Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 01:07 am, by: Michael Hutton(Lexual)
Hey guys, just got myself a 93 v8 limited, and already the modification bug has bitten. Has anyone used an apexi afc, or s-afc 1 or 2 to any effect? What is the general opinion and outcome? Considering getting one of these after I do my exhaust and attempt the bfi? Anyone in SA good at doing the bfi and want some cash in hand? Anyway, thought there was no harm in asking, and hope to be at the next Adelaide soarer meet
Friday, February 03, 2006 - 02:35 am, by: Christian Molenda(Christof)
hey shane, yeah mate i have an emanage in my TT at the moment. long story but i ended up with 2 of them. and im running injector and ignition harness and at 18psi.. no boost harness. to get the extra wires for the injector harness, i pulled apart an old plug from a wrecked car and ripped the pins out of it and put them in the emanage harness
Friday, February 03, 2006 - 11:46 am, by: Chris Davey(Chris_davey)
I can't give a specific answer to the emanage on v8 compared to unichip but AFAIK if the tune is the same then there is no reason why they would make different power to each other. Always comes down to the tune.
Friday, February 03, 2006 - 04:48 pm, by: Cihan Aday(Cihan)
Emanage or unichip over an SAFC, do doubt. SAFC only does fuel, and does it roughly. Its just cheaper to buy and get tuned (tuning ~$100-150 in under 30mins)
Emanage if you have a laptop and want to log information and switch to different ignition or fuel maps for different occasions.
I cant see any advantage in having a unichip. Its more expensive and requires a unichip tuner. Although i have no doubt they will tune it thoroughly.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 10:24 am, by: John Penlington(Unique_lexus)
We actually fitted a Super AFC II to my LS400 just yesterday and worked better than we thought 22rwkw extra. Now that fuel cost money you can't afford not to do this mod, let alone taking less time to fill up which I hate, I am very happy with this result. We found we had to tune to a certain point as the computer did not allow us to adjust as much or lean out as it was very rich as per dyno reading.
Friday, March 03, 2006 - 04:54 pm, by: Damian Ware(Frozenpod)
That is very interesting.
I wonder if the same would happen to a V6 camry.
Is the rich tune due to the car being designed around the jap climate, ie colder weather.
Later models of my car have the same engine with more power I have been told that it is just running a different computer or software. I am starting to think that it could just be the tune and a AFC would do it the world of good.
Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 11:42 am, by: Michael Hutton(Lexual)
so, I'm guessing one might get similar results to the ls400 from the 4 litre soarer? Haven't got anything for my car yet, still got 3 other cars to sell first lol
Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 08:22 am, by: Damian Ware(Frozenpod)
Why has the factory tune been set so rich, just think if ever car in the world is say 10% ritch we are producing a lot more emissions and using up fuel 10% faster than required.
Any thoughts as to the reasons of such a rich factory tune.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 12:36 pm, by: Mark Paddick(Sparks)
ALL manufacturers do this. It is a safety margin thing. There won't be any real problem if the engine runs rich. If it runs lean then burnt valves, stuffed turbos and holes in pistons can easily result. So they set 'em rich. they don't want huge warranty claims.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 05:46 pm, by: Mark Paddick(Sparks)
Same reasoning applies for ANY petrol engine, it's just worse for turbos. A few KW can be had by leaning out a 1UZ. Manufacturers are conservative by nature and leave fairly big safety margins to account for tolerances in engines, electronics and fuels.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 06:07 pm, by: David Vaughan(Davidv)
A curious thing: last week I fitted a Unichip to the IS300, and he actually made the mixture a little richer, surprising both of us. Gain was 8.5%, compared with 10.9% on my 1UZ.
While I am on the subject, he also concluded that I should punch a hole in the airbox and create a BFI, even though the ram intake on the IS is already better than that on the factory Soarer. We have 130rwkw from the NA 3 litre (expecting ~135rwkw with an intake) which works well in a 1500Kg car with a 5sp gearbox. 120rwkw is about what a 3 litre Soarer should be pulling although I do not recall seeing any dyno readings for them. Sam, want to volunteer?
Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 09:50 pm, by: Avin Luther(Lex_luther)
John tell us more! my AFR was about the same as yours on the weekend, (the top one) i pulled 142.7 NA with stock ECU I want to lean mine out.. How much is the Super AFC II installed and how much to tune? mine uses heaps of fuel, i can smell it coming out the exhaust