87400tpi

First thing,my name is Tim,not tony.I did reread some of the post leading to the ban.Yes I acted out in a negitive way.I felt like I was getting no respect.People was telling me I was wrong.But I was getting steady integrator of 128 in alot of areas.I got frustrated but I will not act in that way again.I am not a ***hole though.I do respect everyone here.I was hard on genn,I'm sorry.Glen and I has had many conversation from tcc lockup to the spark advance tables.But to tell you the truth,I am starting to feel degraded.I'm not being modest,I was just letting people know my real name.I was hurt you would'nt even respond to my emails ,glenn.

Don't I look like a loser that does'nt take onto the account the 100's of hours understanding/modifying maf,btwthanks,at least you called me one to my face.

I feel like there is no justification for some of the treatment/deletion of tech-only post etc.*** knows I'm not the only one that has used profanity here.Keep in mind it was never directed at anyone.But I do not want to dwell in the past.I am starting to feel some frustration again.Like now glenn seems upset about me dismissing the injector calculation.It is a great way to find what sized injectors you might need.But in the context of this dissusion it is not needed.Just like my other post about gear ratios.Glenn basically saidI was'nt criticizig the board.It's a fact there is a lack of maf tech here.I was just trying to get maf to evolve.Not trying to have people do my work for me.Man this sucks,things are going south.I'm just going to back off.Sorry for wasting everyones time.

Grim Reaper

I am not upset at you Tim (sorry about the name). There is absolutely no conspiracy to suppress any tuning tips for MAF. The funny thing is, many of the MAF guys keep saying "I burnt a perfect chip in only a couple of tries and now turing xx.xx times" using a basically stock BIN.

If this is true, then what tuning tips for MAF are needed?

I personally KNOW there are a lot of tuning tips for MAF, but when people start saying "MAF works great as is and needs no further changes", I just don't find any point in offering any advice.

Result: - Lack of MAF tuning tips.

PS: And yes, I have tweaked the MAF Scalar tables from time over the years. I just find the ARAP MAF Scalar Tables to be the best with minimal tweaking required.

As for the "effects of a Gear Change", re-read my post. The primary differences I find seems to relate to the spark tables and sometimes the MAF Scalar. I have also found a number of BCCs for identical MAF cars and the only difference is the MAF Scalar Tables. General Motors obviously found some useful tweaking.

But I am not criticizing you Tim. I am just pointing out things. If you take it the wrong way, well I did not intend to offend you. I'm just trying to share some of my knowledge. If you (or other MAF or even SD users) aren't interested in what I am sharing, then ignore it.

ski_dwn_it

87400,

Take a step back there fella. Look at what you have posted. From what I have read of your posts, much like mine. Noone has been able to discredit your techniques of tuning etc. You should not feel attacked, but rather proud if anything. Hope you understand my statement.

Obviously when you propose something that is against the grain as I like to say. You are gonna have people try to discredit you. When they do it to me, I just think fine, I have the time slips, the experience and proof that I can tune one of these critters. It may not be the fanciest system on the block, and my techinues might no be honed to the finest edge, but I am getting results, just as you are. That is all you need to point out. Until they prove you are lying, or not able to prove your are not able to do what you say, you have nothing to defend. You can try to explain it, but in the end the people will decide. I personally used your technique for idle MAF adjustments, it worked great! I will be the first to compliment you.

When your gonna take the step at proposing a new method you have to view yourself as a politician. Some of the people are gonna love ya, and some of the people, even if they know you are right are gonna hate you and run you down regardless of the fact you helped them. Its just life.

Take me for example. No one can explain 24# injectors to me working in my car. We have dyno graphs, ET slips etc. I only report what is working for me, the people that tell me that I am not capable of running AFR I describe are the ones that have the work fut out for them. I just sit back and let them fight it out. They may say stupid stuff that is kinda an attack, but all I have to say is watch the video, and my hood is open at every track I attend for the skepical. I will be at Beaver Springs Raceway, in PA Friday night for any technical judges of my components.

I personally would like to see more from you TIm. I think you have alot to offer in the line of understanding these systems more. The people that oppose you have not offered one things valuable I see, just rubbish, and crazy circle talk that is never to the point, and leaves an exit for themselves if someone debates with them.

