Dynojet PCFC vs PC5 (Power Commander Fuel Controller)

[oh400ex 629]

Hello!

 

I'm comparing the Dynojet PCFC (Power Commander Fuel Controller - $199 USD) and the PC5 (Power Commander 5 - $299 USD)

 

Can anyone chime in on these products?

Many conflicting viewpoints online regarding this. Personal experience is limited with fuel injected bikes. 

 

My understanding is that PCFC is a basic fuel controller (more analog) while the PC5 does ignition timing, variable fuel delivery and many other "features" (all digital)

 

The intended goal here is to richen the fuel mixture a bit for longevity of the engine. Performance is not a concern in this context.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks for reading!

[Wheeler 2,525]

I can’t speak on those exact models, but in general Know first hand a PCII was great when I had my crotch rocket. They make good products. Not sure what fuel controller my buddy had in his Grizzly.. I’ll have to ask him & let ya know. 

[SlammedRanger 1,556]

Never had anything in the powersports catagory with fuel injection. But my brother has had more than a few. He personally likes the more analog one. You can easily switch it without plugging in the computer. He had one on his Kfx450. His Kawasaki 636. His Honda 929. And many more. (He doesnt hold onto anything very long). LoL

[oh400ex 629]

Thank you for the info!

 

Currently leaning to the PCFC

 

My usage would not include modifications so the PC5 seems like overkill but aside from that... I also think the FC is a better fit.

For me... the ability to richen the bike (like turning an air/fuel screw) is very important. I have a possibly wrong belief that if the engine is running rich it will last much longer.

Not too much but a bit on the fuel-rich side is how I run most of my machines.

 

The Fuel Controller will (in my understanding) give control over the fuel/air ratio (like an air/fuel screw) but not much else. Lots of people love the PC5

 

[jeepwm69 7,600]

I put a Weisco programmer on the wife's 420 when I put the Foreman 500 (475CC) top end on it.  I thought I would need more fuel, but I don't know that I really even needed it.  Lot of people do the 500 top end without it on the 420's.

 

I set it up a hair richer than stock and left it.  Seems like it's been fine.

[retro 4,048]

On 11/13/2020 at 7:44 AM, oh400ex said:

I have a possibly wrong belief that if the engine is running rich it will last much longer.

Not too much but a bit on the fuel-rich side is how I run most of my machines.

 

You're spot on with those observations and practice. Slightly rich stabilizes combustion & exhaust gas expansion rates & temps and stabilizes flame front propagation (flame speed consistency -- more complete burn of available F/A mixture) so slightly rich not only prolongs the life of parts it makes more torque too!

 

EDIT: Since slightly rich combustion optimizes engine efficiency ya experience a small fuel economy boost as well.