Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I installed my SAFCII last night and went through the initial setup.

I just wanted to make sure everything was normal compared to everyone else.

I have a 93 R33 gtst btw.

Sensor type:

Hotwire. Sens Calc. 4,4

Car Type

Cylinders:6,Throttle type: arrow pointing downward.

OK. Now comes the lknock settings.

I wired up the knock sensor wire to Knock sensor 1 at the ecu.

I wasn't sure if I should use sensor 1 or 2. What did other people do?

When doing the knock set my raw readings were

60 @ 1500

67 @ 3500

Is this high?

anyway, the car was probably more than just warmed up when i did the config. This morning when i checked the raw readouts again after 5 min warm up the readings were between 30-45 instead. I didn't re-configure though. Should I redo the signal correction setting again??

When I tested the car with its current setup the knock reading didn't go above 0 at all. not even at idle (some reports that this happens). I gave it a run w'/ WOT but still on 0 so hopefully it's all good and I have nothing to worry about.

Getting it tuned on thrusday so hopefully will see a nice power gain and a bit smoother delivery of the power.

:D

That all sounds good mate... Pretty much what I would expect after installing / setting up about 5 of these on 33's...

IIRC, I thought the throttle arrow went up? I could be wrong and just having brain fade though... So long as the throttle display is correct I guess...

Re the knock sensor wiring: I wired in a switch so I could swap between sensor 1 and sensor 2... But mostly I just leave it on number 1... All the others I've installed have been on sensor 1 as well... FWIW, I notice very little difference between the two...

The raw readings sound about right...

I found I get the best results by driving the car for about 1.5 hrs and then doing the knock set function again... 0 at idle is pretty normal when the car is coldish... As it heats up it can creep up to anywhere up to 40... This is normal... As you say when cruising or at WOT sits around 0 if everything is working properly...

When it knocks / pings / detonates, the signal will go over 100... More likely closer to 140....

All in all, sounds perfect to me mate...

:cheers:

I find that i get zero knock at idle on a hot day, rising to 20-30 on a hot hot day. The best you can do is try to do the knock calibration on a hot day, with the car fully warmed up. This helps control the 'false' readings.

I'm getting griffith's auto to service and tune. When i dropped in he had about 6 other imports in his yard so I guess he knows his stuff. Have heard good things about him too.

anyway, other mods are just standard stuff:

full 3" exhaust (normal cat)

FMIC

Boost controller (tune at 11-12psi)

still using panel filter

and SAFCII now.

thats bout all i can think of. Hoping for around 180-200rwkw but more realistically looking at 170-185rwkw I reckon.

A friend recently had his R33 GTS-T tuned up but with a powerfc.

He made 204rwkw on 11psi. The usual mods, FMIC & 3" Turbo back exhaust from japland that is rather quiet.

You can see a raise in tractive effort at around 5000rpm.

well I gave Dave the manual a few days before too read as he hadn't done a SAFCII before.

He didn't read it and then decided he couldn't tune it because he hadn't read the manual.

bit disappointing.

Anyway, he's going to read it over the weekend and we'll book it in next week for the dyno tune. He said he does heaps of powerfc's so I guess he knows what he's doing.

Will post results when I get them.

  • 2 weeks later...

OK, I just got off the phone from Dave griffith and to set my boost controller to 8/11psi (dual stage) and tune my SAFCII he is charging $407.

Does that sound right? sounds bloody expensive to me.

He hadn't tuned one before so I can understand it taking a bit longer than usual.

But, I shouldn't have to pay for that time should i? He was the one who said he could tune it.

how much would a tune of the SAFCII cost on the mainland.

Will post up dyno chart tonight.

OK, I just got off the phone from Dave griffith and to set my boost controller to 8/11psi (dual stage) and tune my SAFCII he is charging $407.

Does that sound right? sounds bloody expensive to me.  

He hadn't tuned one before so I can understand it taking a bit longer than usual.

But, I shouldn't have to pay for that time should i? He was the one who said he could tune it.

how much would a tune of the SAFCII cost on the mainland.

Will post up dyno chart tonight.

:wassup: Shoot :wassup:

I think I better open up a dyno shop in Tas, that's almost double what it costs in Sydney.:)

Im paid $120 for my first SAFC tune and now i do them myself. But you still have to pay for the time on the dyno. For someone who has never done it before, he is just protecting his arsse. But really they are a peice of pisss to tune.

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...