Bench racing ecms, whys, and future goals

[xxalexx at ix.netcom.com]

> From:          "Steve" <maxboost at earthlink.net>
> To:            <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
> Subject:       Re: Bench racing ecms, whys, and future goals
> Date:          Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:37:18 -0700
> Reply-to:      diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu

> 
> > >Bruce Plecan wrote:
> > >
> > >> Running two ecms under identical conditions using something
> > >> like diacom pluses or a dual trace scope would be rather difficult.
> > >
> > >And IMHO pointless.  What are you trying to learn?  What is the
> object?If
> > you connect two ECMs with different programs and you get two different
> fuel
> > PWs or timing values, what have you learned?  How are you going to apply
> > what you have learned, and to what?  How are you going to change anything
> > with that information?
> > 
> I know from years of showroom stock racing that it is fairly common to see
> one ecu of the same specs make more power than another.  I know several
> teams that would get a hold of 5-10 ecu's and run them on the dyno to see
> which made the most power.  We are only talking a few hp here, but on a
> supposedly stock engine putting out less than 200 hp everything counts.
> 
> My thinking on why there is a difference is the resistance values of the
> circuit traces on the board from the connector to the A/D converter. 
> Depending on the sensor, a slight difference would mean a different AFR.
> 
> Just my .02
> 
> Steve
> 
Most likely the adaptive learning curves different and fuzzy logic.
I have noticed this in emission testing.  I always blow out the
big mbz's by pulling out in front of a semi and doing a 0-100 while
watching by rear mirrow. Afterward the car runs leaner.
You might try to lug engine on pace lap to richen curve up or 
disconnect battery to erase and go to a base setting.
 Alex