• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

Screen Shot Comparisons J4J1 & My Tune

  • Thread starter Thread starter final5-0
  • Start date Start date Dec 17, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

blksn955.o

Founding Member
Mar 15, 2002
3,263
0
66
st.louis mo 314
Dec 17, 2005
#21
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #21
a50sn95 said:
Very interesting. I should do the same for mine. I see the fuel enrichment function that I haven't touched yet.
What is your MAF cal'd for, 30's? My 36 numbers peak at around 1650~ish.
I haven't booted Windows in DAYS. I only use it for Caledit and EA anymore.
Too bad I haven't figured them out under Linux yet. Maybe if I get a few minutes. I'll get them done.
THANKS for doing this....
Click to expand...

stock maf as far as I know...the MAF IS NOT CAL'D for an INJ. THE EEC is. I think this is one of the major things to "de-program" out of peoples minds....it realy causes more confusion than needed.
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Dec 18, 2005
#22
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #22
final5-0 said:
Good to see you are having fun Chad

I don't know anything about having chips read

Over the years, I've seen various peeps on the tuner sites say they had their chips read and they were shocked to find not much was done to enhance performance.

Not sure but, I have always suspect those chips were the kind you buy off the shelf and that kind of thing if you know what I mean.

Grady
Click to expand...

Thats what I thought too, but my chip was burned with the tuner never seeing my car. I made 304rwhp 338 rwtq, an Air:Fuel ratio as flat as a pancake and near stock driveability. I don't care what they did, but I want that tune on my Tweecer.
 

a50sn95

Founding Member
Oct 12, 2001
368
0
16
Elk Grove, CA
Dec 18, 2005
#23
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #23
Here I posted them all on one page. I'll add mine later:
Grady's pics
Dennis
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#24
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #24
Grady, great job with those pictures! I might steal some of your data and load it into my tune (if I ever get the starter replaced, lol).
 

a50sn95

Founding Member
Oct 12, 2001
368
0
16
Elk Grove, CA
Dec 18, 2005
#25
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #25
It just amazes me how much he's leaned out the top of his MAF curve.
He went from 875 at the top to 1458. And the whole rest of the curve has been leaned out. I though he'd replaced the MAF, and was using the flowsheet....
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#26
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #26
He didn't lean it out. I don't recall what maf he's using, but I don't think it's the stock one anymore. The higher the number in the "Y" row, the richer the maf curve is. Those numbers represent the incoming amount of air, higher numbers equal higher amounts of fuel. (I'm sure you know all this, so maybe I misunderstood you )
 

a50sn95

Founding Member
Oct 12, 2001
368
0
16
Elk Grove, CA
Dec 18, 2005
#27
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #27
CManT1914 said:
He didn't lean it out. I don't recall what maf he's using, but I don't think it's the stock one anymore. The higher the number in the "Y" row, the richer the maf curve is. Those numbers represent the incoming amount of air, higher numbers equal higher amounts of fuel. (I'm sure you know all this, so maybe I misunderstood you )
Click to expand...

Doh. I spaced it. Of course you are right. Telling the computer more air means it'll inject more fuel.
Still, his Sig says stock MAF. I know not to always trust the SIG, but this IS Grady....
If it is, it's still a big change. That's why I asked what MAF he had. (I understand about the calibration thing. For us, all it really does is put a limit on how much air we CAN flow through it..)
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#28
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #28
Yea his sig lists his numbers he put out with the stock maf, throttle body, and catback. IIRC, he told me he has since upgraded all those pieces, and just not gone back to the dyno. You're absolutely correct about the calibration. All that does is determine how much airflow the maf can read. Stock maf can only read like 925, whereas aftermarket ones can read much more, so you won't peg the maf and lean out up top.
 

blksn955.o

Founding Member
Mar 15, 2002
3,263
0
66
st.louis mo 314
Dec 18, 2005
#29
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #29
So grady...load_limit_open_loop_vs_rpm

Your just running OL at idle right? and that is how it looks in the graph to make it do so (gen. speaking).

huh, interesting...I thought you had EA and had moved away from that? Or does it just run better with OL at idle?
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#30
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #30
CManT1914 said:
Awww crap
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris!

I guess Geo Cities has some kind of limit on amount of data transfer.
I made the files as small as I could, lol

I'll leave the files in place so ...... sooner or later they will be available for you to dl.

I quickly cruised through the other posts in this thread and noticed Dennis put the pics up if you did not notice.

Grady
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#31
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #31
a50sn95 said:
Very interesting. I should do the same for mine. I see the fuel enrichment function that I haven't touched yet.
What is your MAF cal'd for, 30's? My 36 numbers peak at around 1650~ish.
I haven't booted Windows in DAYS. I only use it for Caledit and EA anymore.
Too bad I haven't figured them out under Linux yet. Maybe if I get a few minutes. I'll get them done.
THANKS for doing this....
Click to expand...

Yes Dennis

That maf is a ProM 80mm shorty with a 30lb cal.

Grady
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#32
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #32
blksn955.o said:
says it will be back up in an hour though.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the download limit

When it comes to all that web site stuff ...........
I really don't understand that much about it

Maybe I should have done like Dennis did and just made the pics for viewing only

I thought the files might have been of more help to peeps if they had the ability to dl them
Again ... what do I know about this stuff

Great idea and thanks grady I cannot wait to look at it just to see and double check some things against.
Click to expand...

Hope they are of some help to you Greg

I am honestly supprised no one has done this to any extent before...would make a great tute. on the subjet for ref. and explaining things.
Click to expand...

