AEM F/IC or SSAFC? which is better?

[2088 MSP]

So I'm forged, on stock turblow and injectors. I keep playing around with turning the boost up, but the more I keep changing it, the more I realize how disappointing it is to feel the Turbo spool up only for the car to start breaking up after like 12 pounds. So I'm in need of some fuel management. I'm thinking either aem fic or the ssafc both from protege garage are 400, so which is better?

 

[Knox Joe]

SSAFC is tried and true.

AEM is too much work.

Get the first or second gen AFC, no SSFTC.

 

[2088 MSP]

SSAFC is tried and true.

AEM is too much work.

Get the first or second gen AFC, no SSFTC.

actually looked at the ssftc as well, why no?

I have no issues with software being complicated to use or anything like that. I guess what I'm really asking is, which has the most options that are present, while not being required. I would like to have the ability to run bigger injectors in time, or which tuner has a bigger (21x17 or whatev) map for more precise control, any timing control?

from what I can read in the description of both on PG or thru the forced induction section on the forum:

1. ssafc just manipulates the signal from the maf, no coilpack control and can run bigger injectors

2. aem f/ic can run bigger injectors, retard(only) timing,

 

[Knox Joe]

I have seen/heard of people having trouble with later SSAFCs and the SSFTC. I ran an earlier model SSAFC and it worked great for me.

When I say the FIC is too much work, I mean with wiring, and getting it to work with the Mazda ECU succesfully.

Honestly you should be going stand-alone with a built motor, but given your choices I'd go with the Split Second.

 

[float_6969]

The SSAFC is a simple MAFS signal modifier with a built in O2 sensor emulator to fool the ECU into thinking that it's not rich when it gets into boost. The stock tune maintains closed loop to about 4K rpm, even in boost. This can make it run dangerously lean. In my experience, the SSAFC resolves this completely. The issue with MAFS manipulation, is that if you start altering the signal alot, it can have an adverse effect on ignition timing, and so shouldn't be used for much larger injectors than stock (440's may be OK). It has no control over ignition timing.

The FIC can be setup to alter the injector signal itself. This is a better way of doing it, BUT it has the drawback that the ecu is going to learn around any changes you make with the closed loop issue. It's very hard to get the FIC to emulate the O2 sensor in a way that makes the ECU happy, and as such tends to be avoided due to the fact that you constantly have to re-set the ECU to keep it from learning around your changes.

Most ppl run the SSAFC for bolt ons and stock injectors(or 440's although I wouldn't suggest it). Anything over that, and you need a standalone. The stock ECU is a pain to work with.

 

[jeremy irons]

Do i understand correctly that the SSAFC
-changes closed loop performance by changing the o2 sensor signal AND MAF signal
-changes open loop performance by changing the MAF sensor signal only
?

 

[kamon8404]

You have a built motor. If you aren't concerned with complicated software or anything like that there is only one solution you should be looking to and thats haltech period.

 

[float_6969]

Do i understand correctly that the SSAFC
-changes closed loop performance by changing the o2 sensor signal AND MAF signal
-changes open loop performance by changing the MAF sensor signal only
?

Sort of. The O2 sensor intercept is based on boost pressure. As soon as the SSAFC see's positive boost pressure, it intercepts the O2 sensor signal, and outputs an emulated signal. It's not a modified signal. Yes, the MAFS signal is modified, usually to lean the motor out as it runs far to rich from the factory.

 

[Knox Joe]

there is only one solution you should be looking to and thats haltech period.

+1

Wish I had just got one from the get-go. By the time I bought, installed, un-installed, and sold the SSAFC, Unichip, other Microtech, and two previous J&S's I had, I could have spent the money I lost on a Haltech, and a newer J&S and been better off.

 

[jeremy irons]

Sort of. The O2 sensor intercept is based on boost pressure. As soon as the SSAFC see's positive boost pressure, it intercepts the O2 sensor signal, and outputs an emulated signal. It's not a modified signal. Yes, the MAFS signal is modified, usually to lean the motor out as it runs far to rich from the factory.

but in open loop the ECU ignores the O2 sensor and uses a map based on the MAF/IAT exclusively, yes?

also, just to make sure i understand, the SSAFC only does stuff when the boost is positive right?

 

[spicy yellow]

Most ppl run the SSAFC for bolt ons and stock injectors(or 440's although I wouldn't suggest it). Anything over that, and you need a standalone. The stock ECU is a pain to work with.

Does the SSAFC work equally well with flashed and unflashed ECU's? I've got a 03.5 MSP with flashed ECU, and I plan on the usual bolt-on's and stock injectors.

 

[jim9]

Ssafc works under boost as well mostly for idle and starting the vehicle. I've taking the whole week to tune my car and now it runs great with idle at 13.3 -13.8. The only thing i dislike is that you can only tune up to 15psi as it doesn't have a column for 16psi and 440cc over then new standalone. Haven't look into it yet.

 

[float_6969]

but in open loop the ECU ignores the O2 sensor and uses a map based on the MAF/IAT exclusively, yes?

also, just to make sure i understand, the SSAFC only does stuff when the boost is positive right?

Yes, the issue is that the ECU stays in closed loop, even in boost, until about 4K rpm, which causes it to run very lean. Then it goes insanely rich. The SSAFC solves this problem by fooling the ECU into thinking that it's in closed loop, even though it's not.

The SSAFC can do whatever you want it to do. For stock injectors, you would tune it to only effects the MAFS signal in boost. With larger injectors, it would have to alter the MAFS signal everywhere.

 

[float_6969]

Does the SSAFC work equally well with flashed and unflashed ECU's? I've got a 03.5 MSP with flashed ECU, and I plan on the usual bolt-on's and stock injectors.

I've read that it's recommended that it's used with an unflashed ecu. The reason is that the difference between unflashed and flashed is that the timing is more advanced in the flashed ecu. This can cause issues with knocking once the mixture is leaned out. That being said, I think there are plenty of ppl running flashed ecu's with a SSAFC and they're fine.

 

[spicy yellow]

I've read that it's recommended that it's used with an unflashed ecu. The reason is that the difference between unflashed and flashed is that the timing is more advanced in the flashed ecu. This can cause issues with knocking once the mixture is leaned out. That being said, I think there are plenty of ppl running flashed ecu's with a SSAFC and they're fine.

I don't suppose it's possible to reflash back to the original program?

For this reason, would a SSFTC work better with a flashed ECU - so that I can retard the timing a well? ... or does everything you said about the AEM FIC (above) apply equally to the SSFTC?

 

[spicy yellow]

hello? Anyone have any ideas on whether a SSFTC would work better than a SSAFC on a flashed ECU? My MSP is stock right now but will ultimately have the usual set of bolt-ons only.

 

[Spiced MSP]

if you are just doing bolt ons, stick to the SSAFC. You won't need timing control unless you to push the limits of the stock block.

edit: you may want to start a separate thread for answers next time so you don't crowd up someone else's thread.

 

[spicy yellow]

edit: you may want to start a separate thread for answers next time so you don't crowd up someone else's thread.

OK. Thanks and sorry. I thought I was staying on topic.
... I also realize this response itself is off topic so sorry again.

 

[Spiced MSP]

no big deal, it's just common courtesy really. Some members don't like "threadjacking". You were still on topic with the question.