SAFC II and it having 2 maps.

now.

SAFC (or any other signal bending device like the Jaycar digital fuel adjuster) is wired in between the AFM and the ECU.

the AFM reads the amount of air going in to the engine as it goes past the wire on it, and sends it to the ecu, the ecu then calculates how much fuel is needed for this amount of air according to it's programming from the factory.

Right so far?

As per my example in the other thread

SAFC jumps in between and goes "OMAGOD, bro, I swear ecu bro, der is only "z" amount of air cuming through uleh.. you gotta put less fuel in bro.."

ECU goes "Me so solly.. I put in less fuel"

and that is how you lean out the misture to make more power.

but the thing is.. on the SAFC's, you can only make adjustments against the RPM chart.

on the original blue screen SAFC, it is every 500rpm.

on the newer one I think it's every 250rpm.

right?

if you set your boost to 15 psi, get the SAFC tuned.

the dyno operator runs the car as is on the dyno, gets a power curve plot up and a A:F plot.

then looks at the rpm points across the bottom of the dyno printout and lines it up with the a:f points and makes adjustments on the SAFC to either make it bend the signal to make the ecu think it needs to add more or less fuel (make it richer or leaner)

right?

so what then happens if the owner of the car decides he only wants to run 10 psi during the week.

what happens at the rpm points where the dyno operator has made changes via SAFC?

at 10psi, the amount of air the AFM sees is different at each rpm point as it is when it is running 15psi.

does the safc still send the ecu a signal that has the settings from the tune?

in an example..

before tune

15psi, 5000rpm, AFM reads 300cfm of air, a:f ratio = 10.5:1... tuner plays with SAFC in to trick the ECU it's only 250cfm of air, ecu puts less fuel.

after tune

15psi, 5000rpm, AFM reads 300cfm of air, SAFC bends this to say it's only 250cfm, a:f ratio = 12.0:1

you now have more power.

driver decides to turn the boost down to 10psi

10psi, 5000rpm, AFM reads 200cfm of air.

What happens next?

does the SAFC still bend the signal at that rpm point?

does this cause a lean out?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/181911-safc-and-other-afm-signal-benders/
Share on other sites

i always thought that a safc would change the afr regardless of air flow, i.e your adjusting that point of air flow : 200cfm = 150cfm to the computer causing it to the same thing no matter what the boost pressure?

yeah cos otherwise only turbo cars could have SAFCs...

the safc adds/subtracts a percentage of the current reading of airflow at the rpm points and also taking into account your throttle %. it will still add/trim the tune percentage for that rpm point regardless of the boost pressure.

using you eg.

say at 15psi, 5000rpm, 100%Throttle, you have 300cfm and tune the safc to remove 5% at that point = 285cfm

then at 10psi, 5000rpm, 100%Throttle, you have 200cfm and the tune is unchanged (5%) you get = 190cfm

the ecu then does the rest for what its knows as to how much fuel is needing for 5000rpm, full throttle and 190cfm or 285cfm.

also take into account that you have changed one of the varibles from the original tune so there is no saying that the tune will be exactly right. on the safc2 you can have two maps, you could get one tuned at 15psi and one at 10 psi.

Seems pretty simple to me(hopefully I'm right), its just like a normal tune at a higher boost pressure. All thats changing is the AFM signal to make things leaner. Nothing in your car compensates for the lower boost pressure(AFM voltage will be the same as this is before the turbo) so the car will run richer after it hits peak boost.

Like has been said the SAFC II lets you have two maps, so this could be the answer for you, have one set for say 15psi and one for 10psi so it doesn't run rich at lower boost.

I'm not looking at buying an SAFC or any other bender.

it was from another conversation that I started thinking about this point.

Are we saying the percentage of correction it does is dependant on throttle position?

100% throttle might = 5% correction at 5000rpm but if it senses only 50% throttle it adjust by 2.5% at 5000rpm?

http://www.xspeed.com.au/manuals/Apexi_S-AFC_manual.pdf

Here's the instruction manual for the old one.

There is a high/low map. the cut over point is adjustable and based on throttle position.

I see where you are coming from re the percentage reduction though as you could end up with a lean situation, particularly on something like an r33/s14 with aggressive r&r at the high airflow but not so bad at lower airflow (ie the 15 vs 10psi scenario)

Ideally, you'd have to set it up on the dyno and check it, then try a few runs at lower boost to see what happens, make adjustments accordingly and compromise your high boost tune. Or if you are a nut bag like me, you run the max possible boost all the time (except on the track because you have no fine control of the throttle on corner exit :action-smiley-069: )

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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...