man- usually I would snap on a request like this.. but i'm trying to turn a new leaf...

adapter.

I know nothing about anything 'i'.. and this is on purpose.. however, I do know that torquey was developing such, but i don't know if it's launched..

 

Fuel economy won't change. At least, it shouldn't. Power probably won't be that much different either.

Both trim values are deviation from what the standard tables have to say. If the standard tables are lower values than what is actually needed (the -6% across the board changes in your tune...) then fuel trims will be higher numbers, as it has to add fuel compared to what the tables are telling it.

It would be interesting to look at logs of pulse width at similar conditions, my guess is, they would be very close, if not exactly the same.

 

you and I agree on this.. however:

I don't know what or where Hemifever scripted the alteration.. it is almost conceivable that the PCM had 6% deducted from it's ability to widen pulse.. meaning, if it's dumping fuel at a rate of 20% on the long term, that 8% would be the 'new' equivalent..

the part I left out: the 'new -6% program' he wrote, was a alteration of the 91 tune, which is what I wanted, and use.. the program he wrote didn't have the ***** the canned 91 did, as it was our intention to JUST figure the fuel curve before proceeding with a permanent fix.. now that I'm back to the original 91, I'm seeing better transmission response (torque management gone again), and higher spark advancing (on the -6%/91 tune, the highest I ever saw was 40*, and it was rare.. it pretty much lives on 40* with the canned 91 tune)..

 

Are the fuel tables the ONLY change between the two tunes? (am I reading that right?)

 

i can't speak for that.. i would like to say yes, but my butt dyno tells me no.. i think he may have taken a standard tune and tweaked the trim table, and launched it to me- it was not 'sposed to be a permanent tune, it was 'sposed to get me closer and go from there.. if it was close enough, he was going to fine tune it..

but- again- i don't know for certain anything but that there is a difference.. the truck is hella more responsive on the low end now, though..

 

Thank you very much.

 

Hhhmmmm..... would like to see some comparison logs of pulse width, and ignition advance.

 

i don't know how to use the data log feature.. so far, all i can log is GPS routes and speeds.. I'm sure there is a way, though..

 

this appears to be THE GOSPEL on injector flow rates, and it matches a couple manufacturer spec's I spot checked them with.. this is a helluva find..

here


synopsis:

0-280-155-934 OE 'red' injectors
23.6#/hr
248cc/min
178.4 gr/min
43.5psi @ rail
3.0bar


XR3E Ford Motor Sports (FMS) genIII four hole injectors
24.0#/hr
252.2cc/min
181.4 gr/min
43.8psi @ rail-
application: Ford DOHC 4.6, 5.4 V8, Mopar 4.7, 5.2, 5.9 V8

 

Thats were I picked up all my info for injectors great site. I find this tool be be very helpful as well.

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/calcpchg.htm