Bottom line...
04-20-2003, 07:56 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Bottom line...
Well I just returned from St Louis, and exactly what I talked about on the way home with my Dad happened with my post.
Here is the bottom line the way I see it.
This is a network of people that reply on a fews experience to gain the confidence needed to tune the EFI cars we run. I can admit that I once was in those shoes, but the majority of the work was done on my scanner and hours infront of the computer sifting through the tables and trying different combinations.
At the close of last year I set out to match Corkvette1s setup of a 406. He had run an 11.10@124 for a best up to that point.
At the break of the long winter here I slapped together a tune that consisted of only two chip burns to get the results I have already tried to share with you. The first track results were 11.147@123 on a DA of ~1600. 60' times equaling 1.534 with 3.07 gears. BLMs across the board of 127-131 in all cells. With et of 11.147&MPH of 123 in a full corvette trim car weighing ~3400 lbs => ~450+ RWHP. This is fed through the MAF system that is the root of the stumbling block that few can get past the myth that they can't supply the car enough air or resolution, or tunability. I posted not to brag about my car, but to shed some light on the fact and to disprove the better majority of people's ideas that MAF can't support such an engine and that SD is the only way to go with such an engine.
I am VERY thankful I took the time to make up my own mind when considering between the MAF and SD system. COrky is running the dinasour of computer for EFI systems with mail order chip for *** sakes. I have seen his car run and obviously have driven my car, they both are extremely quick and ungodly powerful from any RPM and just can't imagine how someone thinks they car tune it better than 127-131 BLMs in closed loop and maintain a 12.8 AFR at WOT any better with SD?
The post was to bring about not a pissing match but the fact that unless your running quicker than those times, under a more demanding setup, there is NO reason to go SD, UNLESS you want to fiddle around more with more tables and spend about 10x as long trying to get 128 BLMs across every cell instead of 127 or 131. (Like you would be able to tell the difference anyways) :lol
What really makes me bitter is that people that don't go nearly as fast still argue and make childish remarks to cause the threads to get closed, also and this is my opinion is that the mods close things too fast, let the people work things out. No one is using profanities or threatening the well being of peoples families or anything that would warrent a closure. This is not a bash on the mods, but just my thoughts. PLEASE do not take it personally.
The discussion that was closed was one that was bringing to light the capabilities of MAF and what it can handle, not what people think it can't. I would like to see a show of hands that people were suprised that the MAF system could go that fast with virtual little time, honestly spent ~1 hour tops with the tuning of it, granted I will admit I was pretty lucky, but there was alot of planning put into it as well.
Granted I'm sure some people are defensive do to corky and I both running so consistant and such good ETs. But rather than tell us we can't do what we obviously are doing, why not take a step back and observe what it is we ARE doing.
I am certain that one of us or both of us by the end of the season will be running consistantly in the 10s. This is not an easy thing to do with a street car that can be driven every day to work.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that my main point I was trying to make in the original post was that you DO NOT need an exact tune on the Spark advance, etc to get good results. COrky and I are running two very different timing tables. ~12-15* diffence between the two. And to also mention he has made a ~10* change on his with very little efffect on ET. I think he only ran ~.1 slower with a huge jump in base timing.
I guess what I am tying to do here is point out the fact that this tuning is not an exact thing. You can be running very well have unbelievable drivability and not have to be some expert tuner.
It was suggested that my car is probably a bear on the streets, well I would be happy to let anyone drive in it and tell me that they wouldn' in a second trade me cars. I think that the ones that said that would be very shocked at the performance that is unleashed at even the slightest movement in the gas peddle.
To all you MAF guys out there that want to have a little more to draw from in the way of posts. This is your time to speak up. And it will most likely be my last attempt at trying to get a little more light onto the MAFs ability.
The bottom line is this: The SD and MAF systems are both VERY ample systems easily able to take cars into the 10s. The SD system is one that requires alot of attention to get right and hours of tweaking to eliminate hesitations, fuel irregularities, spark advance. MAF is one that is much more forgiving and will perform everybit as good as the SD system with 10x less time and headaches with 1/3 as few corrections that need to be made to get it to perform everybit as good.
I like to take my car to the track and on the far and few between days here in PA we have nice weather, if I'm not at the track, I want to be enjoying my car on the street. Not haggling over a computer trying to eliminate hesitations, playing with a zillion tables and banging my head off the wall as the day slips away just to be followed by a rainy next.
Let hear from the people that want more MAF discussions, and more openness on the board with discussions about it. If you can't keep the comments to the facts and adult attitudes, without implying then please refrain from commenting. The mods have better things to do.
Here is the bottom line the way I see it.
This is a network of people that reply on a fews experience to gain the confidence needed to tune the EFI cars we run. I can admit that I once was in those shoes, but the majority of the work was done on my scanner and hours infront of the computer sifting through the tables and trying different combinations.
At the close of last year I set out to match Corkvette1s setup of a 406. He had run an 11.10@124 for a best up to that point.
At the break of the long winter here I slapped together a tune that consisted of only two chip burns to get the results I have already tried to share with you. The first track results were 11.147@123 on a DA of ~1600. 60' times equaling 1.534 with 3.07 gears. BLMs across the board of 127-131 in all cells. With et of 11.147&MPH of 123 in a full corvette trim car weighing ~3400 lbs => ~450+ RWHP. This is fed through the MAF system that is the root of the stumbling block that few can get past the myth that they can't supply the car enough air or resolution, or tunability. I posted not to brag about my car, but to shed some light on the fact and to disprove the better majority of people's ideas that MAF can't support such an engine and that SD is the only way to go with such an engine.
I am VERY thankful I took the time to make up my own mind when considering between the MAF and SD system. COrky is running the dinasour of computer for EFI systems with mail order chip for *** sakes. I have seen his car run and obviously have driven my car, they both are extremely quick and ungodly powerful from any RPM and just can't imagine how someone thinks they car tune it better than 127-131 BLMs in closed loop and maintain a 12.8 AFR at WOT any better with SD?
The post was to bring about not a pissing match but the fact that unless your running quicker than those times, under a more demanding setup, there is NO reason to go SD, UNLESS you want to fiddle around more with more tables and spend about 10x as long trying to get 128 BLMs across every cell instead of 127 or 131. (Like you would be able to tell the difference anyways) :lol
What really makes me bitter is that people that don't go nearly as fast still argue and make childish remarks to cause the threads to get closed, also and this is my opinion is that the mods close things too fast, let the people work things out. No one is using profanities or threatening the well being of peoples families or anything that would warrent a closure. This is not a bash on the mods, but just my thoughts. PLEASE do not take it personally.
The discussion that was closed was one that was bringing to light the capabilities of MAF and what it can handle, not what people think it can't. I would like to see a show of hands that people were suprised that the MAF system could go that fast with virtual little time, honestly spent ~1 hour tops with the tuning of it, granted I will admit I was pretty lucky, but there was alot of planning put into it as well.
Granted I'm sure some people are defensive do to corky and I both running so consistant and such good ETs. But rather than tell us we can't do what we obviously are doing, why not take a step back and observe what it is we ARE doing.
