Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Anyone had any experience with the new Wolf 3d V4?

The guys at Per4Manz here in Perth swear they can get better results, quicker and significantly cheaper than a PowerFC based solution with this setup.

The unit has inbuilt boost control, MAP sensor, thermal compensation, closed loop support, full realtime mapping and good PC software etc..

Anyone used one of these systems, or even the older V3?

Any info would be appreciated.

Conrad

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4812-wolf-3d-v4/
Share on other sites

Originally posted by slayer

Anyone had any experience with the new Wolf 3d V4?

The guys at Per4Manz here in Perth swear they can get better results, quicker and significantly cheaper than a PowerFC based solution with this setup.

The unit has inbuilt boost control, MAP sensor, thermal compensation, closed loop support, full realtime mapping and good PC software etc..

Conrad

The old wolf systems were ok.

I would not believe that with a hand-controller and PFC for $1600odd is going to be more expensive to setup than a new Wolf, considering the extra labour cost involved with the re-wiring needed on the wolf (PFC bolts straight in).

As far as quicker to setup, again if we start timing from the opening of the 'box' ,no way. Then again if you aren't much chop tuning the PFC the wolf could be faster once plugged in.

Better results ? Yes the wolf has more customisable MAPs, in theory you can get greater tuning resolution out of it. However I think the PFC has twice as many points as are necessary to get a decent tune. IF you use every single point you will spend alot of dyno time money. Another thing worth considering is the retention of the AFM, its a good thing on a road car. The response of the AFM is superior to a MAP sensor and will show itself in the fuel ecconomy and bottom end response.

Also the boost control option on the wolf (like a number of other systems) is pretty crap, you should consider an EBC even if you end up getting it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4812-wolf-3d-v4/#findComment-74604
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rev210

Another thing worth considering is the retention of the AFM, its a good thing on a road car. The response of the AFM is superior to a MAP sensor and will show itself in the fuel ecconomy and bottom end response.

Got some more info on this rev210? I always though MAP was better than AFM because it didn't restrict air flow (and you can BOV to atmo if you are into that sort of thing).

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4812-wolf-3d-v4/#findComment-74817
Share on other sites

Hmm interesting - there is so many opinions as to which is better for a daily driver out there, I dont know who to believe...

The arguments for the Wolf included that is has closed loop support so it provides good off-boost fuel economy and throttle response.

The other point the tuner raised was the inability to accurately (or quickly) tune the PFC due to the handset programming..he suggested a number of engines around town had been fried due to the dyno time required to dial in a PFC correctly.

I really dont know which way to go on this - the Wolf can be fitted with boost control and dyno time for $1600, using a baseline map they have developed previously on their own R33, the PFC SECOND HAND is $1600 PLUS boost controller option seperate, and then dyno time.

Plus it supports temperature compensation and other niceties, which the PFC doesnt fully.

I like the fact the Wolf 3d support deceleration fueling (the Link in my WRX didnt and you almost bounced off the windscreen when coming off the throttle) which goes some way to smoothing oout the driving experience.

As far as MAP sensors.. I thought this was the preferred option - or is it only preferred for pure power output, and not the street drivability??

I am in Perth, so the tuning options are limited - Per4Manz seem to have a good rep as far as tuning, but I know I can use Brett from PSI Performance with the PFC too..

The PFC is the preferred option by most R33 owners, I guess there is reasoning behind this.

Anyone in Perth got either systems fitted that can take me for a spin to get a feel for the drivability?

Conrad

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4812-wolf-3d-v4/#findComment-74973
Share on other sites

iv got the Wolf3D version4 Plug in and Play for the R33 GTSt

couldnt be more happier, paid $1600 including hand controller..thats also including some extra tuning from base map

has a heap of features many which pFC dont support

unfortunantly, im in melbourne...feel free to PM me any questions

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4812-wolf-3d-v4/#findComment-75088
Share on other sites

The Wolf and the PFC aren't the only systems out there.

The e-manage gives both a run for the money, the cost is about the same as the Wolf (PC or E-01 controller tune). The E-01 is a fantastic boost cont its own.

Nengun is the place to buy the Greddy e-manage and E-01 from at the best price.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4812-wolf-3d-v4/#findComment-75162
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


  • 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...