KentuckySHOoff
New Member
Super Afc2
anyone ever run one on there car? just asking
anyone ever run one on there car? just asking
Super Afcii
- Thread starter KentuckySHOoff
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
KentuckySHOoff
New Member
bump.
AutoSHO
No SHO = Mo $$$
I know a couple people who do - they work fine. However, due to how they modify the signal, the computer will learn around your settings.
Axianator
I am a banana!
I agree with Chris. Don't waste your time with/on one.AutoSHO said:
Dr.Evil
No Dif Pin!
sorry for the ******* question, but what is a Super Afcii?
AutoSHO said:
Partially true - the ECU will learn around your part throttle settings (if your planning on using that portion of the S-AFC). But it will not learn its way around the full throttle settings.
Its handy if your trying to tweak your A/F mix to maximize power output. A/F Tuning with a SC-Tuner or Tweecer is preferable, but the Apexi S-AFC can be handy if your goal is simply to tweak WOT air/fuel ratios. For the money though, I'd get an SC-Tuner or better yet a Tweecer R/T.
Before getting the SC-Tuner, and then the Tweecer, it was how I tuned WOT a/f and it worked pretty well. I was able to pick up quite a bit of power by getting the A/F closer to 12.5/1. To tune, you will need either an on board WB02 sensor or go to a dyno that has a WB02 to tune with.
KentuckySHOoff
New Member
is a sc-tuner worth the trouble to put on a stock car?
AutoSHO
No SHO = Mo $$$
I was able to achieve far better everyday driveability and power with the SC-Tuner, even on my all-stock car. I would recommend going with the Tweecer RT, though, as you'll be able to get the car tuned truly perfectly.
KentuckySHOoff
New Member
the base tweecer isn't worth it? seems like it does the same thing just doesn't give you the digital read out capability.
SHO92
New Member
The base tweecer works the same as the SC Tuner, just has more things you can change. The beauty of the R/T is that you can datalog. Datalogging or spending time and $$$ on a dyno are the only ways to truely get the tune down pat.
I used to have an overpriced SAFC-II in Talon. It's only marginally useful unless you have larger injectors or run really high fuel pressure, and at that point like Pat said, you need to be tuning with a WBO2. The problem with that type of controller (apexi makes a bunch) is they lie to the ECU in order to accomplish their function. This is not desirable. It should also be noted that larger injectors have a longer dwell (takes them longer to open and close) which affects fuel delivery, and the AFC can't compensate for that. Tweecer can AFAIK, as well as let you TELL it what size injectors you have instead of tricking it into seeing lower airflow.
Even though my new SHO is going to stay pretty original, I have DSMLink in Talon and would love to have something similar for the SHO, especially being at high altitude. I want to see what it's doing with spark advance. Plus I have been tempted to install nitrous this time around. For the money, Tweecer sounds like a pretty good deal. DSMLink was $450 (now $600 I think) when I got it, and another $50 later for V2 upgrade. It's amazing how much can be added to the EPROM, we still have plenty of space left even after adding stutterbox,RPM hold during shift,antilag,water&nitrous control,VE table editing,etc.
Even though my new SHO is going to stay pretty original, I have DSMLink in Talon and would love to have something similar for the SHO, especially being at high altitude. I want to see what it's doing with spark advance. Plus I have been tempted to install nitrous this time around. For the money, Tweecer sounds like a pretty good deal. DSMLink was $450 (now $600 I think) when I got it, and another $50 later for V2 upgrade. It's amazing how much can be added to the EPROM, we still have plenty of space left even after adding stutterbox,RPM hold during shift,antilag,water&nitrous control,VE table editing,etc.
Axianator
I am a banana!
In regards to tuning a stock SHO, I feel I should note that Chris and Jason's results are not atypical of what most people will see with a tuner on their car, simply due to the fact that the guys at a higher elevation have more "on the table" to play around with than the guys who are at or near sealevel. This isn't to say that a stock or near-stock SHO won't realize any gains at all; rather, that most of the gains which are had will be realized in the area of driveability and not power (specifically in the case of those who are at or near sealevel).
I should also note that in it's current state, the TwEECer software does not offer any advantage over the SC Tuner in regards to the number of changeable parameters. This fact, however, will be changing in the not too distant future ...