87400tpi

This is the thing,time and again I've been told my data is useless without extensive ecm bench work.But I have uncovered bust methods anong with getting my car tuned.Just look how this post turned out though.What about my thread debunking a maf myth.No consessions there....
I have thought of something that might really stir things up.I'm in the process of pulling my entire driveline for upgrades.I'm thinking of converting from SD back to MAF.If I took pics and made a doc,it could be usefull.But I'm not sure yet,MAF did run so much better than that touchy map crap.I am guilty of not totally dialing in the SD all the way.SD has been a very reliable system though.Ski,you should bring that vette to the LOU sometime.It would be great to see you run at gateway or something.

ski_dwn_it

LOU? Where is that.... Didn't you say you were from St Louis or something? I was just there this past weekend. Tooooooo far of a drive for this Turkey to make again anytime soon.

87400tpi

St louis,man if you are ever in the area again...

ski_dwn_it

Drove right by it on i-70. Belive me I was rubber necking checking it out. Even said to Dad we should have brought the car along.

87400tpi

I ran there once,it was a fat 17.2.That was with the original lg4(305 4b carb).A nice baseline,I'm sure I've knocked off about 5 seconds at this point.I might not have a vette but you know my car is not total crap.

87400tpi

btw,yes I am considering switching back to maf.If you look, the guy that made the tech article converting to SD from maf,ran faster with maf.

funstick

ski to datre one thing has been consistenyl overlooked so far. there still room to read airflow in the MAF itself. gm cut it off short. look a maf table #6. rescalling the injector constant and getting back those table entrys will uncrunch the resolution and should help refine the p/t to wot transition. just a thought. ive been toying with the table myself but i dont have a car to test with. email me. or doc or who ever wants to talk about getting back some resoultion.

SATURN5

I think I'll just stick with the 7749..

For several reasons...

1. one less component to worry about (maf)

2. VE tables that allow a finer resolution than currently available with MAF.

3. Boost is it baby...

4. never be able to use P/H's with a 165.

5 even going to use it on my next project... sorry, but its on a Ford.. TTI6EFI for my 68 F-100 StepSide.

6. For the same reason that all of us do it.. just because we can.

Bob

ski_dwn_it

That was pretty enlightening. Thanks for contributing to the discussion with some valuable information PS see you at the track with you SC

SATURN5

Whatever ski....go **** in somebody elses Wheaties; theres more in there than you know... or realise.

Run your MAF. I'ts fine with me. I'm just chosing a different route.

Yes it should be interesting to see how the Malibu runs on 12 pounds of boost.. should be real sick..

I doupt the short block will last very long...

87400tpi

funstick,no disrespect in any way.I believe I have debunked the theory of maf running out of resolution.Not that your exactly saying that.But as I have stated in other post,I have gained resolution.That is with a 406,believe dat.It's very simple my car makes 400+tq @ 1500 on up.I only have to barely crack the throttle in all real world driving conditions.Just think about it....

ski_dwn_it

Would someone please tell Saturn that this is not a debate to what system will run better, but rather trying to sort out the misconceptions surrounding the MAF and Injectors etc.

As for your time slips, I bet 11.5-12.2.

Or should I just move the post that I put after his first post down after this one too.

87400tpi

I think we neer to make fresh maf threads.I tried to w/ the gear ratio thread.But maybe you'll have better luck.

black87c4

.

TRAXION

I still don't agree with this statement. Drop the term 'resolution' because technically it is not correct. High power MAF cars will most certainly run out of resolution (as I have already fully explained). The fact is that with MAF you are ADMITTING to a loss of resolution and making it up via fudging the PE %Change to AFR. Once the MAF ECM value pegs at 255 then there is no more resolution. You have to start fudging. The cool thing is that the fudge works!

Tim

87400tpi

Just listen,you might change your mind. That is what I've been stressing.The maf is not a "1 bar map sensor" that "runs out of resolution".The term resolution is fundamentally wrong for maf.I am not admitting nothing.I will concede in a heart beat if I'm wrong.This is how my twisted mind see things.To run out of "resolution" you would have to have maxed lv8 and/or gr/sec.When I modify my engine my load is less,my gr/sec is comparetivly lower.The more power I make the less gr/sec it takes to move the car down the road.This is the opposite of the known theory.My gr/sec is lower than a stock l98 in normal driving,generally.This is not true.That is not how the maf system works.I'm going to kill that 255 stuff right now.Traxx you know about ecm routines,just listen plz.The ecm does not read the maf until 255 then is out of control .Thus using p.e. to counter that effect.Actually the ecm does'nt care about 255 gr/sec(yes,it's true).Once you get past X% of throttle the ecm goes into power enrichment.Power enrichment's primary function is to fuel the car @ wot. P.e. is not a fudge factor.Maf cars are designed to engage pe @ X% throttle,thus rendering any reading of maf virtually useless at that point.The ecm is more or less blind to the upper maf tables.This is by design,so do you see where I'm coming from here?

