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

[Michael Davis]

In message <001101bf8ab4$0d8aa680$660ac9d8 at s3h1j5>,nacelp writes:
>
>  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.
[...]

Which is my point..  I believe I saw a quote in the archives that a "30-40
hp gain" was achived going from MAF to MAP.. My data doesn't seem to 
support this and more to the point that for a 400hp or less motor they
are probably equal..  Given that I've already programmed over 60 chips
for the MAP system and only for fuel tuning so far, I can't blindly 
recommend MAP over MAF for ease of tuning..

>   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**!!!...
>

I alluded to the timing data because the MAP is not advanced (timing) as 
much as the MAF setup is.  The later MAP runs did have 1.5 and 3.0 deg adv
more than the first MAP runs at WOT, but still not as much as the MAF chip..
(tune for fuel, then for spark.. Isn't that the saying.. 8-)  I do hope
to get faster times from the MAP (and revised air intake), but I don't
think the difference will be 30-40 hp and the amount of time/chips spent
tuning the MAP has to be considered in any recomendation..

I'm trying to borrow a G-tech for further MAP tuning, but since I've noticed
a Deputy Sheriff following me around now I guess I need to curb too many
WOT tests... 8-{

mike



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