Toyota Tundra Forums banner

Anyone using an Apexi SAFC?

10K views 31 replies 13 participants last post by  so40 
#1 ·
Is anyone using one of these on an NA truck? I have done a search, but don't see much.

If you are using it, how well does it work? Seems to me it could cure the rich condition these engines seem to have.

Thanks
:)
 
#2 ·
Lockjaw said:
Is anyone using one of these on an NA truck? I have done a search, but don't see much.

If you are using it, how well does it work? Seems to me it could cure the rich condition these engines seem to have.

Thanks
:)
I doubt it'd do much. I think, besides a full standalone, that the Unichip is the only real piggyback option that works.
 
#4 ·
Have you installed one? How involved was it? What did you gain? Was it hard to tune?

I really want to try one, but would like some good feedback from someone who has used one.
:ts:
 
#5 ·
Lockjaw said:
Have you installed one? How involved was it? What did you gain? Was it hard to tune?

I really want to try one, but would like some good feedback from someone who has used one.
:ts:
http://www.gadgetonline.com/fuel.htm#Apex Super AFC:


Gadget has had sucess with this product. xxxxxxxxxx

IMO, i would squat for a while and see how the unichip does. It would be your best bet if all turns out right.

http://unichip.us/faq.html

there may be a 2nd group buy, be paitent
 
#6 ·
i tuned one on a 99 subaru impreza 2.5rs with a turbo. let me tell ya that car is sweeeeeeet! but anyway it seemed to work pretty well. some of the settings are hard to change just because they are hard to find. there is a manuel that tells you where to go in the safc to change certain setings. that would have helped me a lot.

after i tuned the car...it ran real strong, had 250hp to all four wheels and and got 19mpg city. boy was i impressed. however, my buddy switched over to a complete stand alone called link, this unit far surpassed any safc ive ever seen.

i thought about installing one on my truck after i supercharge it, but i am not quite sure how to install it. i love to work on cars but i hate doing electrical on them. but who knows i might find that its easier than expected.

does anyone make a standalone for the tundra?
 
#8 ·
TRDKEAU said:
No specific apps, but you could always use a jumper harness with a AEM EMS, this would be your cheapest standalone option. another route would be Motec, I couldnt see spending 3g's and up for a EMS for this truck.
Yeah I'd never go Motec on my truck unless I'd increased displacement, gotten new cams, and done a custom turbo app... Otherwise it'd be fairly useless when a Unichip could produce the same results, since most of our trucks are basically stock.
 
#9 ·
So what is the dollar figure on a unichip? I can get a S-AFC for about 200 to 250 off ebay.

yes perhaps not as precise, but I don't want something I have to take to an "installer" to put in my truck. Nor do I want something someone else has to tune. and Unichip is only saying 5 to 9% increase on an NA engine. Sorry but I have to say if the engines run as pig rich as people are showing, there is probably more power available then 5 to 9%.
 
#10 ·
Lockjaw said:
yes perhaps not as precise, but I don't want something I have to take to an "installer" to put in my truck. Nor do I want something someone else has to tune. and Unichip is only saying 5 to 9% increase on an NA engine. Sorry but I have to say if the engines run as pig rich as people are showing, there is probably more power available then 5 to 9%.
Your not going to even get 5-9% from the SAFC. Plus, you can order the Unichip pre-mapped, meaning that the install is as simple as taking apart your glove box and plugging in a harness. But, you still have the option of a custom tune. Before you do anything else, read up on the Unichip here: http://www.ppdbillet.com/Unichip-1.html. It'll answer a ton of questions you could think of, and even has dyno graphs.
 
#12 ·
hey I hate to be a doubting thomas, but the dyno graph for a stock 2000 model shows 245HP. I don't buy that for a second, most all the dyno numbers I have seen show ~200.

What gives?
 
#13 ·
keiphers said:
Your not going to even get 5-9% from the SAFC. Plus, you can order the Unichip pre-mapped, meaning that the install is as simple as taking apart your glove box and plugging in a harness. But, you still have the option of a custom tune. Before you do anything else, read up on the Unichip here: http://www.ppdbillet.com/Unichip-1.html. It'll answer a ton of questions you could think of, and even has dyno graphs.
i have to disagree. being that i have used the safc, i know that it works. of course, not as well as a stand alone but that was never the argument. i am not a huge fan of the unichip, i do not care for how it makes the trucks run so rich, in my opinion stock tundras are a bit rich. there are a lot of problems that show up down the line when your engine runs that rich. sure it is ideal for certain race engines but then again those get rebuilt after every race. not something i am looking forward to tackle. if the unichip is so great, it should give that 9% propossed increase in power as well as making the truck more efficient. i dont know about all you guys but i sure have a lead foot and i do not need my truck to run any more rich than it already does. do you know how much gas cost on southern california? i mean come on! well, just my opinion. dont kill me guys:)
 