I am certain that one of us or both of us by the end of the season will be running consistantly in the 10s. This is not an easy thing to do with a street car that can be driven every day to work.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that my main point I was trying to make in the original post was that you DO NOT need an exact tune on the Spark advance, etc to get good results. COrky and I are running two very different timing tables. ~12-15* diffence between the two. And to also mention he has made a ~10* change on his with very little efffect on ET. I think he only ran ~.1 slower with a huge jump in base timing.
I guess what I am tying to do here is point out the fact that this tuning is not an exact thing. You can be running very well have unbelievable drivability and not have to be some expert tuner.
It was suggested that my car is probably a bear on the streets, well I would be happy to let anyone drive in it and tell me that they wouldn' in a second trade me cars. I think that the ones that said that would be very shocked at the performance that is unleashed at even the slightest movement in the gas peddle.
To all you MAF guys out there that want to have a little more to draw from in the way of posts. This is your time to speak up. And it will most likely be my last attempt at trying to get a little more light onto the MAFs ability.
The bottom line is this: The SD and MAF systems are both VERY ample systems easily able to take cars into the 10s. The SD system is one that requires alot of attention to get right and hours of tweaking to eliminate hesitations, fuel irregularities, spark advance. MAF is one that is much more forgiving and will perform everybit as good as the SD system with 10x less time and headaches with 1/3 as few corrections that need to be made to get it to perform everybit as good.
I like to take my car to the track and on the far and few between days here in PA we have nice weather, if I'm not at the track, I want to be enjoying my car on the street. Not haggling over a computer trying to eliminate hesitations, playing with a zillion tables and banging my head off the wall as the day slips away just to be followed by a rainy next.
Let hear from the people that want more MAF discussions, and more openness on the board with discussions about it. If you can't keep the comments to the facts and adult attitudes, without implying then please refrain from commenting. The mods have better things to do.
04-20-2003, 08:49 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ohio
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i completly agree with you on the maf subject! i read these boards almost every night tryin to learn more about the maf cars and find that the majority of the post are on the sd setup. i am runnin the 165 6e and i like tunin it. i am having good success on gettin closer to the 128 blm mark with this setup. i hope to learn alot more tuning skills from the people that reply to this post along with the other maf posts. not knockin sd at all, im just not plannin on switching over so i need to learn all i can on the maf setup. thanks to all the people who have all helped so far. 
04-20-2003, 08:56 PM
#3
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Here is a video of the second to the last run, just for validity puposes....Dad did not video the last run which was actually quicker.
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/ski.../vids/run2.wmv
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/ski.../vids/run2.wmv
04-21-2003, 12:09 AM
#4
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ski
MAF is what most people have anyway as SD was only in 90-92 and production was down in those years. Hell, for a lightly modded car there isnt much of a need to even tune the MAF setup but when you lightly mod SD you can get the ECM out of whack fast. I have an 87 Formula with 165 MAF. I am nearing completion of a wicked SR-383 and have absolutley no intentions of changing it to SD once I finally get it back together, what a headache that would be!!!
Since I will start tuning it within a few weeks I welcome all conversation on what it will take to make it run well.
It would be nice to see you list step by step in order of what you tuned in the chip and why and what the outcome was. Maybe something like a tutorial that documents as to why you were so successfull.
It would also be nice not to hear the word SD mentioned any further in this thread. If we wanna hear the big debate and the other BS involved we can look at the countless other MAF threads that have been ruined by the SD bandwagon.
Hopefully this will remain purely MAF with just tech talk. Fingers crossed!!!
EDIT:
Sweet launch!
MAF is what most people have anyway as SD was only in 90-92 and production was down in those years. Hell, for a lightly modded car there isnt much of a need to even tune the MAF setup but when you lightly mod SD you can get the ECM out of whack fast. I have an 87 Formula with 165 MAF. I am nearing completion of a wicked SR-383 and have absolutley no intentions of changing it to SD once I finally get it back together, what a headache that would be!!!
Since I will start tuning it within a few weeks I welcome all conversation on what it will take to make it run well.
It would be nice to see you list step by step in order of what you tuned in the chip and why and what the outcome was. Maybe something like a tutorial that documents as to why you were so successfull.
It would also be nice not to hear the word SD mentioned any further in this thread. If we wanna hear the big debate and the other BS involved we can look at the countless other MAF threads that have been ruined by the SD bandwagon.
Hopefully this will remain purely MAF with just tech talk. Fingers crossed!!!
EDIT:
Sweet launch!
Last edited by OMINOUS_87; 04-21-2003 at 12:12 AM.
04-21-2003, 11:32 AM
#6
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Claremore, Taxahoma
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: has 4 wheels
Engine: hampster
Transmission: rubber band
I'm still stock but was going to switch to SD to get a jump on a future build up I'm planning. There just doesn't seem to be much out the for the MAF guys and figured i'd move to something better supported. Think I might just hold off and make a go with what I've got. Not ruling out a switch later since i now have a 730 and 727. Thanks for the inspiration. I'm also tired of the bickering, this is a good place to learn but also seems like a soap opera at times. I'm still basically a lurker but I'm trying to learn so that I can contribute but can't provide opinion on stuff I don't know. getting there and will get there with MAF.
04-21-2003, 12:27 PM
#7
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Guys,
Yeah Trax I got your mail, I understand your position as a mod, and hope you understand mine as a reader/poster.
Perhaps these posts will bring out the lurkers as black87 has called himself and let them speak freely with regards to MAF techniques. There are a million ways to tune either system. One way might work and make sense to one person, while another may be totally opposite, and work equally well.
This section of the forum needs to lighten up a little and allow people to speak more freely. I for one, don't care if people disagree and at times people of the opposite opinion may feel that I am just stirring up trouble, but its actually quite the opposite. I am trying to just free up the way for communication. If I was to just read the front page of posts, here today as a newcomer I would see one thing. Alot of posts concerning SD, and tuning of that system. The second thing would be some idiot (me
) going out a limb to help support the MAF people out there. I still don't know why, but I guess I wish there would have been more support for it when I was forging through the tables trying to make ryme or reason out of it all.
The better majority of people that are tuning probably are MAF tuners, yet you see very little posting about it. When you do the attitudes of the people replying are over anxious to point out the flaws of their theories and say they should switch to SD.
I am not an expert tuner by no means, there are people on here that could walk cirlces around me with either system I am sure, but I know enough to be dangerous and I do know what works for me and most likely I will get the same results as some of the best tuners around.
I don't want to point any fingures but there are a few people here that know much more than the rest, but just like an employee that really knows their job and is a real crackerjack when figuring stuff out, yet that same employee on the other hand causes all sorts of problems with the other employees, sometimes you would be better off without them.
Alot of people on here that are just the lurkers would share much more information for the newcomers to pull from if people would just allow them to speak freely.
The people that are genuinly trying to post relevant stuff and sharing information should be praised , while the other that make problems should be warned, then banned for good. But that doesn't do any good, because they just come back with a diffent user name.
Yeah Trax I got your mail, I understand your position as a mod, and hope you understand mine as a reader/poster.
