Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi.

Am building up a 1000hk rb 30engine.. (3.4 liter when spool gets his stroker kit ready)

800hk on boost for track days, and 150 - 200hk nos ontop of that when quartermile.

I use apexi FC commander, (AFM model)

Question is what do I do with my AFM so it wont be maxed out? (I have a z32 AFM)

I have 3 things in mind.

1. Either buy one more z32 AFM, use a apexi SAFC neo to splice the two signals to one.

2. Use my current z32 together with Y pipe.

3. Or mount my z32 sensor in a 4" pipe.

Th car is a daily driver, so i need low stable rpms. Which option of the above 3, do you guys think is the best solution? Number 3, if that will support it, is what I am hoping for... Number 1 and 2 take up alot more space in a already compact 200sx - s13 engine bay...

Thank you.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/249310-need-advise-about-afm/
Share on other sites

Um, methinks you won't find any afm that will support that power by itself, twin Z32's might but right at the end of their resolution. (changing size of pipe doesn't work) If you really want that result with tuneability and driveability then very simply get a Motec or Autronic computer to run it (they run map sensors so no afm's needed) For what it costs to do that sort of build and have it reliable the extra cost of the best aftermarket ECU you can get really is immaterial (you can factor in selling the pfc). Just get the one for which you have the best access to tuning support with. (And i'd be guessing Motec). Have a chat to whoever you're going to use to tune the car and get their opinion too.

my choice

twin z32s, the Y pipe to give you two AFM inputs into the compressor cover

and use an apexi safc II to give you a bridge into 1 AFM input on the main PFC

if you max a pair of twin z32s you can use the SAFC to bend and trim the signal

much the same you can do the PFC to bend and trim the signal to give you more scope

you can even invent your own AFM ramp in the PFC if you have datalogit (i assume your tuner will)

My only issue with twin z32's is the cost. Using a normal sensor in the bigger pipe, you can bridge and have two plugs on the AFM, which means there is no wiring modifications, then you adjust the AFM curve using datalogit as you say(or nistune as i have done)

AFM are mounted on pressure side.

A z32 in a 4" pipe, how much power will that be able to cope with?

The place it takes up is very important, as there isnt much to give.

But looks like the two AFM are the best solution?

I prefer AFM over MAP anyday... So would rather find a solution with AFM.

Look like I will need to use 2 x z32 AFM together with SAFC..

The new NEO version of the SAFC, can that still combine the two AFM signals as the older SAFC-II?

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

    • In the context of cam 'upgrader' I mean generally people who upgrade headers/cams - not my specific change. I mean it makes sense that if I had a bigger cam, I may get more false lean readings. So if I went smaller, I'd get less false lean readings. To a point where perhaps stock.. I'd have no false lean readings, according to the ECU. But I'm way richer than stock. My bigger than normal cam in the past also was giving false rich leanings. It's rather odd and doesn't add up or pass the pub test. Realistically what I want is the narrowbands to effectively work as closed loop fuel control and keep my AFR around 14.7 on light sections of the map. Which is of course the purpose of narrowband CL fuel control. So if I can change the switch points so the NB's target 14.7 (as read by my WB) then this should be fine. Haven't actually tested to see what the changed switchpoints actually result in - car needs to be in a position it can idle for awhile to do that. I suspect it will be a troublesome 15 min drive home with lots of stalling and way too rich/lean transient nightmare bucking away for that first drive at 2am or whevener it ends up being. Hopefully it's all tune-able. Realistically it should be. This is a very mild cam.
    • Messing with narrowband switchovers is a terrible bandaid. I don't want to think about it. You are a cam "upgrader" only in concept. As you said, your new cam is actually smaller, so it's technically a downgrade. OK, likely a very small downgrade, but nevertheless. But the big thing that will be the most likely suspect is the change of the advance angle. That change could be equivalent to a substantial decrease in cam lobe duration. I haven't gone to the effort of trying to think about what your change would actually cause. But until someone (you, me (unlikely), Matt, someone else) does so and comes to a conclusion about the effect, it remains a possibility that that is the change that is causing what you're seeing.
    • The previous switchover point was 501mv. The stock value is like ~360. They now were idling at about ~880. The thing is, most people get a false lean condition. I am getting false rich conditions. This isn't a quirk of terminology, most cam upgraders get awful fuel economy because the O2's read false lean and add fuel - Mine are attempting to aggressively subtract fuel.
    • So... the whole idea was to upgrade the power of the motor from stock. The motor I bought with the gearbox had 'some' stuff done to it in the past, but it wasn't as well thought out/what I had wanted to do. The stock heads typically are a big restriction on LS's and need porting to unlock quite a lot of power. You can then go a bit silly with aftermarket castings to get more, aftermarket intake manifolds for a little more, and then porting those for more. <- We are here. Nobody in Australia really goes down this path (for some reason). It might* make 3kw or something more than doing things the tried and true path for 10X the cost. So that's probably why - I wouldn't even recommend it to people, the money was and is likely better spent on just CNC'ing the stock heads and putting a 6.3L stroker kit in. I didn't want to go down the 'normal' path and then think: But if I'd just done a bit more - I could have had a slightly better result. I assumed the heads were running out of flow and it always annoyed me - Turns out the previous installer advanced the cam 6 degrees so this is likely why it was coming on earlier and running out of puff earlier than advertised. The body panels were just lack of planning/no information on this anywhere on the internet and the fact they came out different was annoying. From test fitting the guard it appears I could have gotten away with GTR guards only, but I got the bonnet and raisers and everything else as well for a pretty decent package deal.
×
×
  • Create New...