...or El Duderino, if you're not into the whole brevity thing...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dustin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Mr. Dude,

There are ZERO "rpm points" of adjustability with your so-called "solution".

0 &lt; infinite</TD></TR></TABLE>

There's also 0 points of adjustment based on how hard you step on your brake pedal. What a coincidence that both RPM and Brake application are 100% irrelevant to manifold pressure. You could be at 6000rpm and 3psi, but drowing in your cockamame fuel map. You could be at 6psi at 3000rpm and be as lean as Kalista Flockhart. Once again....RPM = irrelevant. Boost = absolute.

 

you sir just earned a new title!

 

This is good stuff! BTW, WTF is this, Night of the Living Threads? Original post was over 2 years ago I thought everybody would be running Uberdata by now instead of still buying AFCs.

 

Hey guys. I've been running the S-AFC 450cc combo for over a year with great success below 11psi. For my built block I want to run 15-20psi.

1987 Acura Integra D16A1

The engine is pre-OBD0, basically. The ECU is not supported by any chipping that I know of... Hondata isn't compatible... I can't convert to OBD1. I don't know of any standalone options. The only thing I can think of that's still an option is to retain the S-AFC and pray that I can find a way to use the GM 3bar MAP sensor in conjunction with the hack.

Has anyone had success with the 3bar + S-AFC combo?

My timing is not ECU controlled (vacuum-advance ignition system) and I have plenty of dyno time.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Ryan

 

Who originally thought of the hack? i know liam improved it....
(i just wanted to post here because this is a historic thread )

 

i talked to liam about this and i'm pretty confident but just looking for more opinions. I'm building a t3/t4 kit for my 02 accord and will run 6psi daily, 9psi max for track days and the like. I don't want people just posting to tell me to get hondata, so if that's all you have to say just skip over my post. If i retard my base timing 2 or 3 degrees, should i expect any reliability issues with the afc hack (and 440/450 injectors and 255 walbro) with the boost i will be running?

 

Well since this thread is back again and I'm finally working on my turbo setup's fuel managment I will ask and point out a few of my thoughts.

I want to run the hack because I don't have the money for the Hondata or anything better at the time and this is a temporary solution for that.

Ive been doing alot searching for a thread that speaks of the hack ran on a h22a and I can't find what I am looking for. I will be running 6 psi daily on the hack and did some math. I figured 6 psi will put down 240whp hopefully on the h22a...

<U>240 WHP x .60 B.S.F.C</U>
4 inj. x .80 duty cycle

= 46.875 lbs/hr x 10.5 = 492.2 cc/min

I understand that my car will not put out 240 hp through out the entire rpm band so that number isn't necessarily the amount of fuel I will need to run all the time. Running the hack with already under rated injectors(450) scares me. Plus after setting the afc to the proper settings to lower the map voltage will reduce this even more. Setting the afc around -40 at idle is perfect because that means the 450's will flow near the stock injector rate. for Hi/Lo throttle settings though, it can't be set too low(meaning -35 like all the D series gurue's run) or the h22a will run extremely lean and probably detonate, but if you don't set the afc low enough the map sensor will detect the boost.

I have a friend that recently just got his boosted h22 running on the hack and he says that it has had no problems and runs great. I believe him, but have not seen it for my own eyes yet and I don't think he has had it on the road long enough to know. The reason I am contemplating the hack is because I believe in it, I just wana do it right. Many people have told me that it works on all Honda motors, but if it isn't done right like anything, it won't work.

Am I on track with my thoughts? I think I am but I may be forgetting some things at the moment. If anyone can post there settings on the afc I would appreciate it to give me a ball park of what works. I just don't understand how this can work using injectors that are too small...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you sir just earned a new title!</TD></TR></TABLE>

lol, nice title. The only thing is that it's on a name that I use the least (FMIC Black rather than Black FMIC). Any way to 'frankenstein' it?

Solo:

Seems like you're on the right track, but I have a few points.

The way I figure HP/psi on a N/A engine is as follows:

BHP/14.7 = hp/psi (estimate) x desired psi +BHP = total hp after boost - 17% (for estimated total thermal losses).

I don't know what mods your car has or anything else like that, but lets assume at 6psi (on a relatively stock engine) you'll make ~233hp (w ~13.6hp/psi before thermal losses). This number isn't dead on the money, but it'll get you very close in the actual ball park. The formula you're using needs est WHP to be calculated, so subtract another 8% (for FWD cars) for drivetrain losses giving you ~210whp Now let's plug this number into the formula you're using...

<U>210 WHP x .60 B.S.F.C</U>&lt;----this 0.60BSFC I'd imagine is an educated guess on your part.
4 inj. x .80 duty cycle&lt;----the .80 duty cycle I'm also curious about. does the stock ECU run up to 80% Duty Cycle? If not, then the actual number will have to be plugged in.

