RE: Part Throttle tuning for MAF (was MAF tables have a max of 25 5)

["Marteney, Steven J." <smarteney@xlvision.com>]

For me, it wasn't a matter of what was simpler, more eloquent, more
accurate, ...  The simple truth I've encountered is the 730, 747, and many
other ECMs (and more specifically those code sets that run speed density)
are more "hacked."  There is more info about them and more tunable
parameters identified and clearly explained.  Since I don't have the time or
desire (lean toward the desire part) to hack the 165 MAF code, I'm in the
process of gathering the necessary parts to switch.

IMHO, Steve

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JN" <jwn@sgi.net>
> To: <gmecm@diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Part Throttle tuning for MAF (was MAF tables have a max of
255)
>
>
> > Really?  Isn't a bigger headache to switch to a 730?  Maybe I am a bit
> naive
> > but it seems that 165 MAF ecm is fairly simple.  Right now my goal is to
> get
> > it close and not perfect.  Since I know nothing about speed density, I
> plan
> > to stick with the MAF.
> >
> > Jason Norris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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