ski_dwn_it

Guys you may all be shocked to see something: I am not maxing the MAF out as you all suspected

Here is the data from my last nights runs:

Engine Speed Mass Air Flow (MAF)
RPM gm/s_
1500 25
1525 25
1550 25
1550 25
1550 25
1575 25.3
1600 25.7
1600 25.7
1600 25.5
1625 25.3
1625 25.4
1675 25.5
1700 25.7
1700 25.6
1725 25.5
1750 25.3
1725 23.7
1725 22.1
1700 21.6
1725 21.3
1725 21.1
1725 21.3
1700 21.2
1725 21.1
1700 21.2
1700 21.1
1750 21.1
1725 21.3
1750 46.3
2200 109.4
3475 193.5
4150 232
4525 241
4900 246
5125 247
5075 246
4975 246
5075 247.9
5275 247.1
5300 247
5450 247
5825 247
5850 247
6075 249
6175 252
6300 253.1
6375 254
6375 254
5575 247
4725 241
4600 239
4600 239
4375 230
4125 224
4375 239
4500 237
4475 238
4525 240
4525 241
4750 244
4800 245
4900 246
4975 246
5100 247
5200 247
5275 247
5375 247
5375 247
5350 247
5675 247
5650 247
5700 247
3875 200
3550 191
3600 200.4
3700 200.6
3675 204
3600 205
3750 204
3775 210
3800 214
3850 208
3925 211
3825 214
3950 215
3875 218
4050 218
3950 218
4025 225
4100 224
4050 221
4150 224
4200 227
4175 229
4275 227
4175 227
4175 232
4325 233
4350 235
4375 236
4400 206
4425 237
4350 207
4475 235
4525 238
4525 239
4600 241
4500 142.6
4475 24.7

Looks like I am still within the 255g/sec and running well into the low 11s. Kinda crazy. This is starting to be like the twighlight zone.....

TRAXION

Tim,

I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from. I read your response over and over before I replied asking myself what am I missing here. You are basically saying that the ECM does not use the measured airflow (i.e. MAF readings) during WOT. In ski's words - that is totally against the grain. Prove it. Everything that I have seen shows that the ECM uses the MAF measurements during WOT. Once the 255 limit is reached then it uses 255 for those readings that would normally be over 255. Example - the PE table goes to 6400rpms. What happens at 7000rpms? It uses the 6400rpm value. The same is true with MAF. It will use the 255 value if anything larger than 255 is actually happening. In either case the ECM also compensates by adding in all the PE modifiers. That's how it works on Speed Density systems too. It uses the appropriate 100kPa values and then compensates by adding in all the PE modifiers (because you want richer than 14.7 during WOT).

You are saying that WOT is fueled by PE only. Where are you getting this from? The PE tables are only ADDERS on top of what is already known about airflow. Once the ECM pegs 255 then it uses that value (255) for all future calculations until it drops below 255. The reason that MAF works is because you can add extra fuel to the PE table to account for the fact that the MAF is only registering 255 when it should be registering 296 (or whatever).

Keep in mind that I am talking specifically about WOT here for high performance cars. I already explained that during normal part throttle that there is plenty of resolution (255 does not get hit). WOT only!

Both the ARAP (MAF) and AUJP (SD) hac define an AFR that the ECM is going to shoot for - this is a specific caculation. These calculations do not involve MAF readings or kPa readings. Do not confuse this by saying that this means that the ECM is not using those readings! I have commented on and posted these forumulas in the past. In fact, I incorporated them into a program to display all the various AFRs that the ECM will shoot for. However, this is only a modification of the existing airflow that the ECM is measuring ... or, in the case of MAF, trying to measure but can't.

http://www.celligent.com/tim/misc/AFR_ARAP.JPG

For the sake of argument I am going back to the ARAP hac. But, since you made the statement I am calling on you to prove how you know that the ECM is not using MAF measurements for any fuel calculations at WOT.

Tim

TRAXION

Ski,

I have no clue why you are not pegging the MAF. If you weren't a normal user I would call up the BS flag right away. I've helped to tune several 350 MAF cars with heads/cam and we were pegging the MAF at 4800rpms. I don't see how a 406 heads/cam car can't be pegging the MAF. Wierd. This is the twighlight zone.

