Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi

I have a SAFCII which has been dyno tuned on my car & runs a dream but i dont think i have a knock sensor connected up to it because the reading from the display is always 0.....

I have no idea what they look like or where they're connected, all i know I'd like one & i'll get my mechanic to install it for me.

So yeh, where can i buy a knock sensor to connect up to my SAFC?

Thanks, :(

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61249-knock-sensor/
Share on other sites

Hi

I have a SAFCII which has been dyno tuned on my car & runs a dream but i dont think i have a knock sensor connected up to it because the reading from the display is always 0.....

I have no idea what they look like or where they're connected, all i know I'd like one & i'll get my mechanic to install it for me.

So yeh, where can i buy a knock sensor to connect up to my SAFC?

Thanks, :rofl:

Your engine will have a knock sensor built in, two infact I think. No idea of the SAFC connects to these or whatever, never used one.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61249-knock-sensor/#findComment-1157767
Share on other sites

I'll ring up the place which dyno tuned my SAFCII & ask them if they can connect it. I remember the guy saying when he dyno tuned my car on Optimax fuel that it was detonating slightly @ 12psi, he said you wouldnt know it but i did because of the knock reading I had. He would have been using his equipment to monitor the knocking.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61249-knock-sensor/#findComment-1158300
Share on other sites

Well i solved my own problem today.

I downloaded the SAFCII manual off the Apexi site today & went into the Sensor Check on the controller. Yay... i do have a working knock meter, it was displaying raw data. The next was to set it. So i went into the Set Knock & held the rpm at 1500 to get 115 then 3500 rpm to get 117. These were done in neutral as your're meant to & is the raw figures.

Sweet so the knock display now reads around 8 - 11 when ideling @ 700 - 800 rpm. But once i start moving & get above around1500 rpm the knock reading goes to 0. I thought it would still show something higher than 0 so I wound the boost to 12psi & gave it some for a few minutes. I still got nothing, was always displaying 0. The air outside was cool too as for its the end of the day & its been raining.

Im just wondering what figures do other people with SAFCIIs get?

I did the Set Knock feature twice, when i first did it the raw figures were more like 95 - 98. 5 minutes later after mucking around revving it in idle setting the knock the figures went up to 110 - 120.

All of these setting were done after the car already being driven for 30 minutes.

I dont know if 0 is just really good or what’s the deal? I have had the SAFCII dyno tuned & I run 12:1 A/F Ratio's. I might try the Set Knock again on a warmer day with a more average outside temperature.

Any one with experience setting their knock & their display figures would be much appreciated.

Thanks, :cheeers:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61249-knock-sensor/#findComment-1164249
Share on other sites

That sounds perfectly normal to me mate... Mine does the exact same thing... If / when it pings, you will get a reading of around 80+ for the duration of the pinging...

A reading of 0 whilst accelerating is fine and to be expected with the SAFCII...

You may find your idle knock reading will go as high as 30 when the car has been driven for more than a few hours during the day... This too is normal...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61249-knock-sensor/#findComment-1164274
Share on other sites

Owww sweet sounds good then. Yeh it will be good to know if my engine is detonating now so i can look after it. I was thinking of getting an Air/Fuel ratio gauge too.

Also, have you played around with the Warning setting in the SAFCII, supposedly you can get the SAFCII to notify you or react somehow when a parameter you set is exceeded *eg too high knock figure*. I'll have to have a good read of the manual again.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61249-knock-sensor/#findComment-1164311
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

    • 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...