oh400ex 629 Posted November 12, 2020 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! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wheeler 2,527 Posted November 12, 2020 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SlammedRanger 1,559 Posted November 12, 2020 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oh400ex 629 Posted November 13, 2020 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeepwm69 7,719 Posted November 13, 2020 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
retro 4,071 Posted November 20, 2020 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites