Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Tuesday, October 15
2002 Volume 01 : Number 972
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:56:49 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Inj. Duty Cycle for 550's and DR650's....
What do you exactly want to know ??? The question is somewhat strange
...
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Morice, Francis" <
francis.morice@retek.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 14, 2002 6:25 PM
Subject: Team3S: Inj. Duty Cycle for 550's
and DR650's....
> Anyone know where I can find this info? I looked on
>
www.stealth316.com, but couldn't find
it.
>
> TIA,
>
> Francis
> '96 RT/TT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:04 -0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Inj. Duty Cycle for 550's and DR650's....
The IDC for 550's is going to vary depending on boost pressure, however
anything over like 18-20 PSI you will be pushing the limits of 550's and
if you are truly interested in making big power I would get either Bosch
650CC ball style injectors or the Blitz/Denso 660's. At the bare
minimum..........
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:23:42 -0700
From: Andrew Woll <
awoll1@pacbell.net>
Subject: Team3S:
Climate Control System
I have the strangest problem.
On very hot days no cold air comes from the vents. The compressor is
working fine. So is the condenser and evap. If I beat on the four relays
up in the left side of the engine compartment the climate control will
start working.
On days where it is 50 degrees more or less, the AC will cool the car down
way too low when the temp desired is set to 72.
I don't really know where to start trouble shooting. I replaced all the
relays but the problem remains.
The car is a 93 Stealth AWD TT first gen. It has the climate control window
and does not have separate AC and heater controls.
I am thinking that the light sensor on the dash, or the interior temp
sensor, may be bad. I have the manual on CD and it is some help but it
does not tell me how to get the light sensor out of the car and I can't find
the temp sensor.
Any help would be appreciated. I love the car but on hot days I can't take
anyone with me because I never know if I will get cold air or not.
Andy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:28:46 -0400
From: "Alex Pedenko" <
alex@kolosy.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Climate Control System
AFAIK, the temp sensor is on the roof by the sunroof handle. It looks like
a small comb (really small - maybe an 1" long and 1/4" wide)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:34:35 -0700
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Climate Control System
Andy...
The sensor is in the headliner above the back seat. Due to external
temperatures (i.e., if your car is sitting in the sun), the sensor itself
may heat up, therefore over cooling the car.
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Woll
[mailto:awoll1@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:24
AM
Subject: Team3S: Climate Control System
<snip>
I am thinking that the light sensor on the dash, or the interior temp
sensor, may be bad. I have the manual on CD and it is some help but it
does not tell me how to get the light sensor out of the car and I can't find
the temp sensor.
<snip>
Andy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:02:21 -0700
From: "Gross, Erik" <
erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Stock Fuel Pump Voltage/Flow (Long)
Here's a summary of what I've found with my (stock fuel system) '95 VR-4.
I've listed the voltage results of my experimentation as well as the
resultant fuel pressure and A/F (perhaps more important). I'm running
1.0kg of boost peak and falling off to around 0.7-0.8kg at redline.
The fuel pressure and A/F behavior near redline listed below does not seem
to change when peak boost is limited to 0.8kg (near stock). As a reminder,
here is the path of the fuel pump power circuit:
Battery 13.8V
Voltage regulator?
Various
fuses
Junction blocks
Ignition Switch
MFI
Relay
Fuel Pump Relay
Fuel Pump
Resistor
Fuel Pump 8.6V/11.2V (low/high
load)
Under almost any state of wiring, the fuel pump voltage is relatively
constant, but drops by about 0.2V-0.3V when I initially floor it, boost
rises, and the pump has to work harder. After that initial dip (1 sec
or so), the voltage rises back to its previous voltage and may even gain
0.1V-0.2V as RPMs rise.
Completely stock, I get 11.2V to the pump under WOT, and the momentary
"dip" will take it down to 10.9V.
Voltage at the MFI relay INPUT (pin 7 B-W) is 12.5V when the pump is
operating at low voltage (8.6V) and 12.3V when the fuel pump is operating
at full voltage. The OUTPUT of the MFI relay is about the same, maybe
0.05V lower.
Baseline:
Stock fuel system, except for wiretaps to
measure
voltage at various places. WOT pump voltage
is
11.2V. At the top of 2nd or 3rd gear,
differential
fuel pressure drops from 3.1kg(44psi) to
2.1kg(30psi).
As fuel pressure drops near redline, A/F
gauge shows
12.5(best) to 13.2. Occasionally, I've
seen it as high
as 13.5 under WOT near redline.
Experiment #1:
Remove fuel pump relay, jumper
IN/OUT (pin 2, 3)
with 4" 14ga
wire.
Result:
No significant change in WOT fuel pump
voltage.
No significant change in fuel pressure or A/F
when under load. Idle voltage increased from
8.6V to 11.2V. Idle fuel pressure stays
at
3.1kg and A/F is normal at idle
(14.7).
Conclusion:
Fuel pump relay presents no
significant resistance.
Fuel pump is not keeping up with
flow/pressure
demands.
Experiment #2:
Replace high-voltage circuit
wire (pin3) from fuel pump
relay with 8ga wire direct to
pump. All other connections
remain
stock.
Result:
Fuel Pump voltage increased to
11.4V. Fuel pressure
drop is slightly less at WOT
near redline - it only
to 2.15kg (30.5psi). A/F
shows no significant change.
Conclusion:
Small
resistance in wiring from relay (engine bay)
to pump
(trunk) can be eliminated with larger wire.
Experiment #3:
Connect output of MFI relay
directly to fuel pump via
10ga wire run through the
cabin.
Result:
Fuel Pump voltage increased to
12.3V. Fuel pressure
drop is significantly reduced
with differential
pressure almost always staying above
2.35kg (33.3psi)
A/F shows slightly richer with no
excursions above
13.2:1.
Conclusion:
Significant resistance in wiring from MFI
relay to
fuel pump relay can be eliminated by bypassing
the
circuit entirely. Fuel pump flow can be
increased,
but only slightly when raising operating
voltage
from 11.2V to 12.3V. This increased voltage
does
not, however, provide sufficient flow to
maintain
fuel pressure at WOT, high RPM, and 0.7kg-0.8kg
of boost.
Experiment #4:
Connect fuel pump input directly to
battery via an
SPST relay that is activated by the stock
MFI Fuel
Pump circuit.
Result:
Fuel Pump voltage increased to 13.8V and it does
not
drop. Ever. Differential fuel pressure
is 3.5kg(50psi) at idle, which is high. Idle
A/F
ratio shows 14.7 and stays there.
As soon as fuel injector
flow is
increased, fuel pressure goes to 3.1kg
(44psi)
and stays glued there, all the way to
redline.
A/F reports 10:1 A/F most of the time, with
excursions to 8.5:1 occasionally. It NEVER
goes
any leaner than 12:1. The top end
acceleration
feels smoother in the
vehicle.
Conclusion:
Dang, that's a lot of
voltage. At 13.8V, the pump
provides enough flow to
maintain fuel pressure,
but outflows the stock pressure
regulator at idle.
The exceedingly rich conditions at WOT
could be
from exceeding 80+% IDC and having the
injectors
go static on me. The smoking at
part-throttle,
mid-RPM cruise was not entirely due to the
excessive fuel pump voltage as I'd
originally
thunk - I got it briefly this weekend
with
everything stock :(
Overall conclusion:
At stock voltage, the stock
fuel pump does not provide sufficient flow to maintain 43-45psi of
differential fuel pressure at WOT, even at stock boost levels. When
increasing boost in the top-end (even by improving the volumetric
efficiency of an engine with stock turbos), we can certainly run lean on cold
days, especially if any fuel system components are warn/clogged. We
have two options to run with a safe amount of fuel in the top end under
WOT: 1)increase fuel pump voltage to 13.5+V or 2) get a higher-flowing
pump. Theoretically, #1 could create reliability issues and requires
some fancy rewiring to maintain the stock idle voltage and not overflow
the regulator at idle. But... #1 is almost free - just the cost of a relay
and some wiring. #2 costs more, but perhaps is the "better"
solution.
Anything I've missed? What I'm seeing here is that basically, I need
a new fuel pump, even with stock turbos and not running more than 1.0kg of
boost. I'd thought about the effect of Water/Alcohol Injection (will be
installed
shortly) and if the extra fuel (alky) will help with the lean
condition. But I don't want a band-aid fix, either. And I don't want
to break things if my W/AI runs dry.
- --Erik
'95 VR-4
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:16:04 -0700
From: "Geddes, Brian J" <
brian.j.geddes@intel.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Stock Fuel Pump Voltage/Flow (Long)
> We have two options to run with a safe amount
> of fuel in the
top end under WOT: 1)increase
> fuel pump voltage to 13.5+V or 2)
get a
> higher-flowing pump. Theoretically, #1 could
> create
reliability issues and requires some
> fancy rewiring to maintain the
stock idle
> voltage and not overflow the regulator at
> idle.
But... #1 is almost free - just the
> cost of a relay and some
wiring. #2 costs
> more, but perhaps is the "better" solution.
On my car with a Supra pump and stock wiring, I saw the same fuel pressure
drop off at high RPMs. I'm not sure whether it was as drastic as
yours on the stock pump, but it was present. With the Supra pump
"hotwired", I'm seeing around 50 PSI at idle but haven't checked the high
end.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:16:44 -0500
From: "Geisel, Brian" <
brian.geisel@hp.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Help w/ Boost Controller Settings
(Roger, I agree, very nice descriptions.)
I am just having some problems
locating the correct
vacuum lines. I was looking for the elusive 'H'
connector, which I thought I found, but was wrong.
I found a
connector coming off the throttle body
vacuum hoses, but it looked more like
an F
(with 4 connections).
Can anyone explain what is going on with these
vacuum hoses, or point me
to the location in the
manuals where they are explained. I have
been
tearing the manuals up and I cannot find anywhere
that it explains
what all the vacuum hoses do and
where they are run (ie. the hose from the
front
turbo waste gate, where does it show up in the
rear?)
I have more questions, but I'll use another message
since it is not
necessarily related to boost :)
(A/F ratio stuff)
Thanx in Advance,
geis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:27:02 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Help w/ Boost Controller Settings
> I am just having some problems locating the correct
> vacuum
lines. I was looking for the elusive 'H'
> connector, which I
thought I found, but was wrong.
> I found a connector coming off the
throttle body
> vacuum hoses, but it looked more like an F
> (with 4
connections).
Well, yes it is more an F with four connections but it is NOT coming off
the throttle body at all !
> Can anyone explain what is going on with these
> vacuum hoses,
or point me to the location in the
> manuals where they are
explained. I have been
> tearing the manuals up and I cannot find
anywhere
> that it explains what all the vacuum hoses do and
> where
they are run (ie. the hose from the front
> turbo waste gate, where does
it show up in the
> rear?)
Again, look at my pages. The Turbo basic has a diagram how everything is
connected. And just follow the hose going off the y-pipe at the elbow. It
leads directly to the "F with 4" connector.
Maybe there is something wrongly hooked up on your car !
Good luck
Roger
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:24:29 -0500
From: "Geisel, Brian" <
brian.geisel@hp.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Is A/F ratio my problem?
How much fun is this?
My car runs a 13.3s 1/4mi (actual quarter, not a
gyroscope :). I
upgrade the turbos, injectors,
fuel pump, plugs, cats, etc... and then I
turn
216hp at the AWD dyno. What gives?
Here are my mods w/ the 13.3sec car:
"Improved" rear cat.
