Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately its not the way it is.

Note all the ppls that have gone to a pfc and gone. 'wow' the extra mid range power.

I would kill to have a good look at a rb20det or rb25det stock ecu's ignition map.

Alright let just say everything else is the same (engine, mods, drivers,...) and you put 2 cars agaisnt each other, one SAFC and the other PFC, which one would win on 1/4 mile?

Unfortunately its not the way it is.

Note all the ppls that have gone to a pfc and gone. 'wow' the extra mid range power.

I would kill to have a good look at a rb20det or rb25det stock ecu's ignition map.

This do? rb20det.. I've got a couple of people that I need knocked off, let me know when you're available :P

post-1332-1127114250.gif

post-1332-1127114526.gif

Ok - look at this graph I ripped from the stagea section. THis guy used the SAFC style device to tune (A jaycar version) - he was able to get good AFR the whole way. If you were using PFC you wouldn't get that much better AFR control and the only real other thing governing power is the Ignition timing which I would imagine is close to as far advanced as you would want....

Where could PFC benefit you here then???

post-11777-1127126223.jpg

As you lower the afm signal to lean out the car it runs more ignition timing. Not good for a reliable motor you want to zip around the local track or on a 30-40degree day.

The dyno graph you posted I think is a bad example.

Look at that nasty arsed power dip smack in the middle. :D

I guess the bottom line is about the money, how much u wanna spend on mods. Obviously if you can afford PFC then it would definitely be worth it. However for those are on a budget and not after massive power, a SAFC give excellent value for money, plus that fancy blue LCD to impress da chics :D

Ben, sure the SAFC can provide a straight AFR curve/line throughout the whole rev-range but I haven't noticed anyone here stating how 12 points of adjustment (SAFC) is alot less compared to the 20x20 map of PFC.

With the 20x20 map, usually TPS vs. RPM, you have much MUCH more potential in tuning the car. This doesn't mean the car will only go good on WOT but you'll also have control over cruise conditions, slightly accelerating etc.

But in regards to mods, mild mods such as boost, full exhaust, IC, CAI - SAFC/E-Manage will be a more suitable choice, although there should still be much to gain if you do go PFC.

Ben1981

You can't advance the ignition timing with a SAFC.

Ignition timing is where the power is.

I went from 165 rwkw to 200 rwkw with a powerFC and made much much much more power EVERYWHERE.

Including right at the bottom.

Even if the powerFC costs $1000 compared to $400 for the SAFC, the value for money is still more better with the PFC.

Oh, and to think that you will only ever need the SAFC cos you aren't going to mod you car any further..... Well, that's just silly talk :)

I once thought that, and now I'm chasing 260 rwkw with my next mod.

Stoopid Cars.

If you are on the boarderline of detonation and at 12:1 AFR for the whole rev band then you won't gain by having a PFC. 

Apart from the fact that you have a signifigantly larger amount of load points :O

PFC tune and get a great result as opposed to a reasonable one (saf-c)

The dyno graph you posted I think is a bad example.

Look at that nasty arsed power dip smack in the middle. :)

indeed :)

True it is a compromise - but that dip in the power curve mightn't be fixed by PFC either.

Umm, its the mid-range dip that everyone has come across.

Search around for dyno graphs and you'll find lots with the "dip"

It will definately be fixed via PFC

ok ok. Maybe the PFC is a lot better but I think with minimal mods it may be a bit of overkill, up to the individual.

I really don’t think my car needs to be much faster for the street though. I reckon with the SAFC or DFA I will manage about a 13.8sec quarter. About as quick as a boxster right?

With a bit of boost, stock everything other than exhaust, I made a 13.4 quarter.

But, I had a slightly slipping clutch (only on launch) and a fully prepped track launching me to a 1.9 60ft.

Exactly the reason why I chose the E-Manage over the SAFC or PFC. Much more control than SAFC (16x16 for both AFM and Ignition compared to 12rpm points) and a hell lot cheaper (1/3 the price and about 1/2 price in tuning) than a PFC for a GTiR.

The E-Manage is what I consider just "perfect" for my car with "mild mods": Stock turbo with bit of boost, full turbo back exhaust, Pod with CAI and box, fuel pump, FPR.

Fair enough - I can certainly feel the stock ECU playing games around this RPM, hoping to tune it out with the DFA. Would be good to drive a SAFC tuned car and a powerfc cars with equal mods to see the actual difference. I know people here seem to say they are streets apart...

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...