* Let's have a test and tune day in So. Cal.

[400Eric]

You know, Steve and Justin could and would back us on this, but they are afraid to because they are afraid that Dave won't help them if and when they need it if they go against what Dave says.

Come-on guys, Dave's not like that! He is better than that! You can go ahead and tell us what YOUR drag strip experiences have been and how weather conditions effect your E/Ts!

 

[J-Sauce]

Eric, I gave you Dernts email about a year ago when he was offering you his LSD for peanuts! Remember? The one he offered to ship you FOR FREE!? The one you never wrote him about! Email the guy yourself!

Cheers

 

[400Eric]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that!

Do you still have his contact info?

I do NEED that LSD too!

It's coming back to me now. A year ago I was still thoroughly pissed about B3 blowing his pump seal, and I didn't want to do ANYTHING with an M119 car at that time. But I'm ready now.

Would you please tell everybody here how much better your 036 runs when the weather is cooler? Don't look at it as backing me, look at it as backing Uncle Gerry!

 

[gsxr]

The chip you were testing WASN'T Dernt's chip! I'd like to see some tests on HIS chip!

If he had the eBay chip, it was the same chip. The eBay guy only sells a single chip program for all LH M119's.

Again, one of my dyno runs was with a 92 ECU WITH A 5.0 CHIP! And it wasn't any richer than a same part number stock 92 ECU. Dernt's chip is different than the ones that we are stuck with! We need that chip or another one from the same outfit!

Was your dyno run with a 92 5.0 chip, or a 93-up 5.0 chip?

Dern't had TWO 400Es. his original stockish one (the one that he dynod the chip with), and the 6.0 RennTech one (the one that Justin tried to get). Which one got crushed? What happened to the other one? Is he into something else now? Maybe he doesn't want that chip anymore? Maybe he doesn't need his N2O system anymore either? Maybe he doesn't need is 6.0 anymore! We need to talk to him! Wait a minute...... Maybe you are already talking to him about his 6.0?!?

It was the 4.2 that got squished in Jan-2012. Photo attached, hopefully he won't mind that I posted it. Last I heard, the other car was still in FL and he doesn't get down there often.

Would you please tell everybody here how much better your 036 runs when the weather is cooler? Don't look at it as backing me, look at it as backing Uncle Gerry!

To be more specific. I've said this before but I love repeating myself. Lower ambient temps generally do help slightly. But that's it, slightly. There is not a 3 tenth improvement between 80F and 50F. There is not 20hp for 15 degrees, or everyone would be getting 400hp from their 500E's in New Yawk winters.

I looked up some data from my car this year, in 60F in spring it was running consistent .35's (±0.03). Skip forward to summer, in 90-92F ambients it ran .45's with similar fuel load, wind, etc. In 100F it ran low 50's. Only 0.15 slower with 40F hotter ambients? Hmmm. But yes, it was slower, Eric and Gerry are technically correct. Uh-oh.

OK, so my car is weird. Let's look at my wife's 500E. On the 60F ambient spring day, it was running low 50's. In 90F it was... high 50's? That can't possible. Same fuel load, similar wind, etc. 100F ambient, ok, it finally slowed to low .60's, a bit over a tenth slower with FORTY DEGREES HOTTER AMBIENT TEMPS. That's completely, totally, inexplicable unpossible! And this wasn't a single fluke day, we had four different summer race days with 100F ambients, the data was similar on all of them. In the fall, her car ran a string of consistent low 50's in... 52F-58F ambients. Uh-oh, her car ignores the ambient temps even more than mine. Rut-roh!!

Slower in the heat? Yes, but not as much as everyone implies, nowhere near one tenth per 10°F. The bigger difference is that in the cool ambients, I can get the engine down to 60C between runs. In the summer, it's usually 75C.

Side note: We drag race with a 20C fixed resistor in place of the IAT sensor. Maybe that has something to do with the consistency? I'm not sure, but in the interest of full disclosure, I figured I'd toss that out. Photos attached, it's a factory "tool".

gsxr is extremely obdurate about this topic.

Yes. Yes, I am.

 

[gerryvz]

Blah, blah, blah.