Perhaps these posts will bring out the lurkers as black87 has called himself and let them speak freely with regards to MAF techniques. There are a million ways to tune either system. One way might work and make sense to one person, while another may be totally opposite, and work equally well.
This section of the forum needs to lighten up a little and allow people to speak more freely. I for one, don't care if people disagree and at times people of the opposite opinion may feel that I am just stirring up trouble, but its actually quite the opposite. I am trying to just free up the way for communication. If I was to just read the front page of posts, here today as a newcomer I would see one thing. Alot of posts concerning SD, and tuning of that system. The second thing would be some idiot (me
) going out a limb to help support the MAF people out there. I still don't know why, but I guess I wish there would have been more support for it when I was forging through the tables trying to make ryme or reason out of it all.The better majority of people that are tuning probably are MAF tuners, yet you see very little posting about it. When you do the attitudes of the people replying are over anxious to point out the flaws of their theories and say they should switch to SD.
I am not an expert tuner by no means, there are people on here that could walk cirlces around me with either system I am sure, but I know enough to be dangerous and I do know what works for me and most likely I will get the same results as some of the best tuners around.
I don't want to point any fingures but there are a few people here that know much more than the rest, but just like an employee that really knows their job and is a real crackerjack when figuring stuff out, yet that same employee on the other hand causes all sorts of problems with the other employees, sometimes you would be better off without them.
Alot of people on here that are just the lurkers would share much more information for the newcomers to pull from if people would just allow them to speak freely.
The people that are genuinly trying to post relevant stuff and sharing information should be praised , while the other that make problems should be warned, then banned for good. But that doesn't do any good, because they just come back with a diffent user name.
Trending Topics
04-21-2003, 12:53 PM
#9
TGO Supporter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Bone Yard
Posts: 10,907
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: Death Mobile
Engine: 666 c.i.
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
The better majority of people that are tuning probably are MAF tuners, yet you see very little posting about it.
The better majority of people that are tuning probably are MAF tuners, yet you see very little posting about it.
MAF works great right on heavily modified engine with only needing minor changes?
Last edited by Grim Reaper; 04-21-2003 at 12:57 PM.
04-21-2003, 01:51 PM
#10
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 3,827
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Chevy Camaro Hardtop
Engine: Turbocharged/Intercooled 3.1
Transmission: World Class T5 5 Speed
I'm curious... did you have to modify your computer/maf in any way, outside the prom? I've been under the impression that our MAF cars couldn't read over 255g/s...
04-21-2003, 02:30 PM
#11
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Welland, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 85 Monte Carlo SS...
Engine: T.P.I L98.
Transmission: TH350
Axle/Gears: 3:73 Posi
I completely agree with you ski_dwn_it. I too have tried to ask questions in the past about tunning the MAF, but most of the times I got the old "screw MAF..change to SD" Well you have shown me exactly what I am after, and I will be watching your efforts over the season to learn as much as I can. Please lets keep this thread on the level..If you post about SD crap here just to argue..please don't. This thread should not be a debate, this should be for the people using MAF to share there findings in a mature fashion. Keep the GOOD info coming please..
04-21-2003, 02:51 PM
#12
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Doward, and the rest, please read this article. I just answered some important items, but more improtantly, raised some VERY interesting questions we all need to ask ourselves. 
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=174120
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=174120
04-21-2003, 03:54 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live in St Louis!I will share w/ everyone it was possible to get my 406 128blms in everywhere until I hit pe.It did'nt take that long either.But it took great understanding of the maf code.
04-21-2003, 04:22 PM
#14
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,402
Likes: 0
Received 215 Likes
on
201 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Originally posted by Doward
I've been under the impression that our MAF cars couldn't read over 255g/s...
I've been under the impression that our MAF cars couldn't read over 255g/s...
RBob.
04-21-2003, 04:33 PM
#15
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ohio
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so now that the maf guys are coming here, where should we start to get the blms to 128 at idle? after this, what is the next step to get into part throttle tuning? are there areas to tune other than the maf tables to trim the blms at idle and part throttle? ive already set the fuel inj. constant to where it is actually supposed to be and started messin with the first two maf tables to start getting the blms to 128 at idle. thanks for starting this post, ill be visiting this post frequently.:hail:
04-21-2003, 08:51 PM
#16
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To tell you the truth,I am hesitant to share my proven methods for tuning maf just yet.Every time I share the correct way for my setup,I got chewed up and spit out.But I know for a fact my way was the best way for my setup.It does'nt feel safe yet,but you can email me.It's almost like the diary of maf frank.
04-21-2003, 09:16 PM
#18
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive already set the fuel inj. constant to where it is actually supposed to be and started messin with the first two maf tables to start getting the blms to 128 at idle. with your
04-21-2003, 09:28 PM
#19
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
87400tpi
Come on now! Give the details. We all just wanna know what works and what dont. If you are right or wrong at least other people who are here can hear about it and understand.
This is the MAF lovefest thread!
Come on now! Give the details. We all just wanna know what works and what dont. If you are right or wrong at least other people who are here can hear about it and understand.
This is the MAF lovefest thread!
04-21-2003, 09:31 PM
#20
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Claremore, Taxahoma
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: has 4 wheels
Engine: hampster
Transmission: rubber band
"To tell you the truth,I am hesitant to share my proven methods for tuning maf just yet.Every time I share the correct way for my setup,I got chewed up and spit out.But I know for a fact my way was the best way for my setup.It does'nt feel safe yet,but you can email me.It's almost like the diary of maf frank."
You joking or serious?? This is why i'm here, to learn. Maybe your way isn't right, got me. I haven't found a "correct way" yet it seems for the MAF. I liked the way funstick had it going on the 32 32b etc post but seems I got myself lost there but it's a good start until it turned into bickering. It seemed to get back on track again just to stop cold. So please share your way, everyone share your way and we'll work it out, i'm ready.
You joking or serious?? This is why i'm here, to learn. Maybe your way isn't right, got me. I haven't found a "correct way" yet it seems for the MAF. I liked the way funstick had it going on the 32 32b etc post but seems I got myself lost there but it's a good start until it turned into bickering. It seemed to get back on track again just to stop cold. So please share your way, everyone share your way and we'll work it out, i'm ready.
Last edited by black87c4; 04-21-2003 at 09:34 PM.
04-21-2003, 10:41 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not afraid of sharing bust info,that would'nt happen.What works on my car might not work for you.Trust me I have burned hundreds of maf chips.I have a system approach to tuning the maf tables.They almost never need radical reshaping.You might be suprised at the minute amount of changes it takes to dial in the maf tables.
It's just ...Ok I'll share what has worked for me.You want idle tuning for maf?But one time someone starts it w/ me,we'll have to switch to email.I don't want to get banned,again.I will start this by saying the key to maf tuning is the maf tables.That is if you really want to get good gas mileage and flawless drivabilty.Also it CAN smooth out quirks that a stock setup has from the factory.Keep in mind the factory has different bins for different air intake tracts,among other things.Look and you can see GM has modified the maf tables to address engine/chassis variances.So I feel the maf table always can use some attention.That is if you want to get picky,like me.
