Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I’m finding it hard to chose between a PowerFC or a WOLD 3D. They both have good tunning options and features. Can anyone who had experience confirm on what they actually found better to tune with. What had a better, smoother more powerful outcome all around?

I’ve herd a lot of PFC outcomes but not much from the wolf, would be nice to hear someone actually compare them on a tune with same/similar mods on a skyline. :devil:

Cheers,

Alex.

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This has been one of the most productive Wolf Vs Pfc threads :no:, i have learnt a lot more, thanks for all your inputs.

Paul, it is not the first time i have read that MAP ecu's have made more power than MAF. There was a HPI article were they replaced the Pfc with a Pfc Dejero, into a 32GTR, and it also made more power on the same dyno, using the same tunner. I can't explain it, but that is what happened.

there would be no logical reason why a map sensor over AFM would make power. its simply not possible. do you think if i fitted a hks vein pressure conveter on my r33 gtst in its current state and changed to map sensor its going to make an extra 20rwkw? of course not. airflow makes power.

no i still dont believe it will magically make more power

there is no phyiscal way possible. the differences between ljetro and djetro are simply the load axis is determined by different methods. one uses a hotwire airflow meter to measure the air directly the other uses a pressure sensor and based on pressure guesstimates airflow.

there would NO reason why car a and car b would have different power output, there are certainly a few differences between the two but none of which would add more power

interesting thread.

there would be no logical reason why a map sensor over AFM would make power. its simply not possible. do you think if i fitted a hks vein pressure conveter on my r33 gtst in its current state and changed to map sensor its going to make an extra 20rwkw? of course not. airflow makes power.

wouldnt the afm be a intake restriction compared to a map sensor? that could account for minor power difference

turbocharged car's don't have restrictions bofore the turbocharger. the restriction lies after the compressor outlet so it wont be an intake restriction. and even if you or the tuner deems it a "restiction" move to a bigger or larger unit. moving to a map sensor system isn't the solution

there is no reason one ecu would make more than another

it would come down to the state of the tune.

As a Wolf biased person I still agree with paulr33 here. If the tune is identical the power output should be identical.

I've run a car on the dyno 5 successive runs without making a tune change and seen variations as much as 11kw to the rear wheels. Put that down to changes in air temp, engine temp, or even wheel spin but in the end there are always some un-accountable variables that affect the end result.

The BEST advice as to which ecu to get that anyone should take is... talk to the person thats going to tune the car first.

An ideal wolf setup differs greatly from how an ideal PFC setup works. In the end it comes down to what your tuner can build and tune for you.

ECU choice isn't really a factor unless your looking to tune the car yourself, in which case prepare to spend some money on data loggers and diagnostic gear to allow you to tune your own ecu. PFC or wolf, that applies to both.

turbocharged car's don't have restrictions bofore the turbocharger. the restriction lies after the compressor outlet so it wont be an intake restriction. and even if you or the tuner deems it a "restiction" move to a bigger or larger unit. moving to a map sensor system isn't the solution

Very untrue paul. The harder it is to get the air in the harder it is to get it out. So restrictions before the turbo can have a huge effect. Inherently the airflow meter can be a restriction this is why alot of the GENIII guys do stupid shite like pull the AFM mesh(flow straightener) out or they do mafless tunes. I know that for a street car of my own it would either have an autronic or AFM's. I would rather jeopardise a little power for better driveability and consistent fueling. You've got to remeber that a street car will spend proabaly 5% of its life at WOT so how it idles, drives away, cruises and tranistions into WOT is more important to me than a peak power figure.

My 20 cents worth on 2 items;

1. AFM and resitrictions = absolute BS. If you use the same flowing AFM as the turbo inlet than it can't possibly be a restriction. I have seen cars with 1100 + bhp runnig AFMs'. Don't let that urban myth make up you mind on which ECU to use.

N/A enigne live on die on the quality of their inlet flow, zero restriction is still too much. Turbo engines are not as much dependent on pre-turbo inlet restrictions as they are on their turbo's flow rate. If the turbo has airflow to spare (to make your power target) then minor reductions in the inlet rerstrictons will make no difference. Spend your time and money elsewhere.

2. As someone who has tuned (not very well, I will admit) with, Electromotive, Power FC, Motec, Autronic, Microtech, Link, Haltec etc ecu's I can tell you the fastest ECU to tune with is one that runs an AFM as its primary load source. I can get a tune with a Power FC for $300 that would cost $1200 to get to the same level with a Motec.

So not only do you need to think about who is going to tune it, you need to keep in mind what your budget is for that tuning. Don't leave out fitting either, there is a great deal of difference in that cost as well.

