Re: Part Throttle tuning for MAF (was MAF tables have a max of 255)

["Daniel Collins" <bossute@one.net.au>]

Why not use the 165 in MAP mode rather rather than MAF works real well here
in Australia 95% of our GM's are map

Just a thought

Daniel Collins
bossute@one.net.au


-----Original Message-----
From: Marteney, Steven J. <smarteney@xlvision.com>
To: gmecm@diy-efi.org <gmecm@diy-efi.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: Part Throttle tuning for MAF (was MAF tables have a max of 255)


>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
>
>

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