Bluedemon_II
New member
Conservative "Economy" tuning Hypothesis and brain storming. "AFR and timing"
As part of my tuning proses, I attempt new settings to achieve different goals. Right now I'm about to finish up on my part throttle tuning segment.
I have seen a dramatical decrease in fuel economy when my car was running leaner than normal AFR on low load/rpm areas "daily commute".
My car was running close to 15.7:1 to 16.0:1 on some areas, this is very lean compared to the standardized 14.7:1 target for gasoline injected engines. At some points you could feel the car unwilling attitudes towards acceleration while on this situation took place. It was at some points necessary to increase throttle to obtain the same power that it would have on other areas running near the accepted AFR target "14.7:1 - 15.0:1"
It would make relative sense that if the AFR is leaner, the engine is consuming less fuel. But the the thing is that at an average I could get about 200 miles per tank.
This leads me to think that even if the engine is using less fuel, the power output falls dramatically and so it requires more air and more fuel to do the same job since the combustion is less efficient.
I don't know if I'm projecting my idea clearly since this is a little confusing even to me.
Right now I'm in the final touch ups of my fuel map to run as close to 14.7 as the ems lets me.
As far as timing goes, I run 43 degrees on most of the low load areas, at about 4500 rpm. I'm haven't gotten the chance to test more timing on low load but I would like to run close to 45 or 49 degrees to see the effects on fuel economy.
In fact, I'm going to change my map to run those degrees and see how the car behaves.
If anyone wants to share or comment, please do. I feel like our tunning section needs a little more love.
As part of my tuning proses, I attempt new settings to achieve different goals. Right now I'm about to finish up on my part throttle tuning segment.
I have seen a dramatical decrease in fuel economy when my car was running leaner than normal AFR on low load/rpm areas "daily commute".
My car was running close to 15.7:1 to 16.0:1 on some areas, this is very lean compared to the standardized 14.7:1 target for gasoline injected engines. At some points you could feel the car unwilling attitudes towards acceleration while on this situation took place. It was at some points necessary to increase throttle to obtain the same power that it would have on other areas running near the accepted AFR target "14.7:1 - 15.0:1"
It would make relative sense that if the AFR is leaner, the engine is consuming less fuel. But the the thing is that at an average I could get about 200 miles per tank.
This leads me to think that even if the engine is using less fuel, the power output falls dramatically and so it requires more air and more fuel to do the same job since the combustion is less efficient.
I don't know if I'm projecting my idea clearly since this is a little confusing even to me.
Right now I'm in the final touch ups of my fuel map to run as close to 14.7 as the ems lets me.
As far as timing goes, I run 43 degrees on most of the low load areas, at about 4500 rpm. I'm haven't gotten the chance to test more timing on low load but I would like to run close to 45 or 49 degrees to see the effects on fuel economy.
In fact, I'm going to change my map to run those degrees and see how the car behaves.
If anyone wants to share or comment, please do. I feel like our tunning section needs a little more love.