It's just ...Ok I'll share what has worked for me.You want idle tuning for maf?But one time someone starts it w/ me,we'll have to switch to email.I don't want to get banned,again.I will start this by saying the key to maf tuning is the maf tables.That is if you really want to get good gas mileage and flawless drivabilty.Also it CAN smooth out quirks that a stock setup has from the factory.Keep in mind the factory has different bins for different air intake tracts,among other things.Look and you can see GM has modified the maf tables to address engine/chassis variances.So I feel the maf table always can use some attention.That is if you want to get picky,like me.
04-22-2003, 12:54 AM
#22
I've always (to attain 128 blms) started with the inj. constant. Adjust it to attain blms close to 128 "across the board"; at all gps. Some may be slightly higher than and some slightly lower than 128.
However at this point I pay the most attention to getting the blms nearest 128 in the upper maf tables.
At that point I've found that usually the only adjustment needed to the maf tables is in the first table.
Also the idle blms-I use the maf tables- I tried the inj. pulse width correct vs batt voltage without any real world succesfull results.
Then for the wide band....not only for wot, but I've also found it invaluable for "pump shot" adjustments. So there's my way of "skinin' a cat"...
Oh yea, BTW-I'm running a super-ram, and 5lbs of boost with an fmu (of course vac./ boost referenced) ; so that's also "doable" with maf.......and it passes smog.....hmmm, maybe someone will do a write up on how to swap to maf...
However at this point I pay the most attention to getting the blms nearest 128 in the upper maf tables.
At that point I've found that usually the only adjustment needed to the maf tables is in the first table.
Also the idle blms-I use the maf tables- I tried the inj. pulse width correct vs batt voltage without any real world succesfull results.
Then for the wide band....not only for wot, but I've also found it invaluable for "pump shot" adjustments. So there's my way of "skinin' a cat"...
Oh yea, BTW-I'm running a super-ram, and 5lbs of boost with an fmu (of course vac./ boost referenced) ; so that's also "doable" with maf.......and it passes smog.....hmmm, maybe someone will do a write up on how to swap to maf...
04-22-2003, 01:07 AM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Claremore, Taxahoma
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: has 4 wheels
Engine: hampster
Transmission: rubber band
What would be the difference between changing the maf tables as opposed to changing the BPW FUEL vs LOAD, msec table. (i'm going off of the 32 32b stickey) I guess is it like going straight to the source instead of changing the calculated value?? Do you end up with the same result or is it a finer way to get it or just a different way?
And while were at it is the WOT % change to fuel\air ratio vs rpm the correct table for PE tuning?
And while were at it is the WOT % change to fuel\air ratio vs rpm the correct table for PE tuning?
04-22-2003, 01:18 AM
#24
Originally posted by black87c4
What would be the difference between changing the maf tables as opposed to changing the BPW FUEL vs LOAD, msec table. (i'm going off of the 32 32b stickey) I guess is it like going straight to the source instead of changing the calculated value?? Do you end up with the same result or is it a finer way to get it or just a different way?
And while were at it is the WOT % change to fuel\air ratio vs rpm the correct table for PE tuning?
What would be the difference between changing the maf tables as opposed to changing the BPW FUEL vs LOAD, msec table. (i'm going off of the 32 32b stickey) I guess is it like going straight to the source instead of changing the calculated value?? Do you end up with the same result or is it a finer way to get it or just a different way?
And while were at it is the WOT % change to fuel\air ratio vs rpm the correct table for PE tuning?
On the second question-yes, that's the table you want.
04-22-2003, 07:15 AM
#25
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
What the people that are tuning these things with good results keep telling you, is you don't need to adjust the MAF tables to achieve ~128 BLMs. 87400tpi did and not saying its wrong there is just no real need to.
All you need to do is play with the injector constants and you will get it darn near right on. If your plus or minum a few from 128 it really doesn't matter. Now if your 108 or to the other spectrum 160 then you have issues.
I would say a good rule would be to say if your +/- 5 your good, if your +/- its OK.
At idle you will have to play with the MAF tables most likely to get them within those windows, but what I have found is the cars seem to idle better at ~138-140. I think its because the car is able to regulate the fuel easier when its adding fuel to correct the lean state.
I really only mess with a few tables when tuning.
1. Spark Tables
2. Injector constants (along with emissions, etc in that table)
3. Pump shot, as drive it mentioned
4. Startup tables Crank pulse width multi*
5. Desired Idle speeds*
6. Knock tables* (on mine they are zeroed out), On cars I am gonna run the knock sensor with I increase the recovery rate substantualy
7. Pe AFR vs RPM for WOT tuning (nearly always need a source of a WB02 to get right.
*these tables I typically always use the same values for, so its a one shot deal.
So you are left with 4 tables to contend with. First use the injector constant to get the blms about 128. Very little changes made huge differences when you get close, just play around with it and keep checking the BLMs.
Next check to see where you are getting spark retard, you will have to play with the timing here. Pay attention to areas of knock introduced because of a lack of pump shot, this may need increased. Also you will need a WB to effectively see this and tune to it.
You may need to go back and forth with the injector constant, timing, and pump shot to get it all dialed in. Its sorta a balancing act. To think about it in your head typically you need more fuel when you add more advance. So if you pull a bunch of timing in an area, you most likely with get a richer reading after, this obviously can also not be the case, but its usually the case.
Once you get them all nailed down, you should feel a big increase in throttle response, and overall driveability. Its really obvious when you take a car that is down in the 108 range in all cells to near 128.
All your doing when you achieve this 128 value is eliminating the correction the ECM has to do to fuel trims each time you adjust your foot on the throttle or increase the load on the engine with a hill or something. Therefore the less adjusting the ECM had to do to each situation you throw at it the snappier the car will feel, and the bigger the smile you will have will be.
Here is something I was gonna try, but never got around to it. Since I have the WB02, I was gonna unhook my O2 sensor, or now that I think about it, I guess I could just lock the BLMs to 128. This essentually would cause the ECM to not be able to make adjustments to fuel PW. Then all I would have to do is log my WBo2 and make adjustments to the above table to achieve 14.7 AFR. That was a sorta tangent idea there, but just food for thought.
Once you have part throttle all tuned then you can simply move onto WOT. make adjustments to the fuel curve there, respective to RPM in areas you need to richen or lean the mixture. Its important to note that if you make changed later or do this WOT tuning first, you will mess it up when you change the injector constants.
Did that sound easy? Well its really that easy to be honest with you. The big key here is the WB02, there is no doubt you would be just licking your finger and sticking it into the air for the pump shot area, and the WOT tuning without it.
Place with those injector constants to get a feel for it. You will see how things fall right into place. Increase the injector size to increase the BLMs and lower the constant to lower the BLMs. Once you start to get close, move the values in very small incriments to fine adjust.
Hope this helps and Drive it...like your last sentence
All you need to do is play with the injector constants and you will get it darn near right on. If your plus or minum a few from 128 it really doesn't matter. Now if your 108 or to the other spectrum 160 then you have issues.
I would say a good rule would be to say if your +/- 5 your good, if your +/- its OK.
