Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all, i have this kit ready to install but i havent found hardly any reviews for performance or reliability. Anyone have any evidence if these kits are way to go with your power FC ecu? Just want to make sure it's the right move before going into the trouble.

If not whats the most compatible for your PFC?

Cheers

The good thing is they're very simple to install and all info is shown on the hand commander.

Bad things, they're a very ordinary boost controller, electronics are dated by today's offerings.

They will struggle to maintain steady boost once you get over about 1.2 bar, you need to work on the actuator preload as well to get the best results.

And for my money they're overpriced. I have one for the 32. (in the shed)

They aren't that bad. Mine holds boost alright. Running 18psi

It just takes a bit to setup and then learns for a few runs. Might not be the best but its good if you already have one and don't want any more controllers in the car

I have one running 1.3 to 1.5 bar and i havnt had a problem with it not holding boost.

Took a bit to set up but I recommend them. Especially that you already have it. It's good to just use your hand controller to monitor boost too. Very accurate information I think

Can you increase or decrease the boost via the hand controller?

Planning on getting the pfc and boost controller installed and tuned at the same time when I do all the other turbo and injector mods..so I figured once its done I won't have to do anything to it except drive and enjoy

Keep your reviews coming through, interesting reading....my tuner was the one who got me worried about the pfc controller kit, he doesn't recommended them but that's just one opinion I say....

Sure can. Has 4 different points you can set a max boost setting. Can scroll over to any one of the 4 to reach that boost setting. Also can tweak the settings by increasing or decreasing the solenoid pulse time to fine tune it

all at your hand

Chiizzi, I run the boost kit with my PowerFC controlling an extensively modified twin turbo setup. I've used it since 2005, so I think I can speak with some authority about long term reliability.

It has never had a problem controlling boost to 29psi on the dyno, and I daily drive at 24psi without issue. It has excellent overboost protection and it learns the boost curve if you follow the learning procedure (from memory, 4th or higher gear runs from 1500rpm to 4000rpm - probably best done on the dyno depending on your power level).

It also avoids the need for yet another box. Yes, you can adjust the boost level on the fly with the hand controller. However, I'm not running internal wastegates.

I'm also surprised you, as a native user of this forum since 2007, didn't find this thread in your search - http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/229928-dyno-graphs-comparing-pfc-boost-controll-vs-blitz-idiii/

I have to agree with other posters that there are "better" boost controllers out there, for the *sole* reason that the PFC doesn't apply adjustable closed loop control ("gain") to promote earlier spool. However, this is really just a function of wastegate spring preload, or, in the case of external gates, running appropriate spring pressures. I chose to do the latter (1.2Bar springs) and have had no issues. This fact is also referenced in the linked thread.

Your tuner's opinion is important but he might be the same sort of person telling me that I'd have crap driveability and a dodgy power tune on my setup with a PowerFC, and that I should switch for a (insert ECU du jour here). I'd counter with 530+rwkW for multiple runs, 470rwkW daily driven, pump fuel and WMI, perfect cold and hot starts and excellent driveability out of this "dinosaur" ECU :whistling:

If you want something reliable, easy to set up and neat - I'd say go for it.

Edited by shombre

Im using the pfc boost controller, running 21psi on an internally gated hks2835pros with no problems...

As others have said its one less box, its all on the hand controller. Works fine, i never bother changing the boost setting i use my foot even though i have different boost settings to choose from

better off with another controller like blitz dsbc or greddy profec b unless the physical boost control hardware is going to be spot on (base spring rates, preload etc).

Dont get me wrong the PFC one works well but is not flash when there is any deficiency physically... there are a few tricks in the software but it just doesn't have enough logic to match a stand alone unit.

Any small physical deficiency in the boost control system cannot be rectified with PFC logic whereas a standalone will generally pull it back into check.

i used the pfc kit for a while and it worked pretty well

one less box, good setup, good overboost protection

if you are having issues be mindful of how much boost you want to run and the actuator spring rate

ie dont run a 5psi wastegate spring and expect the pfc boost kit (or any elec controller) to let you run 22psi

choose a reasonable sized spring in the actuator and then bleed a few psi extra via a controller

  • 3 weeks later...

Awesome comments everyone! I'm torn haha!

I'll give the PFC kit a go first and there are any dramas I'll look into something else.

What are the GFB ones like? It's either something like that or a turbosmart eboost st...

  • 2 years later...

Old thread dig

I have a gtt power fc in my c34 stagea. Now I have the factory wiring for the boost solenoid near the afm, and has power at that socket. But, the gtt has a 5 pin pug from the ecu for the boost control harness. I only have a 3 wire harness with a 5 pin plug. There is also 12v at the pin for the solenoid on the ecu socket too. Now do I use the factory wiring, or, do I run wiring to the plug for the ecu and do it that way?

Edited by fmlycar

Use the factory wiring for solenoid

The extra two pins won't drive the solenoid, been there done that

3 wire/ 5 pin harness is for the boost sensor only, the two other pins aren't used on the rb25 neo

Edited by chiksluvit

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...