Tim

ski_dwn_it

Guys, I think that 87400tpi might have a better handle on this stuff than you are giving him credit for. He is making the most sense, to offense taken hopefully by the rest....but he made this statement before, which I totally agree with and again, before I posted my MAF readings. Guess what? I am not even over 255g/sec through my entire run. And that is revving it up to 6000+.

I think he is EXACTLY right when he says that more power required less g/sec. But I would add this to that and he kinda did in a way. A more powerful engine takes less g/sec to do the same amount of work.

Think about it, people are have told me they are maxing out their MAF meters with 350s running in the 13s, com'on, I am nearly running 10s and nearing the 255g/sec, but not getting there all the way?

I know alot of people don't trust the numbers or are doubting the validity of them, but I again will extend the offer to go over my car/logs anytime I am at the track, or even if you want to stop by the house, I always have cold ones on tap for my friends.

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Because of this table:

Please see the old post by kvu where I went through a lot of the MAF code and explained it. A link is in the sticky you (Trax) recently placed at the top of this board.

Thanks,

RBob.

TRAXION

Of course you are going to pull less grams / sec with a car having a cam. This is a no-brainer guys. You are misinterpreting this fact entirely. A car with a cam is less volumetrically efficient at lower RPMs. Thus, you are gonna pull lower grams / sec. Here's an example - my 230 cammed IROC pulls HALF the air that a normally cammed IROC will pull at lower RPMs. I had to cut my lower VE table by almost half! This is because the engine is less volumetrically efficient at the lower RPMs.

Tim

TRAXION

Thanks RBob. So - he is pegging an ECM limit. I knew something was screwy.

Tim

ski_dwn_it

Trax, I swear to *** on my kids lives that is the data that I got last night. The reason I did not say anything earlier today when I looked at the graphs plotted last night, I thought that maybe the software did not graph above 255, as it is very close, but now that I looked at the actual reported values....it is the twighlight zone....wish I could attach a sound clip to this thread when people opened it. LOL.

I have never touched the MAF tables so their is no way they could be reporting bad values.....Corky had his car logged a long while ago and he said his wasn't either. Also their is a guy that is ran a vette down into the mid 10 on motor alone and MAF. I am gonna try to dig up his email and see what he thinks. I know he went to a 1300CFM throttle body, maybe the 58 MM one is not big enough....I don't have my calucator here in from of me, what is 1000CFM => g/sec? Maybe my TB is a bottleneck as he cound his was....I don't think it is though.

Crazy stuff happening here.....LOL

ski_dwn_it

My bad, I remember seeing that table......on tunercats 1f definition, but is it in the 6e? I don't recall seeing it there, but I did on Corkyvettes.

Wonder how much air this critter is pulling.


Yep I see it now on both: MAF vs RPM its present on both. can you change that to report a higher number. It looks like I am maxing it out at about 2500 RPM

TRAXION

My bad too. I should have remembered about that table too. We usually reset the table for maximum airflow.

Tim

ski_dwn_it

What do you do to reset the values, can you give me showing of your tables values for an example. i would like to get accurately reported g/sec readings on this thing for these runs tomorrow night. It will help us see the demand one of these engines needs.

87400tpi

What I'm saying is once in p.e. ,p.e. is in control.The maf sensor readings are not the ECM's focus once in power enrichment.The tables are the foundation of the maf system.But p.e. is an entirly different mode.It might help to think of the ecm as a human brain.Seperate closed loop(creative side) from p.e.(or alpha-n?/technical side)In closed loop input from even the coolant sensor is important.Traxx,in closed loop you are 100% correct about the 255 thing.But p.e. has a totally different focus.Now reread the other post and tell me if you think I'm crazy.

ski_dwn_it

87400tpi,

Nope i think you are absolutely correct, that is my rational when I have been tuning for AFR during WOT, and the reason in the begining I was saying who cares about g/sec.

Although now you all have me curious to what the actual values are for g/sec, but my tuning is not going to change any, regardless of the numbers.

