finally have a datalog to work with!!!

Punisher302 said:

thanks, guys.

you guys have been a huge help and i really appreciate it. hope someday i can turn around and help somone new to the game.

Click to expand...

This is a topic we don't talk much about
but
I really do believe ... most peeps ... in the self tuning community

They have an attitude such as you speak of Paul

I can say many have helped me in the past :Word:
so
I wanted to give back as well
and
I like to help the community when I can

Now ... about the maf subject

We seem to be focused on the oem meter for GT's & Cobras
which we all know ...is the exact same meter for both Stangs

Lets talk about its t curve in a .........
1) stock GT
2) stock Cobra
3) h/c/i NA GT or Cobra

Just as you see a difference between 1 & 2 for each application

I ask all of you this Question

Would you expect 3 to be different from 1 or 2 ???

I wait for your answer
and
Hope to get a good discussion out of the Q

Grady

I would kind of expect to see some changes suggested/needed at either the low/mid/high end of the transfer (high end with a W/B of course). As even though the stock mafs are very close stock each combo will react a little diff. IMHO.

That said I would expect those little diff. to be a little larger wiht a h/c/i setup as well.

One thing I have noticed with my stock meter and my 98 meter.

When I first used the tweecerR/T on a local dyno and had mech. issues after I put the car together the A/F was dead on with the 100% stock j4j1 tune and stock maf. EA never suggested changes (2 or 3 good logs on the unchanged tune) to the transfer greater than decimal points. Granted there was mech. issues that may have squed these logs and kept the a/f at commanded. However, the a/f was right at what the factory commanded and then when I went 12.8 it showed 12.82 steady...the guy who was the tuner/dyno operator even said its more or likely mechanical if its that spot on with no hp change.

With the 98maf and getting the mach. issues...and then the tweecer issues sorted out EA suggested small changes to the lower/mid 1.7-2.7 or so range of the transfer. I have noticed several 4.6 cars running (of course) stock mafs needing to more commonly tweec at least some part of the transfer.

I think WOT that with diff. commanded A/F and tweeced timing curves some WOT maf tuning should be expected with the changes that can effect A/F. That is also my thinking on why a modded h/c/i car that may be able to run leaner and with more timing may need an even more altered maftransfer.

I kinda think along those same lines as well Greg

I've noticed some of the time .........
Noobs have difficulty seeing the difference between the CL portion
of the t curve and the OL portion.

Having said that ... I was able to make either the t4m0 or j4j1 t curve
work in CL quite nicely for my current sig combo with the 30's

Where I could not make the j4j1 t curve work for me was in the OL
portion as the j4j1 reports less air flow so I used the t4m0 out
of necessity I guess you could say.

Another area of the t curve I worked a good bit was at idle and points
around idle. My cam has a very narrow lsa it took me a while to find
what worked and what did not.

I do believe it is not a bad thing to change a point or two in the curve
if needed for fine tuning.

I polled many other self tuners several years ago and found
they ... like me ... found a more stable tune by working with K values
to determine how to make inj value adjustments with slopes and such.

They also found like me ... if you get your t curve fairly close when starting
out with the tune ... after dialing in your inj values ... you will have to
change CL t curve points very little.

I know peeps have a hard time when I say it
but
I really did not use my wb much for CL tuning

K's pretty much told me all I needed to tune for CL

Grady