Why is everyone using SAFCs?????? - SRT Forums

Mike V. · 07-19-2004, 06:58 PM

SAFC's were not designed for turbocharged vehicles.

SAFC's are not boost dependent. They can not adequently nor correctly control the fuel of a turbo charged vehicle. They are not accurate through boost in all five gears because fuel load changes between gears and throttle response.

SAFC's are a bandaid and are not the best one at that.

You want to trust your turbo motor to a bandaid fix? Have fun!

Mike V.

myfault · 07-19-2004, 07:00 PM

mine is AWESOME! best mod by far.

MySRTfriesrice · 07-19-2004, 07:05 PM

Just curious, what brought you to this conclusion? Judging by your sig, you are not highly modded, so this isn't exactly the final word from God. How have you acquired the knowledge to say with such absolute fact that they are, as you say, a "bandaid"?

Hades · 07-19-2004, 07:31 PM

I see that you have come to this conclusion based on extensive research . Hmm.. let me see , where to begin correcting your misinformation. The way that people run there Super AFC's on the SRT-4 is by using the map signal as a refference point not the throttle signal. Therefore the amount of fuel that is being taken out is boost dependent. Next matter of business; you say they can not adquedetly , nor correctly control the fuel. The super AFC was not designed to directly control fuel, it was designed to modify certain signals being sent to the car's ECU. The ECU then makes decisions based on all of it's information, including the signals that are modified by the Super AFC. Ultimately, the ecu still has a large degree of control. I ran a super AFC on my car for about 2 months, until I switched to the bigger fuel injectors. The entire time that I had it, it worked great and I had no problem mantaining correct A/F's. The 390 HP that i put down was while using it.

Ghost · 07-19-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Hades

I see that you have come to this conclusion based on extensive research . Hmm.. let me see , where to begin correcting your misinformation. The way that people run there Super AFC's on the SRT-4 is by using the map signal as a refference point not the throttle signal. Therefore the amount of fuel that is being taken out is boost dependent. Next matter of business; you say they can not adquedetly , nor correctly control the fuel. The super AFC was not designed to directly control fuel, it was designed to modify certain signals being sent to the car's ECU. The ECU then makes decisions based on all of it's information, including the signals that are modified by the Super AFC. Ultimately, the ecu still has a large degree of control. I ran a super AFC on my car for about 2 months, until I switched to the bigger fuel injectors. The entire time that I had it, it worked great and I had no problem mantaining correct A/F's. The 390 HP that i put down was while using it.

Im going to watch this thread. I am looking to get the safc II and this could be on argument.

IWantAn04 · 07-19-2004, 07:51 PM

now that you have the bigger injectors what do you use?

Hades · 07-19-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by IWantAn04

now that you have the bigger injectors what do you use?

Sorry I didn't qualify that statement. I switched from the SAFC- II to the e-manage and e-01 system because the RC-750 injectors are too big to run with the super AFC-II from what I have found. I went with the Greddy E-manage system. I have additional injector drivers that I am able to add fuel with and I can still clamp the map signal at what ever voltage I desire.

SRT-4 Neon · 07-19-2004, 09:15 PM

if you monitor the boost level instead of throttle position i believe you will be ok using a SAFC as that will compensate for airflow characteristics of a turbo'd car.

C

pap · 07-19-2004, 09:23 PM

hmmm. interesting. I guess the fact that the AFC was in my car for over a year with a near perfect fuel curve running 290hp on the stock turbo had nothing to do with the AFC then. I guess perfect tire pressure had something to do with that.

I do agree with one thing, it is a decent band aid but not as flexable as some other piggy backs such as the e-o1 and smt-6. These other units allow for some more tunability with additional points of adjustment.

Pap

RoostBoost · 07-19-2004, 10:40 PM

I've been running the SAFC II for a couple of mos. now with no problems to speak of...got to thank PAP for all his help in using and setup of the SAFC!!

SRT-4 Neon · 07-19-2004, 10:52 PM

yeah i have to say i am not a fan of the SAFC, but i've seen some high powered SRT's running it successfully.

C

mario03srt · 07-20-2004, 07:49 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Mike V.

SAFC's were not designed for turbocharged vehicles.

SAFC's are not boost dependent. They can not adequently nor correctly control the fuel of a turbo charged vehicle. They are not accurate through boost in all five gears because fuel load changes between gears and throttle response.

SAFC's are a bandaid and are not the best one at that.

You want to trust your turbo motor to a bandaid fix? Have fun!

Mike V.

So what are they for?

SRT4shizzle · 07-20-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Mike V.

SAFC's were not designed for turbocharged vehicles.

SAFC's are not boost dependent. They can not adequently nor correctly control the fuel of a turbo charged vehicle. They are not accurate through boost in all five gears because fuel load changes between gears and throttle response.

SAFC's are a bandaid and are not the best one at that.

You want to trust your turbo motor to a bandaid fix? Have fun!

Mike V.

Thats funny weve been using the AFC for the last few months to tune out some fuel curves. Not a problem so far, where are you getting your misinformation?

Also when have you had expirience with the S-AFC?