quick question from a newbe
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
From: San Pedro, Ca
Car: White KSwisses
Engine: 5.3L Gen III
Okay, i think i got the answer. The two tables are just added together.
Is this why people add the values from table2 to table 1 and 0 out the second table (from 400-3200 rpm)? Am i correct in these assumptions, or am i off?
Thanks,
KD
Is this why people add the values from table2 to table 1 and 0 out the second table (from 400-3200 rpm)? Am i correct in these assumptions, or am i off?
Thanks,
KD
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,432
Likes: 233
From: Chasing Electrons
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Originally posted by cali92RS
Okay, i think i got the answer. The two tables are just added together.
Is this why people add the values from table2 to table 1 and 0 out the second table (from 400-3200 rpm)? Am i correct in these assumptions, or am i off?
Thanks,
KD
Okay, i think i got the answer. The two tables are just added together.
Is this why people add the values from table2 to table 1 and 0 out the second table (from 400-3200 rpm)? Am i correct in these assumptions, or am i off?
Thanks,
KD
It isn't proper to zero out the 400-3200 rows of the 2d table. Doing this prevents the tuner from being able to decrease the VE% as the RPM increases. I've found it best to set the 2d table 400-3200 RPM range to say 40%. This does two things, one, makes it easier to compare the VE% row to row on the 3d table. Two, gives the tuner the ability to decrease the VE% as the RPM increases.
By 6375 RPM on a stock or even a mild engine is liable to be down that 40% VE that is currently in the 3200 row of the 2d table. Remember that at 4800 (anything above 3200) the 3200 RPM row of the 3d table is added to whatever VE% is in the 2d table at the current engine RPM.
RBob.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




