AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor)

[nacelp]

Compared to what Mechanical, FI, Carbbies?.
Sweeping statements are often wrong.
AFM are probably the least accurate of the air flow sensors, or at least the
most restrictive.
In the archives at the GN Ttype there are statements from actual dyno
testing where even a MAF sensor cost 30HP.
An SU and electonic ignition control (far a small engine) would be hard to
beat when set up right.  Webers come close to IR, and a blow thru IR vs
Weber would be within tenths of a percentage, I'd wager.
VE, and HP well there is alot for who's doing the tuning.  Just really about
dry walls vs wet, and reelated issues.
  Now drivibility, tunability, reliability, emissions are all other matters.
But, to claim EFI is that "secret to HP + VE" or especially good for turbos,
is kinda stretching a point, IMHO.
  I notice noone has mentioned cross over so far.  And that opens the doors
for all kinds of things.
Grumpy


> Espen Hilde wrote:
> > What I tryed to say was that the AFM cant give info for the retard of
> > ignition advance that the backpressure is indicating.
> > AFM is not fast enough for a high rpm engine with big turbo, the engine
can
> > dubble the hp in 250rpm change.
> > In a oem application ...no problem.
> <good discussion snipped>
> Your points serve to illustrate a less-than-well-known (?) fact that
> sophisticated engine management contributes  more efficiency and HP to a
turbo
> motor, than to a NA motor.
> - Clay (not that it isn't worthwhile on an NA motor...)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the
quotes)
> in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org