Bottom line is that Eric and I are correct about ambient (& engine bay) temps affecting engine output, and you admitted it (sort of). Along with a lot of other gobbeldy-gook.

 

[KarlC]

The best any of my E500E have ever ran, the hardest any of them has ever pulled was at freeway speeds on a cool day with a light rain, I could not believe how great it felt.

 

[gsxr]

Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe...

[youtube]S8n0sMBrjg4[/youtube]

Gerry said 0.08-0.10 second ET change for each 10°F (post 898). Eric said 0.20 second ET change for 15°F (post 894), let's say 0.14 sec per 10°F.

My data shows 0.04 second change at most (my car), 0.02 second change at least (wife's car), per 10°F. That's a minimum of 100% difference (0.04 vs 0.08), max of 700% difference (0.02 vs 0.14). But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. There's much more variation with barometric pressure and wind. Everyone likes to stick their head in the sand when I bring up the pesky fact that my E500 ran one of it's quickest ever times (13.86) in 80F ambients, uncorrected, at 2700' elevation. Again, per conventional wisdom, that's unpossible.

 

[szvook]

Why am I being dragged into this and what's with the usage of "afraid" and "Dave" in the same sentence...I don't think Dave is that scary.

From my own experience, my E/T's were higher in warmer (F'ing hot more like it) weather than in cooler weather. I managed to run a 14.7 in the 100F+ heat and a 13.9 in 65F temperature and the engine temperature was the same on both ocations, right arround 70C...can't wait to see what I can manage in 50F and bellow temperatures.

 

[gerryvz]

Darn it, am I going to have to break out my E500 timeslips tonight, and scan them?

 

[gsxr]

Why am I being dragged into this and what's with the usage of "afraid" and "Dave" in the same sentence...I don't think Dave is that scary.

I'm not! Really!

Darn it, am I going to have to break out my E500 timeslips tonight, and scan them?

It won't help unless you have data for the barometric pressure, wind direction & speed, fuel load or other car setup variations, and engine temp prior to each run. My data posted above includes all that and more. For my comparison data I had to find high vs low ambient temps with the other conditions similar. Wind can easily cause a 0.1-0.2 second change, ditto for barometric pressure.

Again, I'm sure all y'all's cars run way faster when it's cooler. How much depends on your definition of "way".

 

[szvook]

Well, with the drag races opening up in 2014, I hope that the races will start in January or February so we can have some cooler weather to run in and maybe we can find out how low of E/T's we can attain.

 

[gsxr]

The chip you were testing WASN'T Dernt's chip! I'd like to see some tests on HIS chip!

I dug up the email from Jerry back in summer 2009. He compared the stock 92 400E module/chip with the eBay chip in the same module. His dyno graph is still posted here, for those who might still be interested it beating the horse deader:

http://s709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/jerrybourne/400E/?action=view&current=stockvschip.jpg

 

[gerryvz]

I dug up the email from Jerry back in summer 2009. He compared the stock 92 400E module/chip with the eBay chip in the same module. His dyno graph is still posted here, for those who might still be interested it beating the horse deader:

http://s709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/jerrybourne/400E/?action=view&current=stockvschip.jpg

For what it's worth ... since you're talking about dyno results .... my dyno results were always progressively worse with each pull (i.e. first pull was most powerful) as the engine heated up, despite the cooling fan blowing air into the radiator, and the hood up in service position.

Hotter engine / compartment = lower power output





Eric, we've got him right up to the edge of admitting it ... he's peering over the ledge ... toes hanging over.... so we need to give him the final push.

 

[gsxr]

For what it's worth ... since you're talking about dyno results .... my dyno results were always progressively worse with each pull (i.e. first pull was most powerful) as the engine heated up, despite the cooling fan blowing air into the radiator, and the hood up in service position.

Hotter engine / compartment = lower power output

In general, this is true. However, once again, there are other variables involved. What was the engine temp at the beginning of each pull? Was the oil temp up to normal? Were the temp simulators installed per FSM procedure for dyno testing (80C CTS, 20C IAT)? I try to make the first pull with the engine at ~60C, the power usually INCREASES for the second pull with temps around 80-85C, and then the power usually drops a bit for a third pull at 90-95C. The difference is usually ~1% or so, there are no 10hp differences here. If your first pull starts at 80-85C it's more likely to see a drop on the 2nd and 3rd successive, back-to-back pulls.

