Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

if map sensors were so bad then all aftermarket ecu's wouldnt come with map sensors in the first place.. you only UPGRADE to aftermarket ecu's not down grade.. at a given power stage a afm will become a restriction weather it be 600rwkw or not, at some point it will end up restricting power or the abilitly to tune.

Ho rbs13, you posted "if map sensors were so bad then all aftermarket ecu's wouldnt come with map sensors in the first place"

Nobody said MAPs are bad, just that AFM's are more accurate. The reason why some (not all) aftermarket ECU's use map sensors is because they are cheaper and can be integrated into the ECU itself (ie; small in size). Plus setting up an AFM on a car that does not have one can be tricky, no such trouble with Skylines that already have AFM's.

"you only UPGRADE to aftermarket ecu's not down grade"

The are plenty of OE ECU's that prove that wrong. They are way smarter and faster than most aftermarket ECU's. I would argue that the standard R32 GTST ECU (and it's 15 years old remember) is "smarter" than a lot of current aftermarket ECU's.

"at a given power stage a afm will become a restriction weather it be 600rwkw or not, at some point it will end up restricting power or the abilitly to tune"

True, but if that level is higher than your target power, why worry about it? Enjoy the smoother running and better fuel economy of an AFM equiped car. Two Q45 AFM's will handle 850 bhp, so there is plenty of room to move up.

There is a place for both MAP's and AFM's, but on road only and road/track Skylines, the AFM sensored ECU is still very hard to beat.

Hope that clarifies

Originally posted by rbs13

if map sensors were so bad then all aftermarket ecu's wouldnt come with map sensors in the first place.. you only UPGRADE to aftermarket ecu's not down grade.. at a given power stage a afm will become a restriction weather it be 600rwkw or not, at some point it will end up restricting power or the abilitly to tune.

hrmmm .....

Who said map sensors where that bad?

Generally the main reason why people lean away from AFM's is because the power level they are after.

If they were building the car to be better on petrol (not likely) they would not ditch the AFM for the Map sensor.

600rwkw you wouldn't bother with AFM's unless you were going to run 2 Nissan Q45 AFM's.

What I like about AFMs is that they are far more tolerant to slight changes in engine tune. They actually measure airflow directly, and that is a very important advantage in my opinion.

A MAP sensor cannot do this. A map sensor assumes that at a certain given manifold pressure, flow through the engine will be xxx CFM of air. But what if you move the valve timing slightly, or fit a different exhaust turbine housing ? You get to completely remap the engine because the breathing characteristics have now significantly changed.

This is fine for a competition car that spends more time on the dyno than on the track. But what if you are just an average joe with a car port at home, and you want to try a different exhaust muffler ? The change in exhaust back pressure might really screw up your mixtures, probably not by much but it will have some effect.

With an AFM, your new beaut muffler might change airflow, and the AFM just alters the fuel to suit the measured increase or decrease.

So, apart from all the theory, there are also practical considerations as well.

As far as restricting power, well, atmospheric pressure is around 410 inches of water, so if your airflow meter has a four inch water pressure drop, you are still getting 99% of atmospheric pressure and density. Not enough to really worry about I think.

The induction temperature at your cold air pickup point might be 300 degrees Kelvin (at 27C ambient), if you can lower this by 3C you will pick up 1% in air density which will easily compensate for the drop across your AFM.

So some guy fit two huge Q45 AFMs to reduce the imaginary horrible power loss, and then fits a couple of crappy pod filters right behind the radiator. I cannot understand the logic behind any of that.

the reason im putting RB20 turbos on is that i already had one, and they are cheap, when it is all up and running and if its really laggy, ill might have to consider a RB30 bottom end. But anit these alot weaker than my bottom end. What type of internals would i have to put in, like pistons? chankshaft? gearbox??

R32 GTSTT, please do a search to answer the rest of your questions. Pistons, crankshaft and gearbox for a RB30 have been discussed a million times already.

You still haven't told us how much power you're looking for. Do you expect to drive this car on the street?

well i wasn't to concerned about the power it wil make. I have a open mind about it, i just want to make the most power out of these 2 turbos at the moment. I do plan to drive it on the street, and drags aswell. If it is extremely laggy then i will consider smaller turbos, or doing a RB30 conversion. The main concerns i have at the moment are if my fuel pump, injectors, and afm, and ecu. Just wondering if u guys think if any of these things will be holding back my power?? Cheers

yer cheers, i think i will, just have to find the right place to go in perth. Say the stock turbos come on boost at 2800, ppl r saying two wont spool up until twice that say 5500rpm. But doesn;t the car produce more exhaust gas between 2800-5500 than it does from 0-2800. So wouldn't it take much less than twice the rpm??

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



  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...