= 39.375lbs/hr x 10.5 = 413.4 cc/min Using these numbers, these injectors would be more than adequate.

Since it takes CFM to make HP, I prefer to start at the source. In my experience it takes about 1.2CFM to make 1hp on efficient engines like these, so I prefer to use a different formula to determine the CFM (and therefore the HP) an injector will support. I'll use a worse case HP figure of 300hp and determine the CFM from there:

<U>300 (estimatedHP) x 1.2 = 360 (est CFM) x 0.44298</U>
4 (number of cyls)

= 33.22 pph injectors x 10.5 = 348cc injectors.

As you can see in either formula, you're covered by a large margin with the 450cc (42pph) injectors. I could have summarized the post by simply saying "don't worry man. You're safe." but that dosen't really explain much of anything. I hope this helped.


Modified by Black FMIC at 7:10 PM 4/8/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FMIC black &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

There's also 0 points of adjustment based on how hard you step on your brake pedal. What a coincidence that both RPM and Brake application are 100% irrelevant to manifold pressure. You could be at 6000rpm and 3psi, but drowing in your cockamame fuel map. You could be at 6psi at 3000rpm and be as lean as Kalista Flockhart. Once again....RPM = irrelevant. Boost = absolute.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hi.

Do you know anything about fuel injection? {I admit I already know the answer to this}

Maybe something graphical will help you out.



Why ever could an engine need more fuel at X rpm than at Y rpm with the same manifold pressure? Can we guess?

Could it be that engines are not identically efficient at every rpm?

You see, air supply and respective fuel delivery are never based solely on manifold pressure in modern EFI systems.

Here is some good reading that isn't based on your radio-shack education:

http://www.sdsefi.com/techcam.htm

Also realize that necessary fuel delivery for safe combustion is immensely dependent on ignition timing, which is DIRECTLY dependent on engine RPM.

You're trying to oversimplify a very complex situation.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why ever could an engine need more fuel at X rpm than at Y rpm with the same manifold pressure? Can we guess?

Could it be that engines are not identically efficient at every rpm? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Nice try jerky. The stock ECU handles your fuel needs/rpm regardless of your manifold pressure. You're simply overlapping the stock fuel solution with an exponential amount more fuel in the event that boost is present, regardless of RPM. I dunno if you noticed or not...but the stock ECU is still doing its thing at EVERY rpm regardless of boost. You're not removing the stock ECU there chuckles. Why would you?!?. C'mon man. Use your head for something other than a hammering surface. Like I once said for someone else:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You sound like the average guy that buys a chip burner and thinks that they're a prodigy, but you still have a ton of learning to do. Learning how to tune would help. Learning humilty would be nice as well.</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're trying to oversimplify a very complex situation.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I can't blame you for trying to look at all angles, but you're making a 7-piece screwdriver out of something that really isn't that complicated and has been done thousands of times on millions of cars.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Black FMIC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Nice try jerky. The stock ECU handles your fuel needs/rpm regardless of your manifold pressure.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

what? regardless, huh?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You're simply overlapping the stock fuel solution with an exponential amount more fuel in the event that boost is present, regardless of RPM.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

exponential?

I agree that you are going to be adding fuel with boost. I just disagree that it is automagically the correct amount.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I dunno if you noticed or not...but the stock ECU is still doing its thing at EVERY rpm regardless of boost. You're not removing the stock ECU there chuckles. Why would you?!?.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Wow good catch. I looked straight past that. {Prays you possess enough intellect to identify sarcasm}

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
C'mon man. Use your head for something other than a hammering surface. Like I once said for someone else: You sound like the average guy that buys a chip burner and thinks that they're a prodigy, but you still have a ton of learning to do. Learning how to tune would help. Learning humilty would be nice as well.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not the average guy, and I have a hard time taking constructive criticism from someone who is wrong.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I can't blame you for trying to look at all angles, but you're making a 7-piece screwdriver out of something that really isn't that complicated and has been done thousands of times on millions of cars.</TD></TR></TABLE>

First, I'd like to know how you do something thousands of times on millions of cars.

Second, I'd like to comment that the sort of stuff you are throwing out would have been wonderful -- say 30 years ago. Maybe in the days of carburetion. Those days it was all about the science of being "close". Fuel injection is about being exact.

When you add boost, you change the about of air/fuel mix you lose during valve overlap. Also, manifold efficiencies are different under positive pressure, etc. All of this is definately engine RPM dependent.

Sure, you could probably get close enough to keep the engine safe under full throttle. But with your so-called solution, you'll never be able to get torque delivery and AFR/timing spot on throughout the entire engine RPM range. It's just not going to happen. I think you know it too.

Drivability is going to suck too. Read through this entire thread. You're really wacking out the way the ecu deals with its timing map and the ecu's reaction to throttle tip in.

