Jump to content
SAU Community

Afm In Intercooler Piping

Kaido_RR

By Kaido_RR,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

Kaido_RR Grand Master

Kaido_RR

Posted
Posted

Hey,

Just upgraded my turbo again (low mount -> highmount), the turbo has a 4inch outlet, now my old turbo also did and i ended up just using a 4inch to 3inch reducer and using a 3 inch pipe.

I want to run a 4inch pipe this time however the AFM is the limiting factor as it is only 3inchs, so after doing some looking/research looks like the go is to move the afm to the intercooler piping (throttle side).now i am running a 26 plenum so there will be no issue placing afm there. However i just would like to hear people opinions on moving the afm to the i/c piping?

Please note this has NOTHING to do with sound etc... i run twin stock gtr bov.

thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/311686-afm-in-intercooler-piping/
Share on other sites
sriver killer Proficient

sriver killer

Posted
Posted
Hey,

Just upgraded my turbo again (low mount -> highmount), the turbo has a 4inch outlet, now my old turbo also did and i ended up just using a 4inch to 3inch reducer and using a 3 inch pipe.

I want to run a 4inch pipe this time however the AFM is the limiting factor as it is only 3inchs, so after doing some looking/research looks like the go is to move the afm to the intercooler piping (throttle side).now i am running a 26 plenum so there will be no issue placing afm there. However i just would like to hear people opinions on moving the afm to the i/c piping?

Please note this has NOTHING to do with sound etc... i run twin stock gtr bov.

thanks

i played around with this on my r33.

ran alrite, but under load used to stutter real hard. i guess the afm's don;t really like it.

i just put the afm back where it was, cause thats where its meant to be

STATUS Grand Master

STATUS

Posted
Posted

it wont be a restriction in front of the 3037 but if you really dont want it there you can fit it in the cold side of the cooler piping. It will need rescaling in the AFM volts table.

msports180 Mentor

msports180

Posted
Posted

The other thing to remember when going the AFM in the intercooler piping is the PCV. U cant run a return from ur catch can into the intercooler piping or your risk contaminating the AFM.

STATUS Grand Master

STATUS

Posted
Posted
hmm i never thought of doing this, how would you do it on a 26 is it possible?

same way but you need to join the two afm signals together (not ideal) from the one AFM but it works.

toy515 Grand Master

toy515

Posted
Posted
splice the wires... you can't just use two AFM's inline with each other.

You just use one, splice the wires and use the feed to the ECU that way.

Hardly ideal, but does work.

so i only use one afm and join the wires into one plug? will this hold the same power?

R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

You are splitting the signal, so effectively it's the same as having two of the same AFM.

However this is all after turbo remember, not before.

The AFM's are designed to measure the air going into EACH turbo, not the end result. So i could imagine there would be differences - so not ideal as stated.

  • 1 month later...
paulr33 Grand Master

paulr33

Posted
Posted

re: AFM's and signal

the ECU actually takes an average of both AFM signals and uses this for it's load axis calculation.

by having two AFM's you ensure the signal is a good split between both turbochargers

if you run one AFM (as some do) you can wire up the output Signal wire from the single AFM into AFM 1 and 2 inputs on the ECU

this effectively gives the same result as the ECU will just perform average anyway. the apexi SAFC lets you do the same thing.

that is, use two AFM's on a single AFM ECU or single AFM on twin AFM ECU. both should work.

the same can apply for djetro map sensor, but the known gotcha is manifold pressure is "finiky" on individual throttle body setups

i believe this is why the map sensors must be installed verbatim to apexi's documentation on the GTR for correct operation

re: Q45 AFM

hi

we have been trying to identify real Q45 AFMs vs bogus ones and we never found an answer

we think there is more than 1 style / batch of Q45 and some work really well aka 400rwkw and some work like ass sub 200rwkw

id be interested to see your part # and model #

but a real geniune Q45 as apexi intended it, should idle off the bat with their VH41 AFM selected off the ramp table

eXquiSit Mentor

eXquiSit

Posted
Posted

interesting!

becuase i was researching on the net and every1 seems to say to go z32 and not to bother with the q45 because of poor idle!

idle would be important in a daily driver...maybe not so much in a 400kw race/drift/dyno car... something else to consider i suppose

how does the fake q45s fail to make power over 200kw?

paulr33 Grand Master

paulr33

Posted
Posted

i see no reason why a geniune Q45 would have poor idle

i would suspect something is wrong, ie wrong AFM, damaged AFM, dirty etc

when we say fake Q45, as in, someone that think's it's a Q45, sold as a Q45 (on ebay etc)

but it *may* be just another nissan OEM looking AFM that has the same yellow label and size

paulr33 Grand Master

paulr33

Posted
Posted

a Z32 is fine for upto around 350rwkw, i think ash did 360rwkw with one and it was fine

the Z32 is easier, because its cheaper, easier to find, works well every time, is 80mm - so direct swap, same bolt pattern etc

The Q45 is probably more annoying is it's less common, larger 90mm so you have to change pipework etc

and theres the gotcha in that you may get one that performs like ass, ie; possibly non-geniune Q45 or something that looks like a Q45 and it isn't

paulr33 Grand Master

paulr33

Posted
Posted

i actually just remebed the original chart apexi has for power level vs AFMs

<Reference>

80m RB25 airflow meter can measure up to approx. 300ps (221kW)

80mm VG30 airflow meter can measure up to approx. 500ps (368kW)

90mm VH41 airflow meter can measure up to approx. 400ps (294kW)

so you can see they rate the Z32 higher

paulr33 Grand Master

paulr33

Posted
Posted

after some thought i see no reason to use or bother with a Q45

given the Z32 rates higher, is smaller in size and easier to source why bother with the Q45

there are a number of different part #s for the Q45 and its not supported on all PFC's

so ill be updating my PFC FAQ to say no to Q45 as it's a pointless mod and only add's confusion and poor results

the z32 is higher rated and works everytime, direct swap from 80mm and easier to source

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      Welp, good to know. Will have to wait awhile until steady hands with drills and taps are available. In other news, these just arrived! I will weigh them for posterity.
    • Duncan
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Duncan · Posted

      100% the factory sender is tapered, that is how it seals (well, that and teflon paste or tape)
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      Thanks folks - I've saved a few links and I'll have to think of potential cable/adapters/buying fittings. First step will be seeing if I can turn the curren abortion of a port into something usable, then get all BSPT'y on it. I did attempt to look at the OEM sender male end to see if it IS tapered because as mentioned you should be able to tell by looking at it... well, I don't know if I can. If I had to guess it looks like *maybe* 0.25 of a mm skinnier at the bottom of the thread compared to where the thread starts. So if it is tapered it's pretty slight - Or all the examples of BSPT vs BSPP are exaggerated for effect in their taper size.
    • Duncan
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Duncan · Posted

      Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
×
×
  • Create New...