Well I had the shots of everything that was different and thought it would not be too much trouble to make them available to all my gear head buds on :SNSign:

I am just amazed at how little realy has to be changed from all that we can change.

I mean after the MAF/INJ dial in...its like kill a few tables set commanded (check that it is going were you want it), get WOT spark and fuel setup, safe to start with...and then its like mess with idle but that I think comes more from becoming progressivly more and more picky about the tune as you grow to know the subject. Its like and People PAY for others to do this...hogwash
Click to expand...

The self tuning thing is not as bad as some make it out to be

Just a matter of geting started

You learn as you go is how I see it

Grady
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#33
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #33
final5-0 said:
Sorry Chris!

I guess Geo Cities has some kind of limit on amount of data transfer.
I made the files as small as I could, lol

I'll leave the files in place so ...... sooner or later they will be available for you to dl.

I quickly cruised through the other posts in this thread and noticed Dennis put the pics up if you did not notice.

Grady
Click to expand...

Yep, I got them downloaded this morning. Great job with them. I just realized we have the same maf, I might try your curve just for kicks. Mine's rich down low, but it leans out up top (more due to my stock fuel pump than anything else probably).
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#34
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #34
zenboy99 said:
Thats what I thought too, but my chip was burned with the tuner never seeing my car. I made 304rwhp 338 rwtq, an Air:Fuel ratio as flat as a pancake and near stock driveability. I don't care what they did, but I want that tune on my Tweecer.
Click to expand...

When you get your chip back and the info about it ................

If you see some stuff from the chip you like ............

You can now use it with your tune

A comment about that "flat as a pancake ratio"

Now that you can self tune, you are gonna see much different looking final ratios with your self tuning efforts cause the dyno guy has filters to smooth or average out his display results where you don't.

Not a big deal really, just thought I would mention it to ya.

The first time I started to work with that data I was thinking how strange or different everything looked

Grady
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Dec 18, 2005
#35
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #35
Grady, thanks alot for that info.

What do your spark tables look like? I didn't see those posted on there.

Also what is trans_min_TP_for_torque_mod settings at 1020 near the bottom.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#36
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #36
a50sn95 said:
Here I posted them all on one page. I'll add mine later:
Grady's pics
Dennis
Click to expand...

Thanks Dennis for making another opportunity for everybody to have access to that data.

It was kind of you to do that!

Another example of :SNSign: members :Teh-Win:

Maybe I should have done it the way you did?

I've tried to pick up that stuff the best I can but I guess by now ......... everybody can see my self taught results leave something to be desired

The whole web site or web page thing is a bit over my head

Grady
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#37
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #37
zenboy99 said:
Grady, thanks alot for that info.

What do your spark tables look like? I didn't see those posted on there.

Also what is trans_min_TP_for_torque_mod settings at 1020 near the bottom.
Click to expand...

Chad, his spark_altitude_table, spark_bdln_table, spark_MBT_table, all 3 of those were deleted (all values set to 55). He (and myself as well) is only using his spark_base_table, which looks like it's set to fairly stock values.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#38
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #38
CManT1914 said:
Grady, great job with those pictures! I might steal some of your data and load it into my tune (if I ever get the starter replaced, lol).
Click to expand...

Wild Man Chris

Been a while since we've talked
and
Hope you haven't lost any skin from ridin around on that scooter

Anything from that stuff that may help you is why I put it up

I just now realized one thing I should make mention of in that stuff.

The inj offsets are kinda ... in-between or ... a cross of T4M0 & J4J1

Grady
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#39
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #39
a50sn95 said:
Still, his Sig says stock MAF.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion

I only have dyno results with the sig combo so I felt it better to just keep the sig as is

I know not to always trust the SIG, but this IS Grady....
Click to expand...

Well Dennis ... I choose to take that as ..............

you are saying something positive about me

Surely you are not saying I might put up something that might be considered

controversial

adj : marked by or capable of arousing controversy

Grady
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 18, 2005
#40
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #40
blksn955.o said:
So grady...load_limit_open_loop_vs_rpm

Your just running OL at idle right? and that is how it looks in the graph to make it do so (gen. speaking).
Click to expand...

You are correct Sir!

huh, interesting...I thought you had EA and had moved away from that?
Click to expand...

Greg, I guess I don't quite understand what me having or not having EEC Analyzer (I do have it btw) has to do with me using Open Loop idle

Help me to understand here if you will

Or does it just run better with OL at idle?
Click to expand...

My O2's were cooling off at idle but ...... only by an ever so slightly amount.
I noticed over a good bit of time the KAMRF's would drift.

My Stang is only a week end toy so we are talking about a long amount of time here ...... like months before I noticed the idle would start to become a bit unstable.

I tried the forced OL idle thing which made things much better so it has stayed in place

Grady
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
My 93 4v Fox
  • OffspringChaos
  • Aug 30, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2024
bird_dog0347
A
Turbo Foxbody Idle Help
  • AwxyMoron
  • May 5, 2021
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
Replies
13
Views
6K
Digital Self-tuning Forum May 6, 2021
AwxyMoron
A
C
Microsquirt tuning and surging idle problems
  • csteadm
  • May 14, 2020
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
Replies
7
Views
4K
Digital Self-tuning Forum May 20, 2020
csteadm
C
Progress Thread finishing touches on my stroker build
  • doobismaximus
  • Jul 2, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
22
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 1, 2021
nickyb
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?