I think in a sense that is what you are saying too 87400, if I am not mistaken...its sorta like a carb setup, with the primaries you are dumping in x amount of fuel up to the point the secondaries start to open then its x+secondary fuel addition. Like you said you have a foundation the primaries, then you add onto it with the secondary fuel feed. Likewise you have closed loop, up to a certain point with X fuel, then you add the PE mode and you control the fuel addition with no regards to actual g/sec increase, you just watch the AFR. In terms of the ECM it conrols the fuel up to 255, then it just adds fuel.

is that what you are trying to say. this is what I meant before with my "I don't care about air flow at WOT statement."

TRAXION

I'm going to say again - Prove it. You said that "In closed loop input from even the coolant sensor is important". Dude - this is important in PE mode also. You absolutely cannot separate PE mode from reading the MAF sensor. Yes, PE is a mode. Yes, things are different in PE mode. This is elementary. These facts have nothing to do with whether or not the ECM is looking at the MAF sensor during PE. You completely ignored my other post. During PE mode the ECM looks at the Coolant Temp, MAF Counts, etc. and then uses the PE tables to modify PW. From what you are saying the ECM only uses PE information. That it absolutely totally 100% not true. I do think you're crazy. However, I am willing to reverse and say that you are right if you prove to me that the ECM does not use MAF readings at all during WOT. Good luck on that one.

Tim

Eric Marshall

Rbob, thanks for the info above. I understand what you're saying. It seems like if the O2 was within the window of say .450 to .650, the a/f wouldn't be different enough to be discernable. Maybe a range of 14.5 to 14.8? I dunno...


As far as MAF,
The MAF reading is used always. The instant the car starts running, part throttle, PE, WOT, always. It is the biggest part of the pulsewidth calculation. Even if its pegged at 255, its still used. When PE mode is entered, the program looks up the a/f ratio that you want from the PE A/F vs Coolant table, adjusts that a/f with your PE trim tables, looks at the MAF airflow and makes its calculation (I left out some stuff for clarity). Once the MAF stops climbing and stays at 255, you need another way to tell the ecm to increase fuel. So you start "artificially" lowering the a/f ratio by adding to the PE vs. RPM table.

On the turbo Buicks we have to do this all the time with the stock MAF setup, since it will peg 255 at about 3600rpm (depending on the car).

Regards,
Eric

ski_dwn_it

I think Trax what he is saying and 87400 correct me if I am wrong is what I am saying in the above post.

87400tpi

You can't hold me to that statement because I said the maf sensors output is not the primary focus.I never held to some fact that the maf is irrelevent in pe.But if you want to challenge me then unhook the maf then go wot,I bet you the desired a/f is retained. That is IF,IF the maf TABLES are correct.So go do what I said to verify that the important factor in pe is the maf tables,not the actual output.It seems like you forgot the maf output is 0-5volts.That is what the ecm sees,after that it ia all calculated.

87400tpi

What I want to know is if the pw aldl readout is direct data or filtered.

87400tpi

Listen eric(grumpy?),turbo buicks are cool but not applicable to this thread,goodbye.

TRAXION

Well - I am outta here due to family vacation. Other moderators will be watching the board. I'll return on Wednesday of next week and will probably reply at that point.

Ski - just need to reset the Max count table at the various RPMs to allow the ECM to peg 255. From the BUA hac you can see how the ECM will use the values from that table instead of the true reading ...

87400tpi - I don't know what else to say. The MAF is being used and now you seem to be saying that it is but just not the main focus. In terms of pulling the MAF. Don't you realize that doing that will set the ECM into a mode where SAFE parameters are utilized?

In any case - I am outta here. Lata!

Tim

87400tpi

if you was'nt on vacation you understand everything.That bit of code proves my case ,not yours.See the"actual gr/sec"?Well the "actual gr/sec" is a calculation.The maf has no gr/sec output,it's just volts.The maf scalar tables are for the conversion from volts to gr/sec(not tables only function).The piece of code looks from the maf tables for the "actual gr/sec".Rbob,please correct me anytime.

TRAXION

One last thought before I go. This should clearly show where I am coming from.

Power Enrichment is a mode that modifies output. PE spark adds to the spark. PE fuel adds to the fuel. Get it? Got it? Good.

Speaking about a high performance heads/cam car:

With a Speed Density system you can completely disable PE and the car will not run lean at WOT if you tuned the 100kPa curve. The system has the resolution to handle this because it can calculate the true amount of incoming air using the Air law.

With a MAF system if you completely disable PE the car will run very lean at WOT - to the point of damage. Why? Because the ECM does not have the resolution to determine the incoming airflow.

