As for the tip-in, I have no issues with my SMART system. Unfortunately, I have no experience with other systems.

 

Both methonal and ethanol have an AKI rating (RON+MON)/2 of around 101.
E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is around 105 AKI rating.... I doubt if we are running greater than 85% alcohol when the system is active.

He can run as much power as he wants on the dyno.... mine is a daily driver tune, not a "go for broke and de-tune it after" dyno run.

Keith

 

 

I agree. But, even in school, what you read is extremely inaccurate. It eventually comes down to how much evidence you require for conviction and how usefull the result you've chosen. Let my try to explain what I mean ...

Warning: LARGE RANT IMMINENT! Please move on to the next post and ignore all usefull information for a happier and more well-rounded lifestyle.

--- Ever heard in a physics class that a baseball thrown in a vacuum makes a parabolic trajectory? Sure. It's taught in almost all introductory, and even some more advanced, physics courses. Unfortunately, it's wrong. A bright student will immediately see that it's wrong. The angular motion around the body will alter the direction in which the ball is being pulled.

--- Then this bright student will reason that it follows the shape of an elipse, just like falling bodies in space and that this elipse is approximated as a parabola if the foci of the elipse are sufficiently far apart. However, while an eliptical trajectory is slightly more accurate, it too is wrong. Because of the effects of General Relativity, the space-time curve is skewed away from infinite density creating infinite gravitation.

--- So then an even more advanced student realizes that you must make a calculation which takes into account the Swartzchild radius of the body around which the baseball is moving and the Swartzchild Radius of the baseball itself. This effectively biases the curvature of space-time in a manner which works with GR. Unfortunately this STILL isn't completely correct. GR also requires that a body accellerating within a gravitation field emit gravitational radiation.

--- So now you take into account the gravitational radiation et al and you think you FINALLY have it down perfect. Unfortunately, just as before, there's STILL something wrong. Bodies do not have uniform densities and shapes. To truly get an accurate measurement, you'd have to know the EXACT density and shape of the object about which the baseball is moving AND the same for the baseball itself. You'd integrate the force, essentially, from EVERY mass-bearing particle in both the baseball and the object it moves about.

Then, taking everything else into account ... you can only barelly calculate the precession in the orbit of Mercury to some, rather large, degree of error.

Because, after all that, you didn't calculate the effects of all the other mass-bearing bodies in the universe ... all of which slightly affect the movement of everything ... everywhere.

</end rant>

Conclusion? At the end of the day, whatever works ... works ... but don't EVER treat ANYTHING as gospel.

-Adrian

 

Exactly! I hate it when people want to do away with a MAF so quickly. It's easier to tune MAF systems as well because changes in VE don't generally affect the A/F ratio unless you're severely altering the "shape" of the airflow inside the MAF sensor. (IE boundary-layer seperation at extremely high flow or "swirling" due to the turbocharger being too close to the MAF and dragging the air in a circle.)

There are plenty of great MAFs out there too. The only method of "measuring" air with pressure and temperature requires TWO pressure sensors (static and total pressure measurements) and a temperature sensor. And it can still be less-accurate than a MAF sensor and is much more complicated to tune. (Unless you majored in Fluid Mechanics and have the tripple-integral form of the Navier-Stokes equation memorized. )

-Adrian

p.s. It's also easier to control the turbo using a MAF sensor. Why? Because the air goes through the maf BEFORE the turbo. So, if you're pulling in air so quickly that you might get a boost-spike, you will see that in the air-mass/combstion readings from the MAF before the air even gets to the turbo itself. In fact, the newer Saabs actually use the MAF sensor readings for boost-control. It's very effective and makes the accelleration "smoother".

 

.....

 

edit: nevermind

My point is that, no matter how advanced the topic, what works for you is GOOD ENOUGH and that trying to do better is futile because "better" is too subjective.

There CAN be such a thing as intellectual overkill; you don't need General Relativity to throw a baseball.

 

Im not threatened one bit, I have an education and can understand it but why post something like this on here. Youre assuming everyone can understand what you are saying. No matter I removed my post.

 

More like ~20% with the standard setup.

 

Adrian, I think this is one of the points that is often overlooked. You see it all the time on EVOm, what is the best this or that. The problem is, what I find preferable or acceptable may not be at all what you prefer or are willing to accept. There is no best turbo, best exhaust, best engine management......

That's one of the things I like about Buschur. He puts all his knowledge about the product out there for you to make the educated decision about what is best for you. Another thing I like about David is his philosophy seems to be heavily biased towards value and bang-for-the-buck.

 

For the record, AEM allows you to use a MAF sensor if so desired.

 

I don't think that anyone believes that you must use MAP with the AEM EMS (at least not anyone who has a molecule of knowledge of the subject). However, this MAP use is often mentioned as a great advantage of the AEM EMS over other systems... BTW, I believe that if one is bound and determined to do away with the MAF, the XEDE will allow you to do so.

 

We have air-TAX (AKA emissions testing) where I live that uses OBD-II for the test. AEM has no OBD-II support that I am aware of. Exed and a factory ECU are the only option...

 

I disagree, I believe most people believe that AEM can only be used as speed density system. You don't have to use a "crummy" MAP sensor if you don't want to.

 

???? I said that I don't believe that people who know even a little bit believe that the AEM must be used with a MAP sensor....I don't understand what you disagree with...