At idle you will have to play with the MAF tables most likely to get them within those windows, but what I have found is the cars seem to idle better at ~138-140. I think its because the car is able to regulate the fuel easier when its adding fuel to correct the lean state.
I really only mess with a few tables when tuning.
1. Spark Tables
2. Injector constants (along with emissions, etc in that table)
3. Pump shot, as drive it mentioned
4. Startup tables Crank pulse width multi*
5. Desired Idle speeds*
6. Knock tables* (on mine they are zeroed out), On cars I am gonna run the knock sensor with I increase the recovery rate substantualy
7. Pe AFR vs RPM for WOT tuning (nearly always need a source of a WB02 to get right.
*these tables I typically always use the same values for, so its a one shot deal.
So you are left with 4 tables to contend with. First use the injector constant to get the blms about 128. Very little changes made huge differences when you get close, just play around with it and keep checking the BLMs.
Next check to see where you are getting spark retard, you will have to play with the timing here. Pay attention to areas of knock introduced because of a lack of pump shot, this may need increased. Also you will need a WB to effectively see this and tune to it.
You may need to go back and forth with the injector constant, timing, and pump shot to get it all dialed in. Its sorta a balancing act. To think about it in your head typically you need more fuel when you add more advance. So if you pull a bunch of timing in an area, you most likely with get a richer reading after, this obviously can also not be the case, but its usually the case.
Once you get them all nailed down, you should feel a big increase in throttle response, and overall driveability. Its really obvious when you take a car that is down in the 108 range in all cells to near 128.
All your doing when you achieve this 128 value is eliminating the correction the ECM has to do to fuel trims each time you adjust your foot on the throttle or increase the load on the engine with a hill or something. Therefore the less adjusting the ECM had to do to each situation you throw at it the snappier the car will feel, and the bigger the smile you will have will be.
Here is something I was gonna try, but never got around to it. Since I have the WB02, I was gonna unhook my O2 sensor, or now that I think about it, I guess I could just lock the BLMs to 128. This essentually would cause the ECM to not be able to make adjustments to fuel PW. Then all I would have to do is log my WBo2 and make adjustments to the above table to achieve 14.7 AFR. That was a sorta tangent idea there, but just food for thought.
Once you have part throttle all tuned then you can simply move onto WOT. make adjustments to the fuel curve there, respective to RPM in areas you need to richen or lean the mixture. Its important to note that if you make changed later or do this WOT tuning first, you will mess it up when you change the injector constants.
Did that sound easy? Well its really that easy to be honest with you. The big key here is the WB02, there is no doubt you would be just licking your finger and sticking it into the air for the pump shot area, and the WOT tuning without it.
Place with those injector constants to get a feel for it. You will see how things fall right into place. Increase the injector size to increase the BLMs and lower the constant to lower the BLMs. Once you start to get close, move the values in very small incriments to fine adjust.
Hope this helps and Drive it...like your last sentence
04-22-2003, 07:27 AM
#26
Supreme Member
I'm going to be running 165/6e this season with an lt1 intake, i'm expecting low 12's to high 11's, MAF rocks
I would LOVE to see more 6e tuning info, the 32/32b guys have a loyal group of supporters, but 6e seems to be kinda hit and miss in the support area...
I would LOVE to see more 6e tuning info, the 32/32b guys have a loyal group of supporters, but 6e seems to be kinda hit and miss in the support area...
04-22-2003, 09:38 AM
#27
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ski there is one thing you are overlooking.I drive my car 3-4 hours a day every day.That gives me plenty of time to see rich and lean spots/shortcomings.But you are right 126-132blms is good enough for most.But I ended up with 128blms everywhere.That is because I'm picky and found away to do that.
04-22-2003, 09:42 AM
#28
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Claremore, Taxahoma
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: has 4 wheels
Engine: hampster
Transmission: rubber band
This is very COOL.......
So injector constants = Injector flo rate (single or double, thought double?)
Can't find any other tables for that, which one? or are you talking about BPW fuel vs. load (msec)
spark tables = spark adv vs. rpm vs. load and spark ad in WOT vs. rpm
pump shot = ACCEL enrich %bpw vs Asncy pulse
locking blm = set min/max to 128 for blm in contants table?
Startup tables Crank pulse width multi = ?
I'm gonna get some data from the vette today at lunch and then go from there. Thanks
So injector constants = Injector flo rate (single or double, thought double?)
Can't find any other tables for that, which one? or are you talking about BPW fuel vs. load (msec)
spark tables = spark adv vs. rpm vs. load and spark ad in WOT vs. rpm
pump shot = ACCEL enrich %bpw vs Asncy pulse
locking blm = set min/max to 128 for blm in contants table?
Startup tables Crank pulse width multi = ?
I'm gonna get some data from the vette today at lunch and then go from there. Thanks
04-22-2003, 09:56 AM
#29
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
There are two setting for injector constant in the constants table. I set both the single and double at the same value.
For the pump shot I have messed with the AE vs LV8
Locking the BLMs is something that I would not suggest that everyone do. I just mentioned it for sake of discussion and yet another way you can tune part throttle. I would not use this method starting out. Just use the injector const.
Startup crank PW multi. You will see two tables the one your interested in is the 1-16. The first several enteries are blank in there. I usually put them to .5, it seems to help with startups.
87400TPI,
I by no means think that your way would not work GREAT. Surely it would. And I'm sure you have a pretty good system to figure out what you need. I would like to see how you do it honestly, just for a backup system or to start a new tune on my car and see how it reacts to the difference and if there is a valid reason to get 128 everywhere opposed to 131 or 127.
Please share with us all!
I used a method a while back that I would have to dig up again from old posts that nailed the idle BLM at ~128 first try everytime. Its was adjusting the MAF tables, but like I said before the car seems to like a leaner (higher BLM ) at idle. So I haven't use it in a while. It was basically just taking a g/sec reading of the car in P. Then one in D. Then smoothing the first tables values to get the respective values. Worked great for getting 128.
This is great that every is freely talking about MAF methods. More has probably been uncovered here in the last few days than in the past year.
Keep it all coming
For the pump shot I have messed with the AE vs LV8
Locking the BLMs is something that I would not suggest that everyone do. I just mentioned it for sake of discussion and yet another way you can tune part throttle. I would not use this method starting out. Just use the injector const.
Startup crank PW multi. You will see two tables the one your interested in is the 1-16. The first several enteries are blank in there. I usually put them to .5, it seems to help with startups.
87400TPI,
I by no means think that your way would not work GREAT. Surely it would. And I'm sure you have a pretty good system to figure out what you need. I would like to see how you do it honestly, just for a backup system or to start a new tune on my car and see how it reacts to the difference and if there is a valid reason to get 128 everywhere opposed to 131 or 127.
Please share with us all!
I used a method a while back that I would have to dig up again from old posts that nailed the idle BLM at ~128 first try everytime. Its was adjusting the MAF tables, but like I said before the car seems to like a leaner (higher BLM ) at idle. So I haven't use it in a while. It was basically just taking a g/sec reading of the car in P. Then one in D. Then smoothing the first tables values to get the respective values. Worked great for getting 128.