Eric, we've got him right up to the edge of admitting it ... he's peering over the ledge ... toes hanging over.... so we need to give him the final push.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to admit. Y'all claim that low ambient air temp causes huge massive power gains. I say that low ambient air temp causes little bitty gains. My data supports my statements. I further posit that there are other factors which cause a greater effect on ET's (barometric pressure, wind direction/speed, etc) but that keeps getting ignored. Strange.

 

[gerryvz]

In general, this is true. However, once again, there are other variables involved. What was the engine temp at the beginning of each pull? Was the oil temp up to normal? Were the temp simulators installed per FSM procedure for dyno testing (80C CTS, 20C IAT)? I try to make the first pull with the engine at ~60C, the power usually INCREASES for the second pull with temps around 80-85C, and then the power usually drops a bit for a third pull at 90-95C. The difference is usually ~1% or so, there are no 10hp differences here. If your first pull starts at 80-85C it's more likely to see a drop on the 2nd and 3rd successive, back-to-back pulls.




I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to admit. Y'all claim that low ambient air temp causes huge massive power gains. I say that low ambient air temp causes little bitty gains. My data supports my statements. I further posit that there are other factors which cause a greater effect on ET's (barometric pressure, wind direction/speed, etc) but that keeps getting ignored. Strange.

 

[gsxr]

GVZ GSXR

 

[gerryvz]

This is getting BOOOOOORRRRRRING !!! You've admitted it without admitting it. What are you, a lawyer or something?

 

[gsxr]

This is getting BOOOOOORRRRRRING !!!

Feel free to unsubscribe anytime!

 

[szvook]

"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate"

 

[gsxr]

[youtube]-twUCEfzrDk[/youtube]

 

[400Eric]

Gerry said 0.08-0.10 second ET change for each 10°F (post 898). Eric said 0.20 second ET change for 15°F (post 894), let's say 0.14 sec per 10°F.

Please allow me to clarify. I do believe that when I said that I was still under the impression that Dernt's cool day was 60 degrees, when it was actually 65, and the high day was 80 degrees, when it was actually 81-83 degrees. (I did say somewhere that there was a 20 degree spread between the two days.) Now that we have actually gone and dug the dyno sheet back out, we see that it turns out that the difference was actually 16 to 18 degrees, so put me down for .16 to .18 change in E/T, and put me down for 16 to 18hp, not 20hp. I do maintain that a ten degree drop is worth about a tenth, all other factors being equal. But sometimes it is next to impossible to keep the other factors equal. I have seen as much as a two tenths drop in E/T from as little as a ten degree drop in temps, because there may have been other factors involved, like the fact that the engine cools down better between rounds when it's colder. There are times when it's warmer that I can't cool down enough no matter what I do. Conversely, there are times when it's cooler that I hardly need any cool down time at all, and I am in fact even able to do several repeated "hot laps" with hardly any deterioration in performance. If we are putting me "On The Record", put me down for ten degrees equals a tenth drop in E/T, all other factors being equal.

I haven't read all of the posts yet. I'll read them all when I get back tonight and I may respond some more if needed. (Uncle Gerry is doing fine without me.)

Justin is also quicker in cooler air, but he'd rather die than admit I'm right about anything. Justin, we know you're lurking about here, Do what's right!

Regards,
Eric

 

[gsxr]

I do maintain that a ten degree drop is worth about a tenth, all other factors being equal. But sometimes it is next to impossible to keep the other factors equal. ... If we are putting me "On The Record", put me down for ten degrees equals a tenth drop in E/T, all other factors being equal.

You can believe that all you want but it still won't make it true.

I have seen as much as a two tenths drop in E/T from as little as a ten degree drop in temps, because there may have been other factors involved, like the fact that the engine cools down better between rounds when it's colder. There are times when it's warmer that I can't cool down enough no matter what I do. Conversely, there are times when it's cooler that I hardly need any cool down time at all, and I am in fact even able to do several repeated "hot laps" with hardly any deterioration in performance.