Lastly the speed and accuracy of the ECU is important, but you may not see any difference in the dyno numbers. Why is that the case? Well, on the dyno you run the car up in 4th gear and relatively slowly increase the rpm and load, this gives time for the ECU to adjust its fuel and ignition. Compare that to what happens in real life when the engine rips though 1st and 2nd gear in seconds, even 3rd is faster than the dyno. This transient accuracy and speed is why you pay more for a high end ECU. As wiht everything the fast and accurate stuff costs more

For example we changed from a Link to a Motec in one of the Production race cars and it was 0.75 seconds a lap faster, but it didn't make 1 bhp more on the dyno. Translate that to a road car and it means slower response to inputs, poorer fuel economy, rougher running at all rpms etc. None of which equates to more power, but do make the car slower. I am not here to make more power, I am here to make my cars go faster.

:P cheers ;)

Edited by Sydneykid

While we are on the subject of AFM Vs MAP

Is there a reason why OEM MAP sensor works so well?

I mean honda's have always been using MAP sensor and if you buy a PFC for say a B-series engine it still uses the MAP sensor while retaining the tuning features with no idle or fuel economy drawbacks

Is there a reason why OEM MAP sensor works so well?

I mean honda's have always been using MAP sensor and if you buy a PFC for say a B-series engine it still uses the MAP sensor while retaining the tuning features with no idle or fuel economy drawbacks

2. As someone who has tuned (not very well, I will admit) with, Electromotive, Power FC, Motec, Autronic, Microtech, Link, Haltec etc ecu's I can tell you the fastest ECU to tune with is one that runs an AFM as its primary load source. I can get a tune with a Power FC for $300 that would cost $1200 to get to the same level with a Motec.

and..

N/A enigne live on die on the quality of their inlet flow, zero restriction is still too much. Turbo engines are not as much dependent on pre-turbo inlet restrictions as they are on their turbo's flow rate. If the turbo has airflow to spare (to make your power target) then minor reductions in the inlet rerstrictons will make no difference. Spend your time and money elsewhere.

So it pretty much sums up your question Luke. :O

Map sensors don't necesarily work very well on all engines. They work well generally on single throttle body setups.

They don't work well at all on engines that have wild camshafts with crazy overlap. This is due to the pulsations in the intake manifold after the throttle body(s). One of my previous vw engines for example ran a 294 degree intake duration with 117 degree overlap. That with the quad throttle made it pull -8 to -10 on the vacuum/boost gauge at idle. Not to mention that the signal bounced all over the place. This would have made the low end tune very bad if it weren't for one of the clever load configurations the wolf can use. Basiclly it allows you to use a TPS-MAP change-over point for your load sensing. So the car tunes like a naturally aspirated car till a preset point, at which it switches to map to allow you to do the rest of the tuning. This feature is what makes it possible to tune a GTR with its 6 throttle bodies more easily.

The haltech e6x has that capability too.

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

    • Update for the sake of closure   Ended up getting the intercooler piping all sorted, new plugs and yellow jacket coils, and she was idling mint until it warmed up while I was bleeding the cooling system. Found the misfire to be localised to cyl 3 by unplugging coilpacks, ran a compression test, that checked out, then decided to get a mate to check if that spark plug was firing out of the motor. Upon cranking it over, with the injectors disconnected, the car actually fired and ran on a couple cylinders and heaps of fuel came out the top of cyl 3 I'd say that injector's either spraying incorrectly or spraying far too much, which is fine as I'm planning on replacing them anyway I'm planning on making about 250kW on flex fuel, and have a set of 1000cc injectors from ozautosport, obviously overkill but I'm planning on building the motor and running more boost further down the line, do you reckon they'd be too big for a smooth idle on 98? Thanks for the replies gents, much appreciated
    • I'm confused. You said you want to "remove the clear coat from most panels" but it sounds like you are actually doing a full respray? Few random things to add -  If you chase the blistered paint with 120 grit, I can almost guarantee you'll chase it down to bare metal (that's fine). But if you paint the car from here, you'll have nice little indents where ever the blistered paint was. The new paint won't magically level out the low areas, you need to fill them. Which leads me to the main point I wanted to add, make sure the whole car is flat before you paint it. All those areas with blistered paint you sanded out, make sure to fill them and triple check they are flat with a block guide coat. I'd also check the whole car is flat with a large block and guide coat but yeah up to you if you want to go that far.   
    • 300hp (225kw) is barely outside the standard turbo's range with a bit of extra boost in it (200ish). If you are going to change the turbo you should aim for 250-300kw (330-400hp) to make the expense worthwhile
    • A couple of things, firstly omg that turbo is expensive! $3,000 USD for dinosaur technology is robbery. You could buy a G series turbo and have a good amount of change instead.  If you want a good budget option, have a look here - https://hypergearturbos.com/product/rb25dethighflow/ If you are keen to spend more, have look at the modern turbos, Garrett G series, Borgwarner EFR, etc. Have a look at the RB25 dyno results thread for inspiration.  If you upgrade your turbo to something that will support the 300hp you want and only "probably" have Haltech ECU, your car will only "probably" run. Actually, no it won't run. You are going to need the ECU and injectors at the time you do the turbo upgrade.  No thoughts on "this much boost" as you didn't say how much boost that actually is. Having said that, plenty of unopened RB25's making even more power then what you are chasing.   
×
×
  • Create New...