This is great that every is freely talking about MAF methods. More has probably been uncovered here in the last few days than in the past year.
Keep it all coming
04-22-2003, 10:15 AM
#30
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Claremore, Taxahoma
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: has 4 wheels
Engine: hampster
Transmission: rubber band
Once you have everything close to 128 and then you mess with the maf tables to get idle or something else better can't this really mess up some of the other ranges?? Or just the lower ones for idle only and really aren't used at any other time. Would think some of the lower ones are used at very light throttle or while coasting. I guess you might have to readjust somewhere else after, give and take kind of thing. I see a stickey in this threads future. Think I've gotten further in the last couple days than i have in the last few months. :hail:
04-22-2003, 10:29 AM
#31
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
As I stated before I really don't see the need to adjust the MAF table and again I will say all the cars i did idles better with a higher than 128 BLM at idle.
But yes those values are the first 2-3 ~13 g/sec. I don't think you sue them much anywhere else, for as soon as you tough the gas your above those values, and if you hit them again, basically you are at idle, which is why you changed them in the first place.
Glad to see that you are learning from these Threads....Trax and I am gonna put together a sticky of these, but in all honesty...I think the way they hashed themselves out is great and makes for more insight as to why things are the way they are and how they can me misinterpreted. I would just sticky them all together. They are long, but they are informative thoughout. You can really see them evolve, and i think that is better than just posting- here are the fact type threads. 99% of tuning understanding is making sense of it in your head first, then doing it.
But yes those values are the first 2-3 ~13 g/sec. I don't think you sue them much anywhere else, for as soon as you tough the gas your above those values, and if you hit them again, basically you are at idle, which is why you changed them in the first place.
Glad to see that you are learning from these Threads....Trax and I am gonna put together a sticky of these, but in all honesty...I think the way they hashed themselves out is great and makes for more insight as to why things are the way they are and how they can me misinterpreted. I would just sticky them all together. They are long, but they are informative thoughout. You can really see them evolve, and i think that is better than just posting- here are the fact type threads. 99% of tuning understanding is making sense of it in your head first, then doing it.
04-22-2003, 10:48 AM
#32
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,402
Likes: 0
Received 215 Likes
on
201 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
Glad to see that you are learning from these Threads....Trax and I am gonna put together a sticky of these, but in all honesty...I think the way they hashed themselves out is great and makes for more insight as to why things are the way they are and how they can me misinterpreted. I would just sticky them all together.
Glad to see that you are learning from these Threads....Trax and I am gonna put together a sticky of these, but in all honesty...I think the way they hashed themselves out is great and makes for more insight as to why things are the way they are and how they can me misinterpreted. I would just sticky them all together.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=114856
I had gone through the MAF code and showed/explained a lot of how the MAF tables and scalars interact along with some other insights.
Thanks,
RBob.
04-22-2003, 11:16 AM
#33
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,402
Likes: 0
Received 215 Likes
on
201 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
and again I will say all the cars i did idles better with a higher than 128 BLM at idle.
and again I will say all the cars i did idles better with a higher than 128 BLM at idle.
Now, why does this happen? The overlap at idle allows some O2 to slip into the exhaust which the O2 sensor reports to the ECM. The ECM responds by increasing fuel, making it a tad richer then it should be.
As the O2 error window is wide, and at low airflows the O2 error value is reduced (another table), the allowable closed loop O2 value can vary quite a bit.
By having the cal lean and allowing the BLM's to come up from the bottom, the ECM sits at the lower edge of the O2 error window. This is then leaner then if the BLM's came down from the top. So by changing the O2 window better AFR control can be had at idle.
RBob.
04-22-2003, 12:18 PM
#34
Originally posted by RBob
For the sticky it may be a good idea to include a bunch of the info from this thread:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=114856
I had gone through the MAF code and showed/explained a lot of how the MAF tables and scalars interact along with some other insights.
Thanks,
RBob.
For the sticky it may be a good idea to include a bunch of the info from this thread:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=114856
I had gone through the MAF code and showed/explained a lot of how the MAF tables and scalars interact along with some other insights.
Thanks,
RBob.
04-22-2003, 12:56 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RBob
the ECM sits at the lower edge of the O2 error window
the ECM sits at the lower edge of the O2 error window
Sorry for buttin' in. I come from the turbo Buick chip burning world, but I read here often.
I have a question about what you stated above concerning the O2 window. The way I understand it, the O2 must swing across the whole window to exceed the upper and lower thresholds in order to have cross counts and adjust the integrator. I didn't know it was possible to sit on one edge or the other (in closed loop). Unless you're talking about a different window than I'm thinking of.
Regards,
Eric
04-22-2003, 01:04 PM
#36
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
Trax and I am gonna put together a sticky of these, but in all honesty...I think the way they hashed themselves out is great and makes for more insight as to why things are the way they are and how they can me misinterpreted. I would just sticky them all together.
Tim
04-22-2003, 01:05 PM
#37
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
Originally posted by RBob
For the sticky it may be a good idea to include a bunch of the info from this thread:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=114856
I had gone through the MAF code and showed/explained a lot of how the MAF tables and scalars interact along with some other insights.
Thanks,
RBob.
For the sticky it may be a good idea to include a bunch of the info from this thread:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=114856
I had gone through the MAF code and showed/explained a lot of how the MAF tables and scalars interact along with some other insights.
Thanks,
RBob.
Tim
04-22-2003, 01:26 PM
#38
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,402
Likes: 0
Received 215 Likes
on
201 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Originally posted by Eric Marshall
RBob,
Sorry for buttin' in. I come from the turbo Buick chip burning world, but I read here often.
I have a question about what you stated above concerning the O2 window. The way I understand it, the O2 must swing across the whole window to exceed the upper and lower thresholds in order to have cross counts and adjust the integrator. I didn't know it was possible to sit on one edge or the other (in closed loop). Unless you're talking about a different window than I'm thinking of.
Regards,
Eric
RBob,
Sorry for buttin' in. I come from the turbo Buick chip burning world, but I read here often.
I have a question about what you stated above concerning the O2 window. The way I understand it, the O2 must swing across the whole window to exceed the upper and lower thresholds in order to have cross counts and adjust the integrator. I didn't know it was possible to sit on one edge or the other (in closed loop). Unless you're talking about a different window than I'm thinking of.
Regards,
Eric
The integrator update timer is cleared whenever the slow filtered O2 error is < xx or the O2 direction changes.
The value of xx is cal dependent with one case being 17 mV.
O2 x-counts are handled by the fast filtered O2 term and clear the proportional gains timer on a crossover.
The slow filtered O2 and the fast filtered O2 both use separate values for their windows.
The above is based directly on the f-body '8746 ECM. YMMV.
RBob.