Exactly. There are many other factors, and if you are not logging that data for every run, you cannot conclude the performance change is entirely, or even largely, based on ambient temp.

 

[400Eric]

From my own experience, my E/T's were higher in warmer (F'ing hot more like it) weather than in cooler weather. I managed to run a 14.7 in the 100F+ heat and a 13.9 in 65F temperature and the engine temperature was the same on both ocations, right arround 70C...can't wait to see what I can manage in 50F and bellow temperatures.

Let's see, let's use our fingers now: 100+ degrees minus 65 equals 35ish degrees. 14.7 minus 13.9 equals 8 tenths. That's more than 2 tenths per 10 degree drop! And then you can add in the fact that on that hot day there was a minor tailwind, and on the cool day there was a strong headwind!

I've gotta go! I'll be back.

 

[gsxr]

Let's see, let's use our fingers now: 100+ degrees minus 65 equals 35ish degrees. 14.7 minus 13.9 equals 8 tenths. That's more than 2 tenths per 10 degree drop! And then you can add in the fact that on that hot day there was a minor tailwind, and on the cool day there was a strong headwind!

Hammond and Jezzer have a little something for you:

 

[Glen]

Might I suggest you guys agree to disagree? Watching from the sidelines is starting to get annoying...

 

[gsxr]

Might I suggest you guys agree to disagree? Watching from the sidelines is starting to get annoying...

Works for me!

 

[gerryvz]

Yeah, if this thread doesn't start taking a turn for the better, it's getting capped off. I may set GSXR's and Eric's settings so that when they log on to the board, they are both automatically shunted to the CARS FOR SALE sub-forum, or only to reading my M117 top-end rebuild thread.




GVZ GSXR

 

[400Eric]

I still haven't read everything yet.

I will say though that when it's 100 degrees where Dave and his wife race the air has dried out a LOT but when it's 100 degrees where we race it's usually still as humid as when it's cooler. (Sometimes even more humid!) So Dave and his wife's D/A doesn't deteriorate as much when it's hot there as our D/A does when it's hot here. This would partially explain why Dave and his wife see less performance loss than we do.

Still reading......

Might I suggest you guys agree to disagree? Watching from the sidelines is starting to get annoying...

I don't think anybody here is "mad" at anybody else. I'm certainly not. (Well, I'm mad at Saucer for not sharing with us his experiences.) We are all just talking about drag racing stuff in the drag racing thread, that's all. Right now, when it comes to drag racing, talking is about ALL we can do!

It's too bad your local drag strip isn't open anymore Uncle Glen! I miss that nappy track!

Works for me!

Me too!

Hey, that IAT trick is pretty slick! Who got you looking at and thinking about IAT sensors?

Regards,
Eric

 

[gerryvz]

I don't think any of us want to see Glen get mad.....

 

[400Eric]

Does he know Judo?

 

[400Eric]

Was your dyno run with a 92 5.0 chip, or a 93-up 5.0 chip?

Again, it was Saucer's old chip, so it was/is for a 92 5.0 M119. Are you thinking that the chip for the 93 and later applications adds fuel since the 93 and later ECUs don't do it and therefor need it?

 

[gsxr]

Again, it was Saucer's old chip, so it was/is for a 92 5.0 M119. Are you thinking that the chip for the 93 and later applications adds fuel since the 93 and later ECUs don't do it and therefor need it?

I'm so lost & confused with all your old testing, I can't keep any of it straight anymore.

I will probably put our new E420 on the dyno this winter/spring. And I would like to dyno it with a 5.0 LH module (fully adapted), just to see the power output and AFR's. That is one combo I haven't tested yet. In the future I'd like to test a 5.0 motor with adapted 4.2 module as well.

 

[400Eric]

I will probably put our new E420 on the dyno this winter/spring. And I would like to dyno it with a 5.0 LH module (fully adapted), just to see the power output and AFR's. That is one combo I haven't tested yet. In the future I'd like to test a 5.0 motor with adapted 4.2 module as well.

Yes! Now you are talking!

