Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok guys its a pretty simple question but after searching couldnt really get an answer.

All i want to know is will the AFC neo support 250rwkw along with all the other necessary mods?

Or is it necessary to use an EMU or other....

250rwkw is my goal over the next few years so want something that will support it from the beginning.

Thanks guys!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201968-afc-neo/
Share on other sites

Ok guys its a pretty simple question but after searching couldnt really get an answer.

All i want to know is will the AFC neo support 250rwkw along with all the other necessary mods?

Or is it necessary to use an EMU or other....

250rwkw is my goal over the next few years so want something that will support it from the beginning.

Thanks guys!

Won't 'support' very well at all.

Power FC is your answer in the Apexi range of products.

End of story. :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201968-afc-neo/#findComment-3588353
Share on other sites

The engine management system is what controls how much fuel and air goes into the engine. Get it wrong, and stuff breaks. Expensive stuff. $1500 is a relatively small price to pay for good economy, emissions, power and reliability.

What other systems would you consider aside from a PowerFC?

Don't forget to factor in the cost of tuning. The PowerFC is a very well known computer, so programming it won't cost as much as more esoteric hardware. If you retune after every powertrain mod (which you should technically do) then the lower cost of tuning will put the PFC cheaper when you're talking Total Cost of Ownership.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201968-afc-neo/#findComment-3589929
Share on other sites

Unless someone has a reason why the pfc is $700 better than the EMU?

It has a funky looking hand controller? :(

Power FC questions and answers that way ------------------------> http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Fa...req-t64201.html

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201968-afc-neo/#findComment-3590613
Share on other sites

i had in my 33 a safc2 and emanage (not at the same time), and before i got rid of it i tested a power fc out in my car for a mate who bought 1 for his build, was already tuned for similar mods to my car, and it shat all over both the previous systems i had.

i got a 34 now and i wont be getting anything other than a pfc.

also 1500 is if u want a new 1, u can get 1 for a rb25det for about 900-1000 second hand no hand controller. u dont need the controller to tune as tuners just plug in a lap top or if u do it.

my 2 cents

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201968-afc-neo/#findComment-3590640
Share on other sites

Thanks for that daniel, thats the kind of advise i like....personal experience. Especially when you have used all three of the ecu's i have been contemplating! I think its time i start searching for a 2nd hand pfc!

Thanks for all your help guys! :D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201968-afc-neo/#findComment-3591379
Share on other sites

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...