Generally speaking, you want PE to change the 14.7 AFR. PE is an adder. You want it to modify the stoichiometric AFR. High Power MAF systems cannot maintain 14.7 AFR at WOT because the ECM cannot measure the true amount of incoming air. There is not enough resolution. Thus, you use PE to fudge the extra amount of fuel to obtain 14.7 and to also add to that 14.7 to get your optimal 12.x AFR.

Get it yet? I hope so. I can't be any clearer than this post. Everytime I post you seem to totally ignore what I say and then state something else. Like I said, I am outta here for several days. But, even when I come back I refuse to touch on this subject until you address what I have said herein. This post clearly shows how MAF loses resolution and how you have to use the PE table to add the fuel to get to 14.7 (the FUDGE!) plus add the extra fuel to get to your 12.x AFR for true power.

Tim

TRAXION

Dude why are you stating obvious things that everybody knows and then saying they prove your case. It's like me saying ...

"Hey - the statue of liberty is in New York. That proves my case, not yours."

WTF? Of course volts is related to gr/sec. Geez. MAF scalars are used for conversion. Ummm - yea. We knew about this years ago on this very board. If anything you just proved my case - the scalars peg at 255 (as we all know). The ECM has no clue about incoming air once volts go above what is linked to 255.

Fu(k it. I'm officially completely done with this post even when I get back from vacation. Those who understand ECMs will clearly see my points. Nobody is listening to the facts.

Tim

87400tpi

oh yeah almost forgot.Well explain how one maf car went faster w/o maf hooked up.Falty maf probally, but exlpain it.I'm speaking from real world experience here,no fomulations.

87400tpi

First the maf system does'nt lose resolution.It does'nt even use resolution,period.Maf does'nt appear to work on this "AIR LAW".No resolution in the maf system,period.So diabling pe would be a death sentence w/ maf.Pe(for maf) is not a "adder",it is a mode.PE is a special mode,not adder.You can't use speed density as a crutch on this one.

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Ha-ha, just because you were outed doesn't mean that Eric & Grumpy are the same person. Besides those turbo Buicks run MAF too.

RBob.

87400tpi

I am aware of the buicks runnung maf.But with that kind of boost,is another ball game.Besides turbo's induce positive pressure to the maf.Forced air is different than pulled air.That is why I pointed this out.RBob,what have you seen in the code that conflicts with any of my statements.I was kvu,you helped me awhile ago with the code.

ski_dwn_it

IMHO I think your both saying the same thing in a round about way. My head hurts and so do my hands....

I'm going to get my car ready to Race it tomorrow. I have to sand out the inside of my MAF, and then polish it so it flows more air and I can get into the 10s. j/k

I'm really not a smart azz......just trying to lighten the death mode some are in....

Eric Marshall

Me? Grumpy? Naw.... But I do want his ecm bench

Well even though you don't want me here (hee hee) I'm gonna answer anyway. (And the buicks pull through the maf, it's not pressurized.)

On to your question,

When you unplug the MAF, it then uses a default MAF reading.
Something like this:


;--------------------------------------------
; DEFAULT AIR FLOW OFFSET PER PCT TPS VS RPM
; Value = Gms/Sec * 100 pct, (Offset)
;
; TBL = Arg * 100
;--------------------------------------------
ORG $0217
LC217: FCB 8 ; Table Value
;
; Gms/Sec RPM
;------------------------
FCB 30 ; 0.30 400
FCB 90 ; 0.90 800
FCB 110 ; 1.10 1200
FCB 135 ; 1.35 1600
FCB 150 ; 1.50 2000
FCB 175 ; 1.75 2400
FCB 210 ; 2.10 3200
FCB 225 ; 2.25 4000
FCB 230 ; 2.30 4800
;--------------------------------------------


For example, if the TPS was 80%, you mult. 80*2.3 at 4800rpm. This gives you a default airflow of 184gr/sec at 4800rpm.

If the 184 was lower than what you had with the MAF hooked up, then it will be leaner....and maybe faster.

You should be able to get the same result by hooking the MAF back up, and reduce the PE fuel that was added in the PE vs RPM table. (Or subtract fuel if none was added).

Just tryin' to help

Regards,
Eric

Grumpy

Eric is Eric, Grumpy is Grumpy.

The GN uses the same ecm as the 89 TTA and is in fact related to this thread.

Good attempt thou at wiggling out of responding thou.

Grumpy

Easy.
But your claiming to know the answers, so explain it.

And while your at it, how poor is the system that runs best without it's primary sensor?.