My 93 5.0 ECU eventually adapted itself so well to my 4.2 that it eventually was making about the same power as my 93 4.2 ECU. Those .244 E/T gains that I quoted when I first installed my first 92 ECU were against my 93 5.0 ECU! I will go on record right now and bet you a beer that a 92 4.2 enrichment ECU, given enough adaptation time, will show a performance gain over a 93 5.0 ECU, even when installed on a (relatively stock) 5.0! The 15% (some factory literature says 25%) adaptation headroom adequately covers the displacement difference. This is a test that has actually already been percolating in my head for quite some time! Please keep us posted! (I actually don't drink. If I win you'll still get the beer that I was supposed to get! How sweet is that?) To collect on the bet though you'll have to answer the following question that I posted earlier:

Hey, that IAT trick is pretty slick! Who got you looking at and thinking about IAT sensors?

Regards,
Eric

 

[gsxr]

I am expecting that the modules WILL NOT adapt to different displacement and a 5.0 motor will not make normal 5.0 power with a fully adapted 4.2 module. However I know you will not believe this until I have dyno sheets to prove it.

IAT: I have to say "Eric" to make you happy. You were playing with this trying to find power by fooling it with very low temps. I tried that and it didn't work to make power. I'm not sure if it helps consistency, but it doesn't hurt. However the real reason is because of the FSM docs which specify to use this, plus 80C CTS plug, for chassis dyno testing.

 

[400Eric]

When you say "a fully adapted 4.2 module", you mean "a fully adapted 92 4.2 module" correct? Cause a 93 and later 4.2 module would be a disaster. Just wanted to clarify. I still maintain that the 92 4.2 ECU WILL adapt to the different displacement and a 5.0 motor will make normal 5.0 power with a fully adapted 92 4.2 module.

IAT: But you were studying the FSM documents on this topic BECAUSE I turned you on to the whole idea, remember? Your goals were/are different than mine (I was/am hunting power, you were/are hunting consistency) but I was the original inspiration for your original interest in this area. I just wanted to see if you remembered. It DOES make more power, but only when there is a large difference between what the intake air temperature really is and what you are telling the ECU that it is. "More power" is a relative term here. You are not really making more power, you are just cutting back on the LOSS of power that would normally occur with the hotter intake air.

Regards,
Eric

 

[gerryvz]

I will go on record right now and bet you a beer that a 92 4.2 enrichment ECU, given enough adaptation time, will show a performance gain over a 93 5.0 ECU, even when installed on a (relatively stock) 5.0!

I do not believe this.

 

[400Eric]

I know it's quite a claim. We'll see when Dave does his dyno tests. Myself, I don't have ready access to a 5.0 M119 to do the tests myself, unless Saucer wants to volunteer his.

 

[gerryvz]

I think you'll be buying Dave a KEG of beer, not just a BOTTLE.

I don't think that Dave drinks, does he?

 

[400Eric]

I know that he sometimes posts the "give me beer" smile thingy.

 

[gsxr]

When you say "a fully adapted 4.2 module", you mean "a fully adapted 92 4.2 module" correct? Cause a 93 and later 4.2 module would be a disaster. Just wanted to clarify. I still maintain that the 92 4.2 ECU WILL adapt to the different displacement and a 5.0 motor will make normal 5.0 power with a fully adapted 92 4.2 module.

I do not believe this either. But yes, I intend to try a 92 400E module and compare against a 92 500E module, fully adapted, on the dyno, with AFR, in a 94 E420.

IAT: But you were studying the FSM documents on this topic BECAUSE I turned you on to the whole idea, remember? Your goals were/are different than mine (I was/am hunting power, you were/are hunting consistency) but I was the original inspiration for your original interest in this area. I just wanted to see if you remembered. It DOES make more power, but only when there is a large difference between what the intake air temperature really is and what you are telling the ECU that it is. "More power" is a relative term here. You are not really making more power, you are just cutting back on the LOSS of power that would normally occur with the hotter intake air.

Correct. There was a theory that fooling the computers into thinking it was freezing cold out (zero F) would increase fuel/timing and add power. This did not work.

I think you'll be buying Dave a KEG of beer, not just a BOTTLE. I don't think that Dave drinks, does he?

Dave does drink, just not often.

