Is the power commander worth the extra $100.
VFCIII or PCV
Fishtale_19
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Joined
·
236 Posts
Is the power commander worth the extra $100.
Joined
·
7,239 Posts
Had both. Yes. Much more precise Dyno, better functionality, expandable w/ auto tuner module. If minimal mods and no dyno avail OR $$$ a serious concern maybe wait for VFC-4 to come out? KgFishtale_19 said:
Joined
·
17,131 Posts
I would say it depends on your mods. If you're just talking about the mods listed in your signature I'd say no. With the PC-V you'd be buying abilities that really aren't being put to use. Now add cams that make power past 5k rpm's and the PC-V's ability to raise the rev limit becomes very useful. But why raise the rev limit if your done making power at 5k with the stock cam? The PC-V can adjust timing above 2.5k rpm which is nice if you say want 6 degrees advance down low, got it with your wheel, but if you want to back that off to 3 or 4 degrees higher in the rpms the PC-V gives you that ability. But again you probably need cams or more before doing something like that makes makes a difference. Add on top of that the PC-V isn't just 100 dollars difference, it also requires either a dyno tune or an auto tune, more $. The VFC can be preset and is easily DIY adjusted. For sure the PC-V does more, but there is a time and place for each.
Joined
·
23,468 Posts
The PC allows individual cylinder tuning, timing adjustment,rev limit control, and it can add or remove fuel... the VFC can only add fuel and the same amount of extra fuel to both cylinders. Is it worth it? Only you can answer that... but you can buy a PC-Vfor $300or less if you shop around.
Joined
·
829 Posts
How does one know if a single cylinder needs more/less fuel. If with a dyno only, I've only seen A/F mixture as a whole and not broken down per?
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
Most of those people had little if any real gain by switching. They were just beat down by the PC fan club. On another note. My Gen4 kicks ass. Best performance and mpg that I have gotten out of any tuner I have triedluvmyride said:Yes
He hitall the reasons above. Ican't count how many time I have seen guyschoosing theVCF and upgrading to the PCV down the road. Thatwould make the PCV cheaper with only having to buy one tuner
Joined
·
23,468 Posts
Have you had a Power Commander on this bike? The question was VFC III or PC-V...kevinx said:
There have been many who couldn't tune their bike satisfactorily with the VFC-III and that was the reason for the switch. Is the PC-V the better tuning option or isn't it?Or has everyone using the PC-V fallen victim to propaganda? You claim no real gain by switching but there are many who would disagree with that.
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
I have used a Power Commander on a previous bike I owned and loved it. However on my victory hammer 8 ball I have a VFCIII and if I had to pick which one is better I would say the PCV has more adjustability and will work better if you dyno it. The VFC will do alright if your not upgrading things like cams..etc. That's just my opinion. I have the VFC and will continue to see how it works with my mods and if I change later on down the road then it was a lesson learned, lol. So to sum it up if the extra cash doesn't matter to you I would buy the PCV to be on the safe side.
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
My last XC had a PCV that failed, and I installed a VFC3 in its place. When I got the new bike I reinstalled the PCV with a custom map. Then I tried the AT feature. Pretty much all of three of those set ups produced the same returns. Between 105-107HP and 115-117FtLb. MPG was roughly the same at 38 highway[80ish], 42[70ish]. 32 busting ass around town. Only thing I really liked about the PCV-AT was the built in Rev ExtndHalf_Crazy said:
My current set up makes the same type of power, but milage is up by 2-3mpg in every situation. Just switched pipes, and I had to do nothing other then ride. Bike dropped right into tune
Joined
·
23,468 Posts
Are you saying the PC-V w/A/T won't do the same?kevinx said:
Right now would be a golden opportunity for me to use one of your Kool-Aid comments, but I won't because there are lots of ways to skin a cat. However, it seems we agree that the PC-V is the most versatile and accutate method for tuning (right now anyway).
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
Auto tune would have required me to accept trims several times across a few days to get where the gen4 put me instantly. The PCV is indeed versitile, but since it is RPM based. It is not nessecarily the most accurate. It is a good tool for sure, but it is not always as good as it is lauded.Half_Crazy said:
Joined
·
176 Posts
I'm having a bit a brain fart today (long day, not much sleep). I know thepower commandercan be adjusted for either cylinder, but how does the guy running the tuner know which cylinder to adjust on a 2 into 1 exhaust? I've only seen 1 sniffer used during a dyno run to determine AFR. With that being said I've only witnessed 2 different dyno runs on my last 2 bikes. Perhaps there are different ways to gain info other then using a sniffer and actually using 2 wide band sensors feeding that into the dynometer...i just haven't seen it nor do I do know if that can be done. Just curious.
Joined
·
23,468 Posts
The tube on the "sniffer" is long enough to reach into the head pipes and the muffler on a 2-1 is stright thru. You put the sensor up in one head pipe and tune that jug, then switch the sensor to the other headpipe and tune that jug.beast30 said:
If the pipes will not allow that, you can use the O2 bungs with adapters to read each jug. Some dyno guys (Dr. Dyno comes to mind) have dual sensors running all the time on V-twin tuning.
If you can't look thru the muffler with a flashlight and see the headpipes... and there are no O2 bungs in the headpipes... now you'll have totune both jugs the same and call it good (you know, like a VFC does).
Joined
·
23,468 Posts
Not exactly.kevinx said:
The PC-AT also tunes in real time. You save the trims so it doesn't have to... it starts with the proper map when you fire it up and only tunes in small parameters.
Saying the VFC is "load based" and the PC is "RPM/throttle position based" is arguing semantics. 2500 rpm at 1/2 throttle IS a load and it is a different load than 4300 rpm at 3/4 throttle. So bothactually tune to a load.
If I drop my coffee cup, it will fall straight down and hit the floor. You can call that 'gravity', or 'downforce' or 'mojo', or say the Earth just sucks... but the result is exactly the same despite thesemantics.
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
Wrong on all counts. AT can only vary from the trims set a small percentage, and if you do not accept the changes. The bike will continuously return to its previously accepted trims; each time it is started. So while it operates in real time. It will never get to or stay at the desired point; without my input. As for load vs RPM. The PC will always add or subtract the same amount of fuel at a given RpM, and throttle point. Uphill, down hill, cruise, gear selection, accell, decell, make no difference. Load based look at rate of change, and trends to determine fueling. Both systems have their flaws. But there is no confusing how RPM vs load base differ in basic philosophy. Your analogy is way off. More like dropping the cup vs throwing the cup. End result is a broken cup, but the path is way differentHalf_Crazy said:
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
