torque (part 2)
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 
Originally Posted by gearbox
correct. before with tuning it was a flat 14. Now its lean again in low rpms and around 13 upper rpms.
So looking at your dyno how you had it tuned, you had leaned out the mixture for more power. Over time, your ECU took over and tried to counter-correct, making your mixture RICHER to get closer to the stock mappings again. The reason you haven't lost much power is because it didn't change drastically, and your other mods may be helping maintain some power.
Turbos, Engines, Chassis and Suspension Tech
iTrader: (2)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 0 
Originally Posted by S2000man01
13.7:1 is stoichmetric. if you're running 14.7:1 that's actually dangerously lean unless you are idling.
Turbos, Engines, Chassis and Suspension Tech
iTrader: (2)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 0 13:1 is about right under heavy accleration for a normally aspirated engine. 12:1-12.5:1 is about right for turbocharged engines. You can also use BSFC to determine AF ratio. An NA engine will have a BSFC between .45 and .50 and turbocharged will be between .60 and .65.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 doh yeah 14.7:1. sorry bout that!
you can even get more technical than that if you want. using the amount of addatives in the fuel, you can calculate what the actual stoichiometric rate would be. For example, here in wisconsin, our gas is about 90% gasoline, and the rest are an addative. Our actual stoichiometric rate would be about 14.4:1.
http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M...chiometric.htm
you can even get more technical than that if you want. using the amount of addatives in the fuel, you can calculate what the actual stoichiometric rate would be. For example, here in wisconsin, our gas is about 90% gasoline, and the rest are an addative. Our actual stoichiometric rate would be about 14.4:1.
http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M...chiometric.htm
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 by the way, I'm so sorry for misquoting the 13.7:1. 13 is not too rich at all under WOT. and idle can see as high as 16 or 17:1. cruising, as 4drcivic2k1 said, also sees leaner rates.
"You leave me in the trenches taking Grenades, John"
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut/Bryant University
Rep Power: 0 ok so lemme see if I have this right. If I were to get the AEM EMS on my car (totally stock engine), it alone wont really do a whole lot, right? However, you're saying that once I throw the bolt ons with the ems I should get more power than normal, correct? Does anyone know about how much of a difference this should make? or was this never done before?
sorry about all the ?'s, just trying to understand all this...
sorry about all the ?'s, just trying to understand all this...
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by Stachmo
ok so lemme see if I have this right. If I were to get the AEM EMS on my car (totally stock engine), it alone wont really do a whole lot, right? However, you're saying that once I throw the bolt ons with the ems I should get more power than normal, correct? Does anyone know about how much of a difference this should make? or was this never done before?
sorry about all the ?'s, just trying to understand all this...
sorry about all the ?'s, just trying to understand all this...
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