 

[400Eric]

I do not believe this either. But yes, I intend to try a 92 400E module and compare against a 92 500E module, fully adapted, on the dyno, with AFR, in a 94 E420.

You mean a 94 E500 don't you? Now remember, I said more power from a 5.0 liter with a 92 4.2 ECU than from a 5.0 liter with a 93 and later 5.0 ECU. I didn't say more power than a 92 5.0 ECU on a 5.0 liter. Check my original post again if you need to. My point being that a properly adapted 4.2 enrichment ECU will prove more powerful on a 5.0 than a 93 and later 5.0 ECU is, and that, in a pinch, with no 92 5.0 ECUs around, a 92 4.2 ECU is still better on a 5.0 than a 93 and later 5.0 ECU is. Are we clear on this?

Correct. There was a theory that fooling the computers into thinking it was freezing cold out (zero F) would increase fuel/timing and add power. This did not work.

You mean "cut back on the power lost to hot conditions". It DID work for me, I documented it at the track, but it only worked in hot conditions, and it made the car hard to start. The small gain wasn't worth the hard starting. Plus, Once I got my first fuel enrichment ECU, I didn't need it anymore. Which reminds me, we didn't broach this before, but I think THAT is the reason why you didn't see any gain! When you performed your own testing, you did it on a car that already had an enrichment ECU! In this situation, this mod's small amount of additional timing isn't enough to make enough of a difference alone by itself. Plus, we might also be getting into a "too rich" scenario now too.

The fact that this mod also tanked my fuel economy in normal driving is further proof that this mod does indeed add fuel. It's just that we don't need that added fuel when we have an enrichment ECU. We also don't want it or need it under part throttle conditions either! But this mod adds fuel under those conditions as well, making it a RPITA, unless we rig up a switch, like our buddy Jay Rash does.

Regards,
Eric

 

[gsxr]

You mean a 94 E500 don't you?

No, I meant a 1992 500E LH module. On a 1994 E420.

Now remember, I said more power from a 5.0 liter with a 92 4.2 ECU than from a 5.0 liter with a 93 and later 5.0 ECU. I didn't say more power than a 92 5.0 ECU on a 5.0 liter. Check my original post again if you need to. My point being that a properly adapted 4.2 enrichment ECU will prove more powerful on a 5.0 than a 93 and later 5.0 ECU is, and that, in a pinch, with no 92 5.0 ECUs around, a 92 4.2 ECU is still better on a 5.0 than a 93 and later 5.0 ECU is.

Duuuuuude. Dyno time isn't free, and neither is my time. I will get to this eventually but it will be a while before I can dyno a 5.0 with a 4.2 module. But yes, I will dyno a 5.0 motor with a 1992 400E module.

Are we clear on this?

As Elbonian mud.

You mean "cut back on the power lost to hot conditions". It DID work for me, I documented it at the track, but it only worked in hot conditions, and it made the car hard to start. The small gain wasn't worth the hard starting. Plus, Once I got my first fuel enrichment ECU, I didn't need it anymore. Which reminds me, we didn't broach this before, but I think THAT is the reason why you didn't see any gain! When you performed your own testing, you did it on a car that already had an enrichment ECU! In this situation, this mod's small amount of additional timing isn't enough to make enough of a difference alone by itself. Plus, we might also be getting into a "too rich" scenario now too.

Hard starting is due to CTS mods, not IAT. I also fiddled with CTS and found zero power there either. Didn't help with consistency either, btw, so I stopped messing with CTS entirely except for dyno runs.

The fact that this mod also tanked my fuel economy in normal driving is further proof that this mod does indeed add fuel. It's just that we don't need that added fuel when we have an enrichment ECU. We also don't want it or need it under part throttle conditions either! But this mod adds fuel under those conditions as well, making it a RPITA, unless we rig up a switch, like our buddy Jay Rash does.

I used a non-cat EZL trim plug and my fuel economy tanked as well. That doesn't mean increased fuel. Be careful with the conclusions you draw. The switch thing might work on CIS engines, but all my testing shows these are all red herrings on LH M119's.

 

[400Eric]

I used a non-cat EZL trim plug and my fuel economy tanked as well. That doesn't mean increased fuel. Be careful with the conclusions you draw. The switch thing might work on CIS engines, but all my testing shows these are all red herrings on LH M119's.