K&N
FIPK
Unorthodox Underdrive pulley
RPS Stage II clutch
Accel
Wires
Everything else is bone stock (including PSI)
Recently Added:
450cc injectors
S-AFC
Denso "Supra" Fuel
pump
Denso Iridium plugs (gapped @ .035")
Fidanza Lightweight
flywheel
RPS Stage-III (not like this affects HP)
DR-500 Turbos
Now I'm wondering about A/F ratio. I haven't gotten
a chance to
run at the track yet, but I'm hoping to try Wednesday to see if my times are
faster or slower. I really can't imagine I ran a 13.3 @ 216 HP in a
3850lb car!!! Am I running too rich?
My current setup is lean through 2k rpms, then as rpm
climbs, A/F
approaches 12.0 where it stays from about
4500 to redline. Should I be
running leaner? What do
our cars run stock? What seems to be the
most power
efficient w/o blowing EGT's out of the water (I realize
this
changes, but any general trends out there)?
Jeff's site seem to make some indications about running
A/F between 12.5
and 13.1, does that sound right?
Could I be loosing this much HP just over A/F (remember:
stock
boost)?
Anyone have any other suggestions for the silly HP numbers?
(The dyno folks claim that their dyno puts out numbers that
are about
19% lower than the "other" dyno guys numbers - FYI).
TIA,
geis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:24:38 -0400
From: "Andre Cerri" <
cerri@intersystems.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Speed bleeders
Bought two sets from ebay as knew I had to do the brakes soon, and wife
reluctant to help.....
Only to find when I came to install them that they appear to be the wrong
size. Their chart says 10mm x1.0, 35mm long.
But these appear to be a lot bigger than the ones on my front calipers -
takes an 8mm wrench to loosen it.
Oh yeah, and 5th stud sheared as I took the front wheel off. :o( Is
this a biggie to fix? Got the new nut and stud from Mitsu for less than
$10, will take to Midas I guess to get them to do it, but fore warned is
fore armed of course.
Thanks!!
Andre
------------------------------
At 05:24 PM 10/14/02 -0400, Andre Cerri wrote:
>Bought two sets from
ebay as knew I had to do the brakes soon <snip>
>Only to find when
I came to install them that they appear to be the
>wrong size. Their
chart says 10mm x1.0, 35mm long.
Take out one of your bleeders, and hie yourself down to AutoZone or any
other major parts store. Compare yours to the ones they have (watch the
thread size and pitch!) I got mine at AutoZone ($12 for a set of 2).
>Oh yeah, and 5th stud sheared as I took the front wheel off. :o(
Is
>this a biggie to fix? Got the new nut and stud from Mitsu for less
than
>$10, will take to Midas I guess to get them to do it, but fore
warned
>is fore armed of course.
It's a piece of cake if they know what they are doing. They have to pry out
the axle to get enough room to insert the wheel stud, but it's a 10 minute
job and a simple procedure once the wheel and caliper are off. I had
three of the buggers replaced before I learned to coat the studs with
anti-seize, so I've seen it done. If they start talking about $100 or more
in labor, go elsewhere. You should get away with $35 or less, because it
takes about a half hour from lift on to lift off.
Rich/slow old poop
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Margrave <
davidma@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Speed bleeders
Hey Andre, I put in speed bleeders in the front a couple years back.
I have not yet done the back. As I recall even the speedbleeder
company was not 100% sure on sizes for the stealth.
I believe I still have my stock bleed screws in a toolbox. When I get
home I'll check it out and try to get exact metric dia. and thread pitch
info for you. My car is a '91 R/T TT.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:08:45 -0700
From: Michael Gerhard <
gerhard1@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Speed bleeders
Another note on speed bleeders.
This weekend at the NASA event at Sears Point (Infineon) where Team3S had
8-9 cars in the HPDE, I loaned my Power Bleeder to Rick who had Speed
Bleeders on as well (I have stock bleeders). We noticed that we had to pump
the Power Bleeder to at least 15 psi to get the Speed Bleeders to open
sufficiently to bleed the brakes in a reasonable time. Apart from that, the
Power Bleeder worked great (I have retrofit a Mitsu master cylinder cap to
the unit so it is really easy to install).