As for the Apexi units, I stand by my original recommendation (and side with Pat's opinion) that people should stay away from them. Anyone needing to modify or alter their air/fuel ratio(s) for any reason should go directly to the brains of the operation (i.e. the EEC) and modify it's behavior directly, rather than try and circumvent or "cheat" it by using an outside device. Doing the latter will only cause one to run around in (tuning) circles and may eventually land that person in a world of hurt if they're not careful.
I should also note that in it's current state, the TwEECer software does not offer any advantage over the SC Tuner in regards to the number of changeable parameters. This fact, however, will be changing in the not too distant future ...
As for the Apexi units, I stand by my original recommendation (and side with Pat's opinion) that people should stay away from them. Anyone needing to modify or alter their air/fuel ratio(s) for any reason should go directly to the brains of the operation (i.e. the EEC) and modify it's behavior directly, rather than try and circumvent or "cheat" it by using an outside device. Doing the latter will only cause one to run around in (tuning) circles and may eventually land that person in a world of hurt if they're not careful.
I agree. Faking out the EEC is not a good way to tune.
I also agree that those wishing to tune their cars should go to the source.
But has anyone heard of SCT (Superchips Custom Tuning)?
I also agree that those wishing to tune their cars should go to the source.
But has anyone heard of SCT (Superchips Custom Tuning)?
SHOguy 92
New Member
SHO Dude said:
Custom tuning as in you do it yourself, like the twEECer? I think thats the best way to do it, chips have more peramiters, but if you have to take the chip out and send it in everytime it isn't tuned right then it takes a lot of time. And if each new burn cost money then it takes a lot of money. Thanks to data logging with the twEECer R/T you know whats going on and what to change and it shows you the affects of the changes.
Mike Kopstain
New Member
SHOguy 92 said:
This is a misconception.
I would suggest that the SHO community need not look at other alternatives as far as tuning is concerned. I say that not to be closed minded, but to emphasize that Lou and I were well aware of the advantages of the TwEECer, both in pricepoint and in functionality, when we took on the project of getting them made and that is why we chose to embark on the project. Since then, Josh has taken the ball and ran with it as far as getting the correct binary codes to Mike for finishing and getting the existing units improved. There is no need for the few true enthusiasts remaining to spread their knowledge out over many tuners and "chips" when we have the most competent piece of hardware available now that will ever be available for this car.
Am I making sense here?
Many "fake" out the MAF signal to compensate for injectors or fuel delivery. Modifying this signal allows you to keep the rake of the fuel curve, but theoretically bump fuel up or down all along that curve. What people realize is that this becomes a serious issue when anything over a minimal change is made.
SCT is relatively new to my recollection. So far, it sounds like a great alternative to those that do not trust themselves to tune, but at the price they are charging, you can get a TwEECer and begin your trek down the learning curve.
SCT Tuning
Many "fake" out the MAF signal to compensate for injectors or fuel delivery. Modifying this signal allows you to keep the rake of the fuel curve, but theoretically bump fuel up or down all along that curve. What people realize is that this becomes a serious issue when anything over a minimal change is made.
Anytime you change MAF signal to adjust for injectors, you're changing the load values.
Remember that Load is some visceral number that the computer generates. Load is calculated based on ALL the inputs, MAF being the most important. Then load is used for all outputs including timing tables and fuel tables. So if you change the MAF signal to compensate for injectors, you've just whacked out the load tables and the computer will be pulling values off the wrong part of the table.
I'll give you an example. I installed 30lb injectors in my '96 SHO because I'm squeezing 150hp in from a bottle. I used a Pro-M optimizer to adjust the signal. After some tweaking, I got it to idle and run well, but I noticed the car was quite a bit slower and didn't shift as hard. What happened was I cut the MAF signal. This reduced the load and the injector pulse width, but by reducing the load, the computer short shifted the tranny and lightened up the EPC. The same thing happened in the timing tables. The computer was pulling values from the wrong part of the table and I wasn't getting the timing that I should. This slowed the car down and caused the shifting issues. This is also the case when you do a 3.2L swap. The computer can't tell how much air is supposed to be coming in. It knows how much is coming in, but if more air is coming in than should be, it will effect the load tables and screw up fuel delivery and timing.
With my SCT tuning, I can tell the program what injectors you're using. I can tell it what MAF you're using. I can tell it if you're supercharged, gassed or a bigger motor. ****, I can tell it everything about your car and make it run. That's the point. This stuff is designed to be adaptable for all kinds of changes.
Here's another good feature. The original programming of the factory computer is inconsequential. It doesn't matter. When I install my chips (or tuner, or whatever), the chip completely bypasses the original factory e-prom. The PCM actually boots off of my chip. The chip doesn't hack the original binary, it bypasses it and never even looks at it. So it doesn't matter if you've got a B9B, B9B1, B9C, L0S...it still takes the same SCT code. Same holds true for H3Z or D4U1. They have the same logic ladder and pinout. The same program works for both. For the Gen III cars, it's 96-97 cars. They are interchangeable. '98 has it's own code and so does '99, but that's because of wiring differences between the years. The point is, it doesn't matter what you started with, I can tune the car.
SCT is relatively new to my recollection. So far, it sounds like a great alternative to those that do not trust themselves to tune, but at the price they are charging, you can get a TwEECer and begin your trek down the learning curve.
True enough. It is pretty new, but damn it's been worth the wait. I just did a tune on a 95 Lightning. Truck has a FRP Mass Air conversion, 30lb injectors and a SN-93 Paxton blower. When it came to me, it idled like **** and was a toad. Fuel mileage sucked, tranny wouldn't shift right, it was just sad. I first had to find out what computer was in it and how it was wired then fix the crap that was messed up before I started the programming. Once that was done, I opened the file, told it what it had, put in a different MAF that would understand the blower, converted it to a single O2 sensor (only had one installed, but computer was set up for two), and fine tune the tranny stuff and plugged the chip in. I hit the key and the engine fired right up and idled perfectly. The only thing I could think of was "Where the **** has this crap been for the last 10 years".
It's also very versatile. I can tune anything with a blue oval on the front.
For those that have wild combinations, it may take a few tries. I call this tuning via USPS. But if a situation like this occurs, you can get the chip back to me and I'll pay for return shipping. For those lucky enough to be able to use a tuner ('98-'99 SHO's), you don't have to de-program the car for me to make adjustments. You can simply return the tuner and I can make adjustments to the programs held inside, then return it to you and you can install the programming in the car. There's even a way to do this via the internet. With an additional cable and come software, I can email you the programs and you can upload them into your tuner.
There's just a ton of versatility in this programming...I love this stuff.
Many "fake" out the MAF signal to compensate for injectors or fuel delivery. Modifying this signal allows you to keep the rake of the fuel curve, but theoretically bump fuel up or down all along that curve. What people realize is that this becomes a serious issue when anything over a minimal change is made.
Anytime you change MAF signal to adjust for injectors, you're changing the load values.
Remember that Load is some visceral number that the computer generates. Load is calculated based on ALL the inputs, MAF being the most important. Then load is used for all outputs including timing tables and fuel tables. So if you change the MAF signal to compensate for injectors, you've just whacked out the load tables and the computer will be pulling values off the wrong part of the table.
I'll give you an example. I installed 30lb injectors in my '96 SHO because I'm squeezing 150hp in from a bottle. I used a Pro-M optimizer to adjust the signal. After some tweaking, I got it to idle and run well, but I noticed the car was quite a bit slower and didn't shift as hard. What happened was I cut the MAF signal. This reduced the load and the injector pulse width, but by reducing the load, the computer short shifted the tranny and lightened up the EPC. The same thing happened in the timing tables. The computer was pulling values from the wrong part of the table and I wasn't getting the timing that I should. This slowed the car down and caused the shifting issues. This is also the case when you do a 3.2L swap. The computer can't tell how much air is supposed to be coming in. It knows how much is coming in, but if more air is coming in than should be, it will effect the load tables and screw up fuel delivery and timing.
With my SCT tuning, I can tell the program what injectors you're using. I can tell it what MAF you're using. I can tell it if you're supercharged, gassed or a bigger motor. ****, I can tell it everything about your car and make it run. That's the point. This stuff is designed to be adaptable for all kinds of changes.