#14 ·
How did you come up with the Unichip causes the engine to run rich?
Mine is running about 10.5.


silverTRD said:
i have to disagree. being that i have used the safc, i know that it works. of course, not as well as a stand alone but that was never the argument. i am not a huge fan of the unichip, i do not care for how it makes the trucks run so rich, in my opinion stock tundras are a bit rich. there are a lot of problems that show up down the line when your engine runs that rich. sure it is ideal for certain race engines but then again those get rebuilt after every race. not something i am looking forward to tackle. if the unichip is so great, it should give that 9% propossed increase in power as well as making the truck more efficient. i dont know about all you guys but i sure have a lead foot and i do not need my truck to run any more rich than it already does. do you know how much gas cost on southern california? i mean come on! well, just my opinion. dont kill me guys:)
 
#17 ·
silverTRD said:
i have to disagree. being that i have used the safc, i know that it works. of course, not as well as a stand alone but that was never the argument. i am not a huge fan of the unichip, i do not care for how it makes the trucks run so rich, in my opinion stock tundras are a bit rich. there are a lot of problems that show up down the line when your engine runs that rich. sure it is ideal for certain race engines but then again those get rebuilt after every race. not something i am looking forward to tackle. if the unichip is so great, it should give that 9% propossed increase in power as well as making the truck more efficient. i dont know about all you guys but i sure have a lead foot and i do not need my truck to run any more rich than it already does. do you know how much gas cost on southern california? i mean come on! well, just my opinion. dont kill me guys:)

I can confirm Yellbirds post, I'm running unichip. Your post is the exact opposite of true (False). A stock Tundra runs rich in open loop and unichip fixes this. My before A/F reading were 10.0-1 to 10.5-1 and now are 12.8-1. 12.5 to 13.0-1 is maximum power range. And 14.7-1 is maximum fuel efficiancy and emmisions range. Unichip states 5-9% gains depending on vehicle, and how well tuned it is. I got right at the 7%?? Where are you getting your info?

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/photopost/data/500/178492003-Headers-Catback-Intake-med.jpg

Kevin
 
#18 ·
Lockjaw said:
hey I hate to be a doubting thomas, but the dyno graph for a stock 2000 model shows 245HP. I don't buy that for a second, most all the dyno numbers I have seen show ~200.

What gives?
Read on...all dynos are back to the flywheel (BHP). There is a full explaination on how this DOES work in "what the numbers mean and why"....on that same page.

http://www.ppdbillet.com/images/Unichip/the numbers 2-23-04.txt

Kevin
 
#19 ·
Sorry but this pisses me off. That link is complete BS. So what if his method of backing into BHP is accurate to within 3 hp on a manual transmissioned vehicle with up to 400HP. Where is the proof of that? And lets just say what proof would be, dyno the engine on an engine dyno, and then throw the engine in a car, and run it again. I doubt seriously this Jack guy has done anything even resembling that.

And that tells me absolutely ZIP about what a Tundra does, since the V8 tundra doesn't come with a manual transmisson. Why not just publish the RHWP and leave it at that?

Sorry but I don't just BELIEVE everything I read on a VBB.
 
#20 ·
Lockjaw said:
Sorry but I don't just BELIEVE everything I read on a VBB.
then I guess you wont believe me when I tell you that you are LOSING 2 RWHP using the k&n drop filter, compared to the oem paper!
 
#21 ·
Lockjaw said:
Sorry but this pisses me off. That link is complete BS. So what if his method of backing into BHP is accurate to within 3 hp on a manual transmissioned vehicle with up to 400HP. Where is the proof of that? And lets just say what proof would be, dyno the engine on an engine dyno, and then throw the engine in a car, and run it again. I doubt seriously this Jack guy has done anything even resembling that.

And that tells me absolutely ZIP about what a Tundra does, since the V8 tundra doesn't come with a manual transmisson. Why not just publish the RHWP and leave it at that?

Sorry but I don't just BELIEVE everything I read on a VBB.
So you are saying that the auto manufacturers BHP rating tells you nothing? They (Unichip) compares to what many people recongnise as a starting point of a stock vehicle, back to flywheel...but for some reason this tells you zip? That comment speaks volumns about your ability to reason.

This will further explain the Dastek dyno,and the research into why this is a better method for tuning.

http://www.dastek.co.za/dastek_dynamometer_introduction.htm

So, you ask for proof of accuracy....and yet you throw out comments like "this is complete BS"...so where is your proof of this? It's clear enough you post with a double standard, one for your comments, and one you require of others comments. This tells me more then zip, and if you want the real proof...lets line em up :tu:

Kevin
 
#22 ·
I don't know...