04-22-2003, 06:14 PM
#39
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ohio
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the light is alot brighter at the end of that long maf tunnel
thanks to all who are contibuting to this maf tuning. it sure is makin my life alot easier just having an idea of where to start makin some changes to get to the altimate goal! special thanks to ski-down-it for gettin the ball rollin!!!:hail:
thanks to all who are contibuting to this maf tuning. it sure is makin my life alot easier just having an idea of where to start makin some changes to get to the altimate goal! special thanks to ski-down-it for gettin the ball rollin!!!:hail:
04-22-2003, 11:49 PM
#40
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=114856 Gosh that thread is bad.To tell you the truth I had my tune nailed down 8 months before that one.I was just trying to play the game.It tuned out I was getting a steady 128 int in alot of areas,no bs.(never locke blms,too scared w/ maf)But somehow that post lead to a ban.I was told "my way" was wrong for years.Then with the help of RBob and greg westphal I started to understand what I was doing to the code.For awhile I read the haks and every scrap of maf tech from many sources.Then I started to refine my methods.
Now with ski running so fast he has shown me the maf can flow enough air.There was a fable that states"the maf can physically flow no more than 255 gr/sec."More or less saying the maf's physical diameter could'nt support more than around 400 hp.
Here is one of my methods for tuning .You can almost paste the maf tables in sequence on paper(or whatever),then devide the entire maf tables in 1000 rpm increments.That can be usefull for some instances.Think of that for a bit.
Now with ski running so fast he has shown me the maf can flow enough air.There was a fable that states"the maf can physically flow no more than 255 gr/sec."More or less saying the maf's physical diameter could'nt support more than around 400 hp.
Here is one of my methods for tuning .You can almost paste the maf tables in sequence on paper(or whatever),then devide the entire maf tables in 1000 rpm increments.That can be usefull for some instances.Think of that for a bit.
04-22-2003, 11:58 PM
#41
TGO Supporter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Bone Yard
Posts: 10,907
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: Death Mobile
Engine: 666 c.i.
Originally posted by 87400tpi
But somehow that post lead to a ban.I was told "my way" was wrong for years.
But somehow that post lead to a ban.I was told "my way" was wrong for years.
04-23-2003, 12:04 AM
#42
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used a method a while back that I would have to dig up again from old posts that nailed the idle BLM at ~128 first try everytime. Its was adjusting the MAF tables, but like I said before the car seems to like a leaner (higher BLM ) at idle. So I haven't use it in a while. It was basically just taking a g/sec reading of the car in P. Then one in D. Then smoothing the first tables values to get the respective values. Worked great for getting 128.
04-23-2003, 12:12 AM
#43
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kvu comes out of the closet.
04-23-2003, 07:45 AM
#44
TGO Supporter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Bone Yard
Posts: 10,907
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: Death Mobile
Engine: 666 c.i.
Originally posted by 87400tpi
Not kvu.
Not kvu.
Remember all those e-mails that you sent to me when you were banned as "kvu" and then constantly tried to come back on to the Board after being banned? You are aware your IP# follows you around like a finger print?
Tim knows how to check that.
In fact, here is an old post https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...threadid=39222 when you were still wet behind the ears. Heck, I even have your first post when you didn't beleive that you even needed to modify your MAF prom for your 406TPI. And look at what you are doing now? Once you got into eprom burning, you really got into it and found there were a LOT of advantages to eprom burning.
Tony, you were banned as kvu because, you started to act obnoxious and argumentative on the board Sometimes you just wouldn't "give it a rest". You acted as if posting on the DIY Prom Board is a RIGHT when it's a priviledge. You're still criticizing this board regarding "lack of MAF knowledge" - well, start your own website if you don't like it here.
People are NOT trying to suppress or withhold any knowledge of the MAF system from you or anyone else. But people MUST remember that the first part of this board's name is DIY. If you want to find something out, you must be prepared to do-it-yourself. None of us are paid to post here nor do we have a "book of answers".
We are all just hobbiests trying to share what we have found so others can try it to see if it works for them. As time goes along, others may find a easier method, more efficient means or you don't even have to do something that originally everyone thought. It truly is an evolutionary process.
People using MAF have always been encouraged to share anything they found. Sometimes, they find out that "there's a better way, or it's not necessary" because others have already done it. But MAF users have never been discouraged from posting.
I was one of the first people on this board that wanted to see how far the MAF system could be pushed in using "PE vs RPM" to provide the necessary fueling when the MAF hits 255. I did this on my buddy's car because he trusted me to not blow up his motor. It's been working so well, that my buddy is sticking with his MAF system until the MAF dies. We have all the parts to swap over to SD the moment that happens.
PS: Tim, I now know that you will check all the IPs of kvu and 8700TPI and discover what I say is true. But, I think Tony should not be banned, even though he was as kvu. It's been a long time and Tony does have useful inforamtion to share.
And Tony, don't go "on and on and on" about the same subject. You have to learn to "give it a rest". All that happens is people start to "ignore you". There are many ways to "skin a cat". Some are better, some are worst, and some are the same.
Last edited by Grim Reaper; 04-23-2003 at 07:57 AM.
04-23-2003, 07:53 AM
#45
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
KVU, Tim, 87400, whatever your handle
Yep now that you mention it, i think you were the one that posted the P/D trick for BLM at idle.
I would, love for you to share your methods with the crew here on how you got you MAF tables adjusted.
I think it would be very interesting to see, and understand. i will attest to the fact the P/D method worked for me the first time out. So you are definately on to something.
If you don't want to spill the beans, email me and we can discuss it in private, but I think it would be great if you could publically share it.
Perhaps with the method I use and yours we could get some sort of hybrid of the two to minimize MAF table entries/corrections.
In my head I can sorta rationalize what I think you are doing, its just a bit more involved and more time dependant.
For the record, I think its terrible if you were banned for sharing a method that went across the grain. If that was the case I should have been banned LONG ago I remember reading your post a while ago and I found them very good.
Yep now that you mention it, i think you were the one that posted the P/D trick for BLM at idle.
I would, love for you to share your methods with the crew here on how you got you MAF tables adjusted.
I think it would be very interesting to see, and understand. i will attest to the fact the P/D method worked for me the first time out. So you are definately on to something.
If you don't want to spill the beans, email me and we can discuss it in private, but I think it would be great if you could publically share it.
Perhaps with the method I use and yours we could get some sort of hybrid of the two to minimize MAF table entries/corrections.
In my head I can sorta rationalize what I think you are doing, its just a bit more involved and more time dependant.
For the record, I think its terrible if you were banned for sharing a method that went across the grain. If that was the case I should have been banned LONG ago
I remember reading your post a while ago and I found them very good.
04-23-2003, 08:02 AM
#46
TGO Supporter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Bone Yard
Posts: 10,907
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: Death Mobile
Engine: 666 c.i.
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
KVU, Tim, 87400, whatever your handle
If you don't want to spill the beans, email me and we can discuss it in private, but I think it would be great if you could publically share it.
KVU, Tim, 87400, whatever your handle
If you don't want to spill the beans, email me and we can discuss it in private, but I think it would be great if you could publically share it.
I am positive Tim would be happy to post a "sticky" P165 tunig article related to MAF.
04-23-2003, 08:06 AM
#47
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Originally posted by Glenn91L98GTA
Don't be modest Tony. I originally remember you as formula5 when you were with aol. Then you went to a new ISP (with same IP# as kvu) and you use the same "domain" sbcglobal.com which your ISP provides.
