Argggg.. yes it can pull in 40000000000000000000times more air but as long as you are in the range of the maf... ie below it's max sensing cap ie 254 g/s then the maf is fine. Now it should add more fuel to get 128 blm... ie 14.7 if that is what it is set at.. if you increased to fuel pressure from stock then you have effectively changed the flowrate of the injector.. the ecm does not know this so if you did not change the injector constant, then in open loop it will run actual below 14.7.... when it goes into closed loop, it sees from o2 sensor that hay it is rich.. like 13.5 or something... it then has to correct to get a reading from o2 of 14.7.... this is reflected in the blm or int....! other things to consider m bpw and max bpw.... Cold start param.. Senario 2.. lets say at 2500rpm and ½ throttle, and you are pulling 255g/s then the ecm thinks this is max air it can get....so it cant regognize and more air.... That is why I would like to create a patch to use either 2 tables or go 16 bit!!!! So if you turn down the injector csonstant yes you may get you blm to come down... but at higher rpm it will be lean and idle and driveablity will suck blowing black smoke everywhere:-) Hence why I and bruce tend to like map... ther is no limit. I got tired of f^%ckering with my 165 so I whent map.... Got it runnig excellent, droped .5sec + off my et and same mpg.. in half the dtime I spent dickering with the ,maf system....for a stock engine, there is losa room for tuneing,, but for things that go rump rump lump lump map seems to be the cheaper and less frusterating alternative... Btw I also did not see a lot of sence burnig chips like a mad man, only to make the motor run good, and still ending up with basically a low grade map system from when maf maxes till redline..might as well go carb for that.. cause your just guessing, and it will always be changing...... Ie 3hrs to add ecm, repin to 730.. use maf wires for map sensor... Burt about 20 chip and it ran 10x better than the 165.... Map sensor and little funky vacume line +$5.00 canadian and I even have a aback up. Ecm+$55 B Mike Rolica Plant A, Magnesium Products Division Strathroy (519)-245-4040 Ext. 265 -----Original Message----- From: Marteney, Steven J. [SMTP:smarteney@xlvision.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 3:34 PM To: gmecm@diy-efi.org Subject: RE: Changing 165 fuel delivery was "General tuning question - fuel economy" Not sure what you mean here. It is MAF, but I also think it is right. With the increased lift and duration of the cam, at a given rpm and throttle angle the engine will be taking in more air than it would with the stock cam. To keep the AFR right, the injectors would have to deliver more fuel and thus BLM goes up. My point in trying to change the injector constant or MAF tables or whatever would be to obtain the "holy grail" of tuning, the 128 BLMs and BLIs. Also, haven't read the long email you sent previous. This response may be way off base since I haven't read it yet. Sorry :-( Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rolica [mailto:mrolica@meridian-mag.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:52 PM > To: 'gmecm@diy-efi.org' > Subject: RE: Changing 165 fuel delivery was "General tuning question > - fuel economy" > > So if it is maf.. obiously the maf is not right.. or you injectors are not > actually putting out what the constant is in the prom...... > Mike Rolica > Plant A, > Magnesium Products Division > Strathroy > > (519)-245-4040 Ext. 265 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marteney, Steven J. [SMTP:smarteney@xlvision.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:38 PM > To: gmecm@diy-efi.org > Subject: RE: Changing 165 fuel delivery was "General > tuning question - fuel economy" > > In other words, the block learns would come back to 128 (or > wherever they > settled.) Isn't that the goal? They are at 145-150 now and > everyone says > tune for 128. That's only one way I've thought of doing it, > but didn't know > if it was considered cosher. > > Steve (damn the excess overlap, I still want a blower!) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Lindstedt [mailto:rick@mafb.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:21 PM > To: gmecm@diy-efi.org > Subject: RE: Changing 165 fuel delivery was "General tuning > question - > fue l economy" > > > Marteney, Steven J. wrote: > >Congrats on a nice right up in GM High Tech Performance > mag! I enjoyed > >reading it. Hope it was you, guess it could have been > another Rick > Linstedt > >that "tunes his own chips." > > Yuppers..thats me... =) Thanks! > > >On the injector flow rate, I had thought of telling it I > had smaller > >injectors than I really do. Seems that would fire them > longer, but I'm in > >the dark. Thought I would try it and see what happens. > > Yea..it might work @ first but I would think the ECM would > slow them down > to get the correct AFR after awhile of learning. ..maybe Im > wrong here... > > Rick > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without > the quotes) > in the body of a message (not the subject) to > majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without > the quotes) > in the body of a message (not the subject) to > majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org
<<application/ms-tnef>>