For your idea to work, you'd need to rechip the ecu. And when you do that, your argument is pretty much void.


Also, just as an aside, would you like to point me to the "infinite" amount of "rpm points" you mentioned earlier? I really want to understand how you think you've got things figured out when you change your opinions every five minutes. Maybe I'd be more impressed if you could stick with a consistent argument.

 

Here is a GSR fuel map for a turbo GSR w/440cc injectors.

This is one of the AEM base maps.

RPM is on the left-right axis. Fuel on top-bottom. Load on front-back.

Notice that the fuel delivery lines(vs RPM, left-right) are not straight lines, nor do they have the same slope throughout the RPM range! As you can see they almost have slope zero near low load and they have erratic slope at high load. Slope = the change in fuel with RPM in this picture.

Are you trying to tell me that when you automagically re-scale the Load axis by changing the MAP sensor voltage, that these curves in the stock ECU just magically line up for perfect fuel delivery? You are rescaling the entire map!

Your idea of "perfection" will just result in a poor approximation. Real engine management or a rechipped ECU would be able to do this correctly.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Black FMIC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Nice try jerky. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Hrm, I think I'm going to pay falconGSR $45 to set dustin's title to "jerky".


Like arguing with a wall, isn't it?

 

IM me for paypal details.

 

talk about up from the dead

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RuthlessEF-9 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">talk about up from the dead</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks Captian Obvious.

 

Bump.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by redteg_87 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hey guys. I've been running the S-AFC 450cc combo for over a year with great success below 11psi. For my built block I want to run 15-20psi.

1987 Acura Integra D16A1

The engine is pre-OBD0, basically. The ECU is not supported by any chipping that I know of... Hondata isn't compatible... I can't convert to OBD1. I don't know of any standalone options. The only thing I can think of that's still an option is to retain the S-AFC and pray that I can find a way to use the GM 3bar MAP sensor in conjunction with the hack.

Has anyone had success with the 3bar + S-AFC combo?

My timing is not ECU controlled (vacuum-advance ignition system) and I have plenty of dyno time.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Ryan</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by redteg_87 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Bump.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Why cant you convert to OBDI?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what? regardless, huh?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes. In this instance with a set-up like this, it's IS regardless.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">exponential?

I agree that you are going to be adding fuel with boost. I just disagree that it is automagically the correct amount</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes. Exponential. RRR's rate of fuel addition = exponential.

As far as it being the correct amount, I not only agree, but I stated this when I first proposed this alternative. Naturally, anything less than a full replacement will be the "correct amount", but is it a usable compromise? Aboslutely.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Wow good catch. I looked straight past that. {Prays you possess enough intellect to identify sarcasm}</TD></TR></TABLE>

I had to state this because you spoke as if the ECU were being eliminated, which I thought it would be evident to someone who's considering possible outcomes with such a design that the ECU would still function in it's complete and stock fashion. It seemed like you lacked this realization.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm not the average guy, and I have a hard time taking constructive criticism from someone who is wrong.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Average guy? No. Average guy with a chip burner that thinks they're a prodigy but still has a lot of learning to do? Yes.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">First, I'd like to know how you do something thousands of times on millions of cars.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Now you're just nitpicking.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Second, I'd like to comment that the sort of stuff you are throwing out would have been wonderful -- say 30 years ago. Maybe in the days of carburetion. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Hmm...A zener diode (electrical component) inline with a MAP sensor (electrical component) that feeds a signal to an ECU (electrical component) would have worked on a carbed car?? Wow man. You have a looooooooooooooooot of reading to do.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">When you add boost, you change the about of air/fuel mix you lose during valve overlap. Also, manifold efficiencies are different under positive pressure, etc. All of this is definately engine RPM dependent.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The same arguement could be had for any engine management for any EFI car in the entire world. Boosted or NA.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Sure, you could probably get close enough to keep the engine safe under full throttle. But with your so-called solution, you'll never be able to get torque delivery and AFR/timing spot on throughout the entire engine RPM range. It's just not going to happen. I think you know it too. </TD></TR></TABLE>

'Spot on', no. I stated this much earlier in the post. What you're quick to point Fingers at is the same thing that you fail to realize: Neither will the S/VAFC. Nor will anything short of a full standalone.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Drivability is going to suck too. Read through this entire thread. You're really wacking out the way the ecu deals with its timing map and the ecu's reaction to throttle tip in. </TD></TR></TABLE>

False. Maybe we should go over this whole "ECU still works" thing. This is not an S/VAFC. Not trying to insult your intellegence, but the zener diode will allow all of the stock voltage with the exception of the voltage signal that would set off limp mode. The RRR (set at a lower-than-stock line pressure) won't add (tangibly) more fuel than stock until you get into boost. Drivability won't be altered at all until you break into the zone where you'd be outside of the stock MAP sensors non-limpmode voltage (well into boost) which by that time the RRR has started adding fuel. As you can see, the drivability off boost = 100% identical to stock. Drivability at any time in boost = subject to your ability to tune. If you dial in too much additional fuel/psi, the car will obviously drive like ***.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For your idea to work, you'd need to rechip the ecu. And when you do that, your argument is pretty much void.</TD></TR></TABLE>

