Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The R32GTST is quite different because the Power FC was made by AP Engineering, not Apexi themselves.  It is a bit of a hybrid Power FC with some features found on the GTR Power FC's.  Plus the R32GTST has a map sensor standard, with input to the Power FC (R33GTST's don't).

So when you get the Boost Control Kit it will come with a map sensor that you don't have to use.  The boost control solenoid is simply wired into the outputs of the Power FC.  When you have it, PM me and I will give you the pin outs.

;)

Hey SydneyKid,

Just curious about how you mention that the Map sensor input to the PowerFC where as the R33's dont

If i happen to use a PFC from an R33 on my R32 should it work?

The reason i ask is because i have been using one for more than 6 months now with no problems and always wondered if there was any different between the wiring or connection?

Also is there any difference between the AP PFC and Apexi PFC?

Thanks

Rob

Hey SydneyKid,

Just curious about how you mention that the Map sensor input to the PowerFC where as the R33's dont

If i happen to use a PFC from an R33 on my R32 should it work?

The reason i ask is because i have been using one for more than 6 months now with no problems and always wondered if there was any different between the wiring or connection?

Also is there any difference between the AP PFC and Apexi PFC?

Thanks

Rob

Hi Rob, I have heard of people using R33GTST PFC's in R32GTST's, I have also heard of people using R332/33 GTR PFC's in R32GTSTs. I have not done it myself so I can't say whether it is perfect or not.

AP Engineering supply PFC for models of cars that Apexi don't, they are low volume specialty PFC's that Apexi don't believe it is worthwhile programming for. AP Engineering PFC's are more expensive than Apexi. Looking at our R32GTST PFC (AP Engineering) it is much like an R32GTR PFC physically. AP seem to have devised several program changes (eg; deleting one AFM) so that it will work on an R32GTST. But they have left a few others (eg; inlet air temp) that you wouldn't expect to find on a GTST PFC.

:D

Hi Rob, I have heard of people using R33GTST PFC's in R32GTST's, I have also heard of people using R332/33 GTR PFC's in R32GTSTs.  I have not done it myself so I can't say whether it is perfect or not.

AP Engineering supply PFC for models of cars that Apexi don't, they are low volume specialty PFC's that Apexi don't believe it is worthwhile programming for.  AP Engineering PFC's are more expensive than Apexi.   Looking at our R32GTST PFC (AP Engineering) it is much like an R32GTR PFC physically.  AP seem to have devised several program changes (eg; deleting one AFM) so that it will work on an R32GTST.  But they have left a few others (eg; inlet air temp) that you wouldn't expect to find on a GTST PFC.

:)

HI SydneyKid

Thanks for above as i was always curious about any differences between them.

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...