View Single Post
Old 02-24-2011, 05:34 PM   #14 (permalink)
zonker
500 Mile Metro Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sun City, CA
Posts: 183

'89 Dakota LB - blue - '89 Dodge Dakota V6 LE
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

'17 Fiat 124 - SunFiat - '17 Fiat 124 Spider Classica
90 day: 30.51 mpg (US)

'89 Metro - The Egg - '89 Geo Metro Base
90 day: 50.71 mpg (US)

'94 Alto - The Box - '94 Suzuki Alto Ce-L
90 day: 39.5 mpg (US)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sularus View Post
hey zonker, there is a better way to increase ignition timing. Add some resistance to your IAT and the comp will think it is colder. It will add timing to compensate.

Other than that, it really doesn't matter what TYPE of intake you run. The only thing that matters is to make sure there is a little restriction to intake flow as possible. Measuring pressure throughout the intake and making sure it is as close to even thru the whole system is what matters.
In my experience on Fords, IAT only does fuel and not timing, the ect, bap, and maf take care of fuel and ign. timing. trust me, i've played with that as well.

reduction in intake air restriction is important, but at least if not more important is air velocity when working on an intake with a maf or vam sensor. If this was just a filter on the end of the tube like a speed density system, then air velocity would matter less.

BUT, you are onto what my next lil project is for the white rag from a performance perspective... a tps actuated resistor set that will change baro and ect settings when more than 75% throttle is engaged. I did that on my zx2 many moons ago and dyno'd 16hp from tricking the iat/ect circuit (it pulled big numbers because it altered not only fuel and ignition, but exhaust cam timing too thru the vct). I currently sell that item as a "black box", and it works killer.

Last edited by zonker; 02-24-2011 at 05:53 PM..
  Reply With Quote