I've kind of got to agree with the man about using an engine dyno. Never in a respectable car magazine would you see the manufactures claimed horse power as the baseline. Typically you would see them dyno the car at the rear wheels (once, twice or three times to get a feel for the average), then add the modification(s) and then dyno it again. I really don't expect a stock Tundra V8 to make exactly 245hp....doesn't seem possible.

Let's all stop bitching and moaning about how stupid and ignorant we all are and just get the facts out there.

1.) Does the UniChip really provide a 15+ HP, I can feel it with my buttdyno gain?

2.) Does the SAFC actually provide a gain?

3.) Do either of these units increase fuel economy?

-jeff
 
#23 ·
Where is my double standard? They guy says something, yet offers nothing to back it up. My personal opinion is he uses flywheel numbers becuase the unichip numbers are LARGER that way. I bet RWHP his improvement is not so great.

The bottom line is he can give RWHP, but doesn't, and that is the number he starts from and backs into his "actual" HP. To me thats like taking all these bolt on mods, adding up the HP claims for them, and saying I have X amount of HP. The bottom line is the thing makes what it makes, not some number he extrapolates. And what it makes, is the number he won't give. Plus don't forget, he is trying to sell you something.


As for lining up, bring it on, I will be more then happy to line up my little tundra. Stock ECU and all. Be happy to show you what my tail lights look like to, thats all you will see. Maybe I should send you a pic now so you can get comfy with the idea. Just let me know.

If you really want to make it interesting, bring money. Be happy to lighten your wallet too.
 
#24 ·
bosnthrill1 said:
then I guess you wont believe me when I tell you that you are LOSING 2 RWHP using the k&n drop filter, compared to the oem paper!
I have stated my opinion on that. But to reiterate, my feeling is that 2 hp is not enough of a variance to tell me a whole lot based upon a 7hp spread I saw with my Z car on the dyno, with back to back runs, I think I made 6 pulls in a row, and the guy had some problem capturing them.

Regardless, my runs tended to indicate that as my engines fluids warmed up and stabilized, my HP increased. I made no changes during the pulls.

So really I think 2 hp could be attributed to a number of different things, other then swapping the filter. Not saying its not the filter, just saying that perhaps there could have been some other factor.

If you are happy with your OEM, then cool, I am happy with my K&N. Be more happy with a FIPK or Brute Force.
 
#25 ·
back to the point . . .

Back to the question about the S-AFC.
I have researched this product and found that the S-AFC (now the S-AFC II) has only 12 data points at which adjustments can be made (Apexi's site says only 8 points, but I think that was the S-AFC I) and that the data points cannot be closer than 200 RPM. What I understand this to mean is that the S-AFC can only make 12 (or 8) adjustments in TOTAL. The unichip has the ability to make far more adjustments - more even that the stock unit (which should mean that it smooths the curve even in closed-loop mode).
If 12 data points are enough to correct the fuel ratio, then the SAFC should work but it is certainly not as powerful as the unichip. Also, the S-AFC is ONLY for fuel control, while the unichip does fuel and timing.

Kevin - has Jack ever mentioned how many "data points" the unichip handles?
 
#26 ·
alohatundra said:
Back to the question about the S-AFC.
I have researched this product and found that the S-AFC (now the S-AFC II) has only 12 data points at which adjustments can be made (Apexi's site says only 8 points, but I think that was the S-AFC I) and that the data points cannot be closer than 200 RPM. What I understand this to mean is that the S-AFC can only make 12 (or 8) adjustments in TOTAL. The unichip has the ability to make far more adjustments - more even that the stock unit (which should mean that it smooths the curve even in closed-loop mode).
If 12 data points are enough to correct the fuel ratio, then the SAFC should work but it is certainly not as powerful as the unichip. Also, the S-AFC is ONLY for fuel control, while the unichip does fuel and timing.

Kevin - has Jack ever mentioned how many "data points" the unichip handles?
Yes...Unichip can provide up to 53,000 data points. This is another main issue in why it can smooth out spikes from OEM ECU. There are load ranges from zero to 100% and RPM ranges at every 200 (finer if necessary) and from there there are 8 additional data points that fill in the gaps. So 1 data point in and 8 go back out. So in a jump in setting from 1 point to the next...now the 8 points out, will smoothly move upward.

Lets drop the dyno discussion...they have their reasons for this...all that's important to us is accurate measure of gains (before and after).

Read my assement of unichip.
http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/showpost.php?p=226090&postcount=246

There will be minimal gains in mileage from ANY aftermarket piggyback. Reason is....OBD2 will always maintain 14.7-1 even if you mess with it...it will wipe out anything you change there. The only gains you can make are in timing adjustments, and increased data points...and they will not make a very large impact on mileage...certainly not enough to justify on that basis only.

Kevin
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top