Remember all those e-mails that you sent to me when you were banned as "kvu" and then constantly tried to come back on to the Board after being banned? You are aware your IP# follows you around like a finger print?
Tim knows how to check that.
In fact, here is an old post https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...threadid=39222 when you were still wet behind the ears. Heck, I even have your first post when you didn't beleive that you even needed to modify your MAF prom for your 406TPI. And look at what you are doing now? Once you got into eprom burning, you really got into it and found there were a LOT of advantages to eprom burning.
Tony, you were banned as kvu because, you started to act obnoxious and argumentative on the board Sometimes you just wouldn't "give it a rest". You acted as if posting on the DIY Prom Board is a RIGHT when it's a priviledge. You're still criticizing this board regarding "lack of MAF knowledge" - well, start your own website if you don't like it here.
People are NOT trying to suppress or withhold any knowledge of the MAF system from you or anyone else. But people MUST remember that the first part of this board's name is DIY. If you want to find something out, you must be prepared to do-it-yourself. None of us are paid to post here nor do we have a "book of answers".
We are all just hobbiests trying to share what we have found so others can try it to see if it works for them. As time goes along, others may find a easier method, more efficient means or you don't even have to do something that originally everyone thought. It truly is an evolutionary process.
People using MAF have always been encouraged to share anything they found. Sometimes, they find out that "there's a better way, or it's not necessary" because others have already done it. But MAF users have never been discouraged from posting.
I was one of the first people on this board that wanted to see how far the MAF system could be pushed in using "PE vs RPM" to provide the necessary fueling when the MAF hits 255. I did this on my buddy's car because he trusted me to not blow up his motor. It's been working so well, that my buddy is sticking with his MAF system until the MAF dies. We have all the parts to swap over to SD the moment that happens.
PS: Tim, I now know that you will check all the IPs of kvu and 8700TPI and discover what I say is true. But, I think Tony should not be banned, even though he was as kvu. It's been a long time and Tony does have useful inforamtion to share.
And Tony, don't go "on and on and on" about the same subject. You have to learn to "give it a rest". All that happens is people start to "ignore you". There are many ways to "skin a cat". Some are better, some are worst, and some are the same.
Don't be modest Tony. I originally remember you as formula5 when you were with aol. Then you went to a new ISP (with same IP# as kvu) and you use the same "domain" sbcglobal.com which your ISP provides.
Remember all those e-mails that you sent to me when you were banned as "kvu" and then constantly tried to come back on to the Board after being banned? You are aware your IP# follows you around like a finger print?
Tim knows how to check that.
In fact, here is an old post https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...threadid=39222 when you were still wet behind the ears. Heck, I even have your first post when you didn't beleive that you even needed to modify your MAF prom for your 406TPI. And look at what you are doing now? Once you got into eprom burning, you really got into it and found there were a LOT of advantages to eprom burning.
Tony, you were banned as kvu because, you started to act obnoxious and argumentative on the board Sometimes you just wouldn't "give it a rest". You acted as if posting on the DIY Prom Board is a RIGHT when it's a priviledge. You're still criticizing this board regarding "lack of MAF knowledge" - well, start your own website if you don't like it here.
People are NOT trying to suppress or withhold any knowledge of the MAF system from you or anyone else. But people MUST remember that the first part of this board's name is DIY. If you want to find something out, you must be prepared to do-it-yourself. None of us are paid to post here nor do we have a "book of answers".
We are all just hobbiests trying to share what we have found so others can try it to see if it works for them. As time goes along, others may find a easier method, more efficient means or you don't even have to do something that originally everyone thought. It truly is an evolutionary process.
People using MAF have always been encouraged to share anything they found. Sometimes, they find out that "there's a better way, or it's not necessary" because others have already done it. But MAF users have never been discouraged from posting.
I was one of the first people on this board that wanted to see how far the MAF system could be pushed in using "PE vs RPM" to provide the necessary fueling when the MAF hits 255. I did this on my buddy's car because he trusted me to not blow up his motor. It's been working so well, that my buddy is sticking with his MAF system until the MAF dies. We have all the parts to swap over to SD the moment that happens.
PS: Tim, I now know that you will check all the IPs of kvu and 8700TPI and discover what I say is true. But, I think Tony should not be banned, even though he was as kvu. It's been a long time and Tony does have useful inforamtion to share.
And Tony, don't go "on and on and on" about the same subject. You have to learn to "give it a rest". All that happens is people start to "ignore you". There are many ways to "skin a cat". Some are better, some are worst, and some are the same.
Holdon guys, Lets let the past in the past...........
Some good discussion has been going on here, let not revert back to bickering over spilled milk. Please keep it to the point or don't post.
I look at it this way. I have know enough to be dangerous and get my tune good enough to accomplish what I am. I do not *need* to share information with others, but rather its my choise to. As it is yours. I think we all get a sense of accomplishment, and a good feeling about helping newbies understand what took us months/years to sort through. I think in these posts the last few days, a newcomer could learn a whole lot in a sort period of time.
There is no doubt that techniques differ and things will be said that are potentially wrong, or misleading. Lets not dwell on the latter mentioned items and move on to relevant MAF talk. Theories will be made, some will stand the test of time/debate, others will crumble. The key is to sift through the rubbish and collect the ones that stand the test for a better collection of information for the others to learn from.
04-23-2003, 08:06 AM
#48
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
For the record, I think its terrible if you were banned for sharing a method that went across the grain. If that was the case I should have been banned LONG ago I remember reading your post a while ago and I found them very good.
For the record, I think its terrible if you were banned for sharing a method that went across the grain. If that was the case I should have been banned LONG ago
I remember reading your post a while ago and I found them very good. Banning results mainly from one thing: being a arsshole. If a person cannot handle themselves rationally, respectfully, and semi-politely then they will end up getting banned. Nobody is ever banned on the first jerk-post, not even on the second (unless their post count is like 2 and it's obvious that they registered to start trouble). Everybody is entitled to have a little fun here and there - heck - I'm guilty of that on boards that I don't moderate (and I see that). However, when it becomes clear that the person is not willing to talk, discuss ... but only be an arsshole - then they get banned.
Case and point - you (ski). You stir things up! You get people yelling back and forth. You yell nicely at people. But, you aren't an arsshole and you handle yourself well - so, you don't get banned. Point is - everybody has to play nice. If someone doesn't agree with something then they just need to step back and say "I definitely don't agree with what you are saying". They don't need to personally diss on another board member, and - be an arsshole.
Tim
04-23-2003, 08:14 AM
#49
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Trax, I was writing my response when the rest of the story came out why he was banned.
I agree 100% with what your saying. My post was not one that I was fully aware of the circumstances and probably should not have ended the post the way I did. Appology sent.
Are you calling me an Arshole in a round about way j/k
I agree 100% with what your saying. My post was not one that I was fully aware of the circumstances and probably should not have ended the post the way I did. Appology sent.
Case and point - you (ski). You stir things up!
j/k
04-23-2003, 08:25 AM
#50
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
Are you calling me an Arshole in a round about way j/k
Are you calling me an Arshole in a round about way
j/k Tim