If it wasn't due to increased fuel than WHAT was it due to then? The only other thing the non-cat trim plug does is increase ignition advance and that certainly wouldn't tank fuel economy.

Yes, as we discussed on this topic on PeachParts with Jay Rash participating, this mod isn't as effective for LH M119s as it is on CIS-E cars because we can't separate the fuel and ignition like we can on the CIS-E cars. One more reason why CIS-E cars aren't as bunk as some folks think they are!

Regards,
Eric

 

[400Eric]

We have an actual tentative date! According to this "exclusive" report, the head of the track is quoted as saying that they are shooting for the end of February!
http://bangshift.com/blog/out-of-co...-is-moving-forward-and-we-have-the-scoop.html

Regards,
Eric

 

[szvook]

That first date will be insane, as far as the sheer number of cars ready to race. I might miss the first date for that reason.

 

[gsxr]

If it wasn't due to increased fuel than WHAT was it due to then? The only other thing the non-cat trim plug does is increase ignition advance and that certainly wouldn't tank fuel economy.

Reduced timing at part throttle is one possibility.

Yes, as we discussed on this topic on PeachParts with Jay Rash participating, this mod isn't as effective for LH M119s as it is on CIS-E cars because we can't separate the fuel and ignition like we can on the CIS-E cars. One more reason why CIS-E cars aren't as bunk as some folks think they are!

LH (and HFM, and ME) all make the same (or more) power on the same engine, compared to CIS-E. Other than allowing tinkerers something else to fiddle with, CIS-E isn't offering much advantage. IOW, nobody wants to retrofit CIS-E to their LH motor for the power gains.

 

[gerryvz]

IOW, nobody wants to retrofit CIS-E to their LH motor for the power gains.

LOL !!!

Look, I can't imagine any scenario where CIS-E would be advantageous to LH. CIS & CIS-E are very crude compared to LH -- LH (and then ME) were a BIG step forward over CIS-E. But CIS was a great technology for the 1970s and 1980s, and came at a great time when emissions regulations were tightening in the US ... it effectively "got us through" the Dark Ages until the much more robust/advanced/efficient LH was perfected.

Look at the mileage on my 560 cars (12 MPG for the SEL, 13-14 MPG for my SEC) vs. my E500 (17 MPG) and right there you can see that the LH-based car is much more efficient while allowing the engine to generate about 100 HP more, with corresponding torque increase.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[400Eric]

Comparing the CIS-E 5.0 M119 to the LH 5.0 M119, the hp was the same, and the tq was only about 20 ft lbs less.

I never said "Come, let's switch our LH cars over to CIS-E". I am simply saying that we shouldn't turn our noses up at CIS-E cars either.

Comparing your bigger engined, heavier W126's fuel economy to that of your smaller engined, lighter W124's fuel economy is kind of unfair. Didn't you also install shorter gears in your W126s too?

Reduced timing at part throttle is one possibility.

Why on Earth would the non-cat plug be reducing timing under ANY condition? That's supposed to be the one plug that doesn't compromise anything for anything!

That first date will be insane, as far as the sheer number of cars ready to race. I might miss the first date for that reason.

That would be a mistake. That date hasn't been officially announced yet. In typical Fontana fashion, they'll probably wait till the last minute to officially announce the first date, and turnout will suffer because people won't have enough time to plan for it and they also won't have enough time to go on their little car sites and tell their little buddies and friends about the date with enough time to spare to get many of them signed on with enough time for them to plan for it too, and turnout will suffer for it. We've seen it happen before. It's already happening again! Here we are, less than two months away, and yet the date still hasn't been "announced" yet!

As for the next date, by the time the second date arrives, the "word" will have already been out for a while, and turnout will be, as you would put it "insane". Plus, there are probably others who plan on missing the first race too just like you for the same reason as you, and that will positively impact the turnout of that first day, and that will also negatively impact the turnout of that second day as well.

Regards,
Eric

 

[J-Sauce]

Why on Earth would the non-cat plug be reducing timing under ANY condition? That's supposed to be the one plug that doesn't compromise anything for anything!

We recently had