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Michael
A. Gerhard 1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 Pearl
White
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Margrave <
davidma@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Speed bleeders
what was the final outcome of the recent wheel stud/anti-seize thread? Was
it to reduce torque by 15%? Are you really running that big a risk
by staying at 100% torque specs? Is it tensile forces or radial
shear forces that ultimately cause studs to fail?
------------------------------
David Margrave wrote:
>what was the final outcome of the recent
wheel stud/anti-seize thread?
>Was it to reduce torque by 15%? Are
you really running that big a risk
>by staying at 100% torque
specs? Is it tensile forces or radial shear
>forces that ultimately
cause studs to fail?
I don't think studs fail.
What happens is that they get hot from heavy
braking and weld themselves to the nut (for lack of a better description
of "seize.") They "seize" up so tight that breaking them loose requires so much
force it breaks off the studs. Nuttin wrong with the stud, though.
It's odd that I have not broken a single stud since I started using
anti-seize. I don't think proper wheel torque has a dang thing to do with
it other than to note that tight is better than loose, and wheel studs
should only be torqued when they are cold. I've used an Armstrong torque wrench
and had my wheels on and off the car so much without problems, I only
torque 'em down when it's cold and convenient -- like early in the
morning, before the first track session.
Rich/slow old poop
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:33:37 -0700
From: "fastmax" <
fastmax@cox.net>
Subject: Team3S: Re: SP
times
I've got kind of a yes and no answer --- I have no times from Saturday
and only two sessions on Sunday. The best recorded was 1:08+ and a
few
in the 2:10's to 2:12's --- however --- the times are suspect as I had few open
laps and my boost controller line was blown off for at least
the last
two sessions so I only had 6 psi of boost [ I didn't notice it until
after
the event ]. Damon had some hand timed numbers from session 2
when he and I
were chasing each other around the track --- these were
in the 2:06 to 2:07
range [ his SO did the timing ]. I kind of think my boost
controller was
working then which resulted in faster numbers. I'll have to wait until next year
to find out for sure.
Jim Berry
====================================================
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Zobel, Kurt" <
Kurt.Zobel@ca.com>
Sent: Monday,
October 14, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: SP times
Jim,
Did you ever get any times from the Hot Lap?
I meant to find out if anyone was keeping any times. It's always nice
to know how things are sorting out, and to establish a baseline.
Kurt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:10:34 -0700
From: Jim Elferdink <
macintosh@sunra.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Re: 3S-Racers: Re: SP times
I had a Hot Lap timer, too--my good times were mostly in the 2:12 range,
the best was 2:08.
Jim Elferdink
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 23:23:44 -0700
From: "dakken" <
dougusmagnus@attbi.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Is A/F ratio my problem?
> My current setup is lean through 2k rpms, then as rpm
> climbs,
A/F approaches 12.0 where it stays from about
> 4500 to redline.
Should I be running leaner? What do
> our cars run stock? What
seems to be the most power efficient w/o
> blowing EGT's out of the water
(I realize this changes, but any
> general trends out
there)?
>
> Jeff's site seem to make some indications about
running
> A/F between 12.5 and 13.1, does that sound right?
I'm very interesting in knowing what the correct A/F ratio is as
well. I recently installed a Apex Turbo Timer that has a A/F gauge
in it. Since installing this I have found that under WOT my car goes
quickly to 10.0 on the A/F gauge and cruises at 14.7. This is with
my SAFC set at -24% and 450 injectors.
I have always seen everyone say that O2 voltage is supposed to be over .90
volts and ideally at about .94 volts. These voltages according to my
chart would give a A/F ratio in the low 11's to mid 10's.
At what point does detonation occur?
Doug
92 Stealth RT TT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 06:03:02 EDT
From:
Merlin916@aol.comSubject: Re: Team3S: Is
A/F ratio my problem?