False again.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Also, just as an aside, would you like to point me to the "infinite" amount of "rpm points" you mentioned earlier? I really want to understand how you think you've got things figured out when you change your opinions every five minutes. Maybe I'd be more impressed if you could stick with a consistent argument.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The "infinite RPM points" was on a system that involved a potentiometer because (once again) a potentiometer is an analog device and therefore its divisions are immesurable. Immeasurable = infinite. Personally, I'd forgo the potentiometer all together so I stopped mentioning it, but if you're the type that feels the need to have buttons and switches that you'll use once every couple of months or if you're unsure of the proceedures to take to tune the car adequately, then I'll start discussing the potentiometer again.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Are you trying to tell me that when you automagically re-scale the Load axis by changing the MAP sensor voltage, that these curves in the stock ECU just magically line up for perfect fuel delivery? You are rescaling the entire map! </TD></TR></TABLE>

No. That's exactly what I'm NOT trying to tell you. The S/VAFC scales the stock fuel maps which is something I'm not fond of either. The zener does not scale which is what I've been trying to explain for 3 posts now.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Like arguing with a wall, isn't it? </TD></TR></TABLE>

I presume that this is your weak pot-shot since all of your "valid points" were completely shot down by unarguable facts. Instead of dispute information with information, you resorted to middleschool tactics like this. Grow up.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Black FMIC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Yes. In this instance with a set-up like this, it's IS regardless.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

No.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Yes. Exponential. RRR's rate of fuel addition = exponential.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

You have absolutely no idea what the word "exponential" means.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Average guy? No. Average guy with a chip burner that thinks they're a prodigy but still has a lot of learning to do? Yes.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Someone has a lot of learning to do, I agree.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Hmm...A zener diode (electrical component) inline with a MAP sensor (electrical component) that feeds a signal to an ECU (electrical component) would have worked on a carbed car?? Wow man. You have a looooooooooooooooot of reading to do.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Read what I said over again and maybe what I intended will occur to you.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The same arguement could be had for any engine management for any EFI car in the entire world. Boosted or NA.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

What I am saying is that you are most definately assuming that the fuel vs. RPM map of a N/A car will automagically work for a forced induction car.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
'Spot on', no. I stated this much earlier in the post. What you're quick to point Fingers at is the same thing that you fail to realize: Neither will the S/VAFC. Nor will anything short of a full standalone.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Your "solution" provides NO fuel vs. rpm adjustability! The SAFC/VAFC does! What are you talking about?


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The "infinite RPM points" was on a system that involved a potentiometer because (once again) a potentiometer is an analog device and therefore its divisions are immesurable. Immeasurable = infinite. Personally, I'd forgo the potentiometer all together so I stopped mentioning it, but if you're the type that feels the need to have buttons and switches that you'll use once every couple of months or if you're unsure of the proceedures to take to tune the car adequately, then I'll start discussing the potentiometer again.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

So you concede that there are zero rpm points, but that you have analog adjustability of fuel (not vs. rpm!) with the potentiometer? Heh.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Black FMIC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Yes. Exponential. RRR's rate of fuel addition = exponential.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

you've definitely taught me something here, but its probably not what you intended. what you have taught me is that having a little knowledge and then filling in the unknowns with bullshit is a very dangerous thing.

in the future, i highly recommend using honda-tech as a place to ask questions, not to offer answers, because if you post any more "answers" that are this full of holes and misinformation, we're going to jump all over you like this every time. so save us the trouble. thanks.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Not trying to insult your intellegence, but the zener diode will allow all of the stock voltage with the exception of the voltage signal that would set off limp mode. </TD></TR></TABLE>

get an oscilloscope and a function generator and do a voltage sweep of the zener and tell me if you still think its doing what you expect.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Black FMIC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I presume that this is your weak pot-shot since all of your "valid points" were completely shot down by unarguable facts. Instead of dispute information with information, you resorted to middleschool tactics like this. Grow up.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It wasn't a weak pot shot - it was the damn truth.

I could, for example, prove mathematically that FMU increases fuel in a linear manner... but with a little confused logic and complete and total failure to grasp the subject matter you'd insist that it was exponential... or pretend that you meant linear all along... or change the subject entirely.

Just because I have better things to do than worry over every little post you make... doesn't mean I'm not absolutely convinced you're an imbecile

 

12:1 disc. where x = boost,

12x != 12^x != x^12

it appears you knew that already, probably just mis-worded after.