Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Rev210,

It does look like an improvement on the older model, I think that there is alot more competition around these days, so they have to keep improving. It will be quite expensive, almost up there with some of the plug'n'play computers, but it does look cool.

See'ya:burnout:

It works out to about $550AUS on current exchange rates, thats about what people pay for the old one over here. Freight is about $20 and with Taka's you don't pay import tax (they write down a 5,000 yen invoice attracting no duty -- ala my Ogura flywheel)

link don't like me

Dear customer

Your request for access to our site have been declined . The possible reasons are ; either the texts and designs in this site are protected against copyrights infringement or our server has been automatically instructed not to allow anyone intended to give false purchasing information to the system . Please inform the site administrator for further assistance , calling this telephone (country code )81 (area code)45-8106888 for identity verification.  

Taka Kaira Management

the SAFC II is just more a cosmetic then anything else, price wise its still good, especially people are still expecting them $500+ second hand.

Regarding performance wise, from lookin at the pictures, the only extra function it has are memory function holding more then 1 settings.

Originally posted by Joe

Regarding performance wise, from lookin at the pictures, the only extra function it has are memory function holding more then 1 settings.

It has 12 Vs 8 points of AF setting and can be done in increments of 200rpm vs 500rpm. Making the unit a more accurate than the old S-afc. It has a knock sensor plug in as well.

Originally posted by TUFR33

got a price at a local apexi dealer,he said when they come in they will about $800 aud. WTF!!:eek: :eek:

That sounds right for an aussi retailer.

Taka's is the way to go, takes less than a week to get the stuff.

Killer-T: Bastard!:D

OK for those of us who already have SAFC is it worth upgrading to SAFC II? I think the knock warning is a good idea, however when they say settings in 200rpm increments, does that mean that the unit fills the inbetween settings like the current SAFC?

hmmm... speaking of new models - will they ever do an updated PowerFC for R33 or R32 ? Or is that a silly question as most of it is programmable anything?

To me the new features of S-AFCII look minor (at least minor enough not to bother with over a standard S-AFC unless you're paying similar price).

There is a 'new' Power FC 'Pro' out. It adds a bunch of features that are really not much use for road use but may be useful for the track.

Eventually all roads lead to the PowerFC so I really think that in many cases the investment is worth it esp. if your OEM 'puter is giving up the ghost.

I mean $800 for the S-AFC II - gimme a break.

T.

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...