Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Tuning À la carte
Is Your Car Tuned Correctly?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="truckguy" data-source="post: 12534362" data-attributes="member: 99809"><p>Personally I would adjust the maf as long as it doesnt create a step or hump in the maf curve. The other way to do it would be to command an artificially rich lambda in the base fuel table. Which way is more correct? I dont know that there is a correct answer to that question. Think about it yourself and figure out what makes more sense to you.</p><p></p><p>Look at it a different way. In your scenario, the largest correction is a 6% correction in airflow which is at 5k rpm. Probably well within the margin of error of things. So what happens if you put the correction into the maf curve? 1. You richen fueling up (.83 is too lean for a supercharged car imo...) 2. Load goes up and as long as you arent on the top row of the timing table, timing should go down. Neither is going to hurt the motor. As a matter of fact, both would actually protect the motor....I would prefer that scenario if it were my car than commanding a .75 in the base fuel table to get a .78 actual but that is me. The point of the conversation is to get people to think about what makes sense them....</p><p></p><p>Now at 3k and 7k where it is slightly rich, I probalby wouldnt worry about it too much especially if 3k is the tip in point but again that is just me....Really what is a few percent rich going to hurt? Absolutely nothing....Worst case you leave a few hp on the table.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You would be correct if it the fuel contained zero ethanol. On todays 10% ethanol blends it would be closer to 11.0. This is really why it is important to look at things in terms of lambda rather than afr. 11.0 on 10% ethanol fuel is pretty much the equivalent of 11.4 on pure gasoline. Looking at lambda puts everything on the same scale so you dont have to worry about the correction factors. Also, widebands are actually lamda sensors and they get hit with a multiplier to display afr. In order for the afr display to be correct, the multiplier used needs to be the same as the stoich point of the fuel being used.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="truckguy, post: 12534362, member: 99809"] Personally I would adjust the maf as long as it doesnt create a step or hump in the maf curve. The other way to do it would be to command an artificially rich lambda in the base fuel table. Which way is more correct? I dont know that there is a correct answer to that question. Think about it yourself and figure out what makes more sense to you. Look at it a different way. In your scenario, the largest correction is a 6% correction in airflow which is at 5k rpm. Probably well within the margin of error of things. So what happens if you put the correction into the maf curve? 1. You richen fueling up (.83 is too lean for a supercharged car imo...) 2. Load goes up and as long as you arent on the top row of the timing table, timing should go down. Neither is going to hurt the motor. As a matter of fact, both would actually protect the motor....I would prefer that scenario if it were my car than commanding a .75 in the base fuel table to get a .78 actual but that is me. The point of the conversation is to get people to think about what makes sense them.... Now at 3k and 7k where it is slightly rich, I probalby wouldnt worry about it too much especially if 3k is the tip in point but again that is just me....Really what is a few percent rich going to hurt? Absolutely nothing....Worst case you leave a few hp on the table. You would be correct if it the fuel contained zero ethanol. On todays 10% ethanol blends it would be closer to 11.0. This is really why it is important to look at things in terms of lambda rather than afr. 11.0 on 10% ethanol fuel is pretty much the equivalent of 11.4 on pure gasoline. Looking at lambda puts everything on the same scale so you dont have to worry about the correction factors. Also, widebands are actually lamda sensors and they get hit with a multiplier to display afr. In order for the afr display to be correct, the multiplier used needs to be the same as the stoich point of the fuel being used. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Tuning À la carte
Is Your Car Tuned Correctly?
Top