[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 89 F-body ECU file = 89 Y-body ECU file?



The below is not meant as a flame or anything else other then looking at
data, and expressing another view.

At a glance the MAP system seems at least as good IMHO,
MPH is a function of HP, rather then ET wich reflects all aspects of the
vehicles performance.  With all the MAP runs at 105, vs the one MAF run at
106 (along with the slower ones), it's at least a dead heat.  If they were
running closed loop at WOT, and did this then I would be more open to the
MAF being better.  I would assume at this stage that the timing was the same
between the two?.  Would be interesting to have some diacom recordings of
the runs, and see the KS, and O2v..  That might shine some light on things.
Are all the tables, switches set the same?.  BKR (where apllicable), and the
knock decay rates?.  There are alot of little gotchas that might be eating
into this.
  Toss, in the restriction of the MAF that isn't needed with a MAP system,
and your own admission that the 730 isn't fully dialed in, looks like the
730 ties, if not wins.
  Optimizing the intake tracts for each combo, and then comparing things
would be  the better test, again, IMHO.
  Glad to see someone get a setup like this to the strip, and do some back
to back testing, this is exactling what I got planned for the GN.
  Also, drag racing is rather steady state WOT, and MAP is alot more
responsive in transistions just by it's very design.
  I did do some TBI testing with a 730 vs 747, and even in that "lowly"
application, the 730 way out shined the 747 for drivibility.  I had alot of
time in the 747, and the 730 was a guess, and fly setup, with just a min of
changes, so this wasn't a fully calibrated comparision.
  I think with some further cleaning up of not really useable (meaningful)
tables the 730 (and it's relatives) are a winning combo.
  Yes, there is always the exception, that someone has that defies logic,
and runs like an ape, for no real good reason other then it does.
   I think the P6s will even outshine the 730s, but not enough time has been
given to them, hopefully that'll change, as some time passes.
Grumpy
   How did the different knock sensors, seem to correspond?.  ie the 165 any
better worse then the 730s?.  That would be a interesting note.......
BTW,  **congrats, excellent work, and glad you shared it with us**!!!...



> Don't be so fast to suggest unless you've gotten further emperical
> data to support it...  Though I don't claim to have a fully tuned
> '730 bin file yet, I tested the '730 and '165 systems head to head
> last weekend at the track and the '165 was constitantly 0.1 second
> faster in the 1/4 mile on my car..  (Est. 400 gross HP)
>
> (I have built an adaptor cable that routes the '165 OEM harness to a
>  '730, and my car is equiped with both MAP and MAF sensors and dual
>  knock sensors...
> http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~davis/z28/ecm_swap_730/
> )
>
> Quarter-mile runs with the car, each about 15 minutes after one another..
>
> 1 (MAP) 13.098@105      (let car shift to OD)
> 2 (MAP) 13.095@105      (let car shift to OD)
> 3 (MAF) 12.941@105      (kept car in 3rd to 5600rpm)
> 4 (MAF) 13.071@103      (let car shift to OD)
> 5 (MAF) 12.927@106      (kept car in 3rd to 5800rpm)
> 6 (MAP) 13.063@105      (kept car in 3rd to 5800rpm)
> 7 (MAP) 13.050@105      (kept car in 3rd to 5900rpm)
>
>
> In message <01BF8A80.695CCE40@amy-and-mike>,Mike rolica writes:
> >
> >Been there and done that.  The 89 f body and vette 165 bins are not laid
=
> >out the same.  I think1 or 2 tables are but thats about it.  Want some =
> >real improvement... swap to a 730.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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