Can anyone tell me if they have an AFR meter unit, which one and how (well) it works??

Cheers!

Si

IMHO, for a standard narrow-band lambda you can't do better than a LambdaLink for accuracy, but you can't do worse than a LambdaLink for looks...:rolleyes::)
Depends what you want.
I also think that the LambdaLinks from BR Developments are actually calibrated - most aren't, and I don't think they even can be.
There's a new one on the books, but don't know when it's going to be available - and it's around 4x more expensive than the rest too!

cheers nom, so i take it the amount of fuelling can be adjusted slightly using the lambdalink?? Where are they available from??

Cheers!

Si

Ah. No. You're not after an AFR meter unit! You after an AFR adjusty-thing... which I'm not so sure about as a stand-alone unit (only as part of an ECU), but I think that HKS make the usual 'popular' stand-alone unit. AFC? Not sure...
If you just generally want to adjust the amount of fuelling across the board (not sure what you're trying to do here?) then a fuel regulator would do the job.
Ah, the HKS AFC (example here middle of the page) and the HKS Super AFR (a bit further down the same page) are 2 ways of going about it.
But You'd still want the LambdaLink to get it set up right :)

whats the difference bitween AFR & AFC than? One adjusts airmass reading and the other is fuel? As i understand both do same job - regulate A/F mixture?

the lambda link is a monitering unit only, this will allow you to measure your mixture at the different levels of boost, keeping away from a weak mixture and stopping det.

If you want to be ablt to adjust these then you nead a fuel computer like the above mentioned or an apexi AFC or similar. These are very useful and can be used to a degree to 'map' the car. Ideally you would need to combine it with a boost computer like the AVC-r to maximise the effectivness...

I got boost controller. And now thinkig of getting AFC. Do you think it would be usefull?

But the question was that HKS got AFR and AFC how does it differ?

Basically, one's just a complicated version of the other.
I don't know much at all about either product, but the cheaper one is pretty similar to simply putting a resistor across the input to the ECU from the MAP - it fools the ECU into thinking the airflow, as read by the MAF, is higher/lower than it actually is, and it does this across the full range, eg reduces the voltage everywhere by 5% (hence the ECU moves the fuelling to a lower load part of the map, reducing fueling).
The more expensive one - I think - actually reads multiple inputs itself (rpm, throttle position & MAP) and then uses this to compute new vaules that it passes to the ECU, hence is mappable rather than simple raising/lowering the fuel supply everywhere.

As for whether it's needed or not - the only way you'll know that is if you have a LambdaLink, DeltaDash or something that tells you what's going on! Typically - aside from little areas (spool-up if you have a decat & induction kit in particular) - the standard map copes pretty well, this being the advantage of the MAF sensor.

Hope something in there helps! :)