Technically, the optimal A/F ratio is 14.7:1. This is what is labeled
as
stoichiometric (forgive the spelling if its incorrect). At this
ratio, all
of the fuel and air will be used. In our performance
applications, my shop
likes to keep the ratio around 12~13:1 on turbocharged
cars. Running a
little rich lowers cylinder temps, and percent
detonation.
The reason you get really rich (10:1) as you go to wide open throttle at
low
RPM/boost, is that as soon as you get over 80% throttle, the fuel
injection
goes to full duty cycle to prevent you from leaning out.
Then, as the air
flow catches up, you go back to around 14.
Where detonation occurs will depend greatly on the octane of the fuel, the
compression ratio and a few other factors. Basically, its a little
different
for each engine.
Joe
93 RT/TT
02 WRX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:57:03 +0200
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Is A/F ratio my problem?
At 06:03 15.10.2002 -0400,
Merlin916@aol.com wrote:
>Technically,
the optimal A/F ratio is 14.7:1. This is what is labeled
>as
stoichiometric (forgive the spelling if its incorrect). At this
>ratio, all of the fuel and air will be used. In our performance
>applications, my shop likes to keep the ratio around 12~13:1 on
>turbocharged cars. Running a little rich lowers cylinder temps,
and
>percent detonation.
The turbocharged 6G72 needs to have rich conditions, only a few engines I
know of are happy (i.e. no or little knock) with a higher than 12.5 : 1
ratio.
>The reason you get really rich (10:1) as you go to wide open throttle
>at low RPM/boost, is that as soon as you get over 80% throttle, the
>fuel injection goes to full duty cycle to prevent you from leaning
out.
>Then, as the air flow catches up, you go back to around
14.
This doesn't apply to our cars. Otherwise everyone with larger injectors
would flood their engines. In fact the fuel maps and offsets
determined at
WOT is calculated from rpm, airflow and TPS. This determines
the load and
the appropriate duty cycle is selected. No full duty cycle in a
condition
you describe.
>Where detonation occurs will depend greatly on the octane of the fuel,
>the compression ratio and a few other factors. Basically, its a
little
>different for each engine.
Not only a little, it is even different on the same cars. I saw heavy knock
on a almost stock 3000GT with 0.85 bars and I saw zero knock on another
with 1.1 bars, both with the same mods and same fuel quality.
For cars without the ability to check the knock sum get a voltmeter or A/F
meter and make sure it always shows in between 0.82 - 0.86 Volts at the O2
sensor at WOT. This is where the stock level is around and it seems the
engines do like this area at most. Also use the best gas you can get, 91
octane is not recommended at all.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:30:45 -0700
From: Michael Gerhard <
gerhard1@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Re: SP times
At 08:33 PM 10/14/02 , you wrote:
>I've got kind of a yes and no
answer --- I have no times from Saturday
>and only two sessions on
Sunday. The best recorded was 1:08+ and a few
>in the 2:10's to 2:12's
---
Man, you were really flying to get a 1:08+ lap time! Boost must have been
30psi (grin).
My wife hand timed Ann and me in group 2b and I'm thinking the best times
she noted for us were about 2:25. I was really impressed with the skill and
speed of you group 3 folks. I'm hoping to be there at some point.
It was great being part of the 3S community there.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Michael
A. Gerhard 1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 Pearl
White
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:31:45 -0700
From: "Geddes, Brian J" <
brian.j.geddes@intel.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Is A/F ratio my problem?
Take the A/F readings from that turbo timer with a grain of salt. It
operates off of the stock O2 sensor voltages, which are accurate around
stoichiometric (14.7:1), but highly inaccurate outside of that range.
.95 volts is richer than .9 volts, but how MUCH richer varies from O2
sensor to O2 sensor and car to car.
- - Brian
> I'm very interesting in knowing what the correct A/F ratio is
>
as well. I recently installed a Apex Turbo Timer that has
> a A/F
gauge in it.
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V1
#972
***************************************
