Author Topic: Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings  (Read 536 times)

Offline John Novo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« on: October 05, 2004, 10:24:40 pm »
Okay I finally got around to monitoring mode on the SAFC.

I'm noticing that the TPS on the SAFC is 10% lower than on the PocketLogger. And the Airflow Hz are higher on the SAFC than the logger. So am I to assume that the SAFC is showing the true values for airflow, where the logger is showing the compensated values that the ECU is seeing post the SAFC?

And the TPS values on the SAFC are in fact 10% lower than on the logger. If this is actually true, then this would leave me to beleive that I need to lower the low TH point by say 10%? Or is there a way to teach the SAFC that 0% is actually 11%?

Offline Cole MacDonald

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1092
    • Cardomain
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2004, 11:11:40 pm »
The airflow frequency you see on the AFC is the frequency coming from the mas itself. What you are seeing on the logger is the modified frequency that the ACF sends to the ECU. As for the throttle positions on the logger and AFC, that is normal also.
1990 FWD Laser 240 FWHP
1993 AWD Laser, 2.4L GT35r powered 562 AWHP
2014 Ram 3500 6.7L Cummins
2012 Skidoo Summit X 800 E Tec 164HP

Offline John Novo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2004, 10:15:47 am »
Something else that I don't understand and can't seem to pin down is, to get rid of knock at WOT, I have to set the high table at about -10%. The low table I have set at about -33% and trims are okay. High=96, mid=81 and low is 100 (1.37 MAFT chip.)

It doesn't seem to matter what I set the fuel pressure at and I'm currently running 43PSI, the IDC at WOT is a wopping 97%. Timing seems to be pretty good at anywhere from about 16-20, but at WOT, it wants tons of fuel.

I've pressure tested the intake tract and fixed any leaks that I've found.

My mods:
Timing 5*, 3" GM MAF, MAFT zero'd, SAFCII, 3"-2.5" intake pipe, s16G, FMIC, 2.5" IC pipes, Supra FP rewired, Aeromotive FF, -AN 6 lines, Aeromotive FPR, Denso 660s, ported 2G Exh Manifold, ported 2G O2 Hsg, 2.5"DP, 3" from DP back.

I have a boost and EGT guage and log with PocketLogger.

I'd really appreciate any insight or advise you could help with.

Thanks.

Offline Scott Girvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2004, 01:56:30 pm »
Could it be rich knock?........seems like alot of fuel for a s16g

Offline John Novo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2004, 02:56:50 pm »
Well, I started with the high table at 5% more fuel than the low table and kept adding fuel until the knock was reduced to a max of 7.

Have a look at the log: Oct06-04Log.wri and GIF.
Thanks.

Offline Kimyee Lai

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2154
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2004, 08:28:40 pm »
What kind of boost are you running?  It does seem like a lot of fuel for the turbo.  Did you try going leaner to see what happens?

Offline John Novo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2004, 08:34:52 am »
I'm running 17# and it creeps to 19. I started out leaner as indicated in my previous post and richened it up from there.

Something else that is completely bizzare, is a log I captured the day before. In 3rd I got knock. In 4th, no knock.
Looking at the image below during 3rd gear, the IPW peaks early and then gradually drops off. Does that mean that it's too rich at that point in time? And if that is the case, then it very well could be rich knock. Yes? No?
But in 4th, the IPW doesn't quite go that high and that's were there is no knock.
What do you think?


Offline John Novo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Logger Readings vs. SAFC II Readings
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2004, 09:53:01 am »
Anyone?

Thanks.