Here's another good feature. The original programming of the factory computer is inconsequential. It doesn't matter. When I install my chips (or tuner, or whatever), the chip completely bypasses the original factory e-prom. The PCM actually boots off of my chip. The chip doesn't hack the original binary, it bypasses it and never even looks at it. So it doesn't matter if you've got a B9B, B9B1, B9C, L0S...it still takes the same SCT code. Same holds true for H3Z or D4U1. They have the same logic ladder and pinout. The same program works for both. For the Gen III cars, it's 96-97 cars. They are interchangeable. '98 has it's own code and so does '99, but that's because of wiring differences between the years. The point is, it doesn't matter what you started with, I can tune the car.
SCT is relatively new to my recollection. So far, it sounds like a great alternative to those that do not trust themselves to tune, but at the price they are charging, you can get a TwEECer and begin your trek down the learning curve.
True enough. It is pretty new, but damn it's been worth the wait. I just did a tune on a 95 Lightning. Truck has a FRP Mass Air conversion, 30lb injectors and a SN-93 Paxton blower. When it came to me, it idled like **** and was a toad. Fuel mileage sucked, tranny wouldn't shift right, it was just sad. I first had to find out what computer was in it and how it was wired then fix the crap that was messed up before I started the programming. Once that was done, I opened the file, told it what it had, put in a different MAF that would understand the blower, converted it to a single O2 sensor (only had one installed, but computer was set up for two), and fine tune the tranny stuff and plugged the chip in. I hit the key and the engine fired right up and idled perfectly. The only thing I could think of was "Where the **** has this crap been for the last 10 years".
It's also very versatile. I can tune anything with a blue oval on the front.
For those that have wild combinations, it may take a few tries. I call this tuning via USPS. But if a situation like this occurs, you can get the chip back to me and I'll pay for return shipping. For those lucky enough to be able to use a tuner ('98-'99 SHO's), you don't have to de-program the car for me to make adjustments. You can simply return the tuner and I can make adjustments to the programs held inside, then return it to you and you can install the programming in the car. There's even a way to do this via the internet. With an additional cable and come software, I can email you the programs and you can upload them into your tuner.
There's just a ton of versatility in this programming...I love this stuff.
Mike Kopstain
New Member
Doug, I think you're preaching to the choir here. Anyone that adjusts for fuel via the MAF function is asking for problems. That was what I was saying. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
Assuming you're using the SC Tuner, you should really give the TwEECer R/T a try, unless you already have a provision for datalogging.
Assuming you're using the SC Tuner, you should really give the TwEECer R/T a try, unless you already have a provision for datalogging.
Jheez Mike,
I guess I'm not being clear enough.
I first tried the SC Tuner on Jason's car. All I can say is, "What a Pile".
Now, I have (and pay attention here Mike) SCT [Superchips Custom Tuning]. It's much better, stornger, faster, easier to use and more powerful.
It works great on stock, nearly stock and wildly modified cars, truck, mini-vans, sport utilities, vans, bikes, tri-cicles, skateboards...(not really, but you get teh picture).
I guess I'm not being clear enough.
I first tried the SC Tuner on Jason's car. All I can say is, "What a Pile".
Now, I have (and pay attention here Mike) SCT [Superchips Custom Tuning]. It's much better, stornger, faster, easier to use and more powerful.
It works great on stock, nearly stock and wildly modified cars, truck, mini-vans, sport utilities, vans, bikes, tri-cicles, skateboards...(not really, but you get teh picture).
Mike Kopstain
New Member
I fully understood what you were referring to Doug. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was mearly adding comments on a forum designed for adding such.
I'm a firm beleiver in dropping the mail order chips and band-aid fixes. If that means going to you for a custom burn or getting a TwEECer for full control, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of seeing PCM modifying devices tuned on one car used on another car. Too often it results in "boom".
I'm a firm beleiver in dropping the mail order chips and band-aid fixes. If that means going to you for a custom burn or getting a TwEECer for full control, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just tired of seeing PCM modifying devices tuned on one car used on another car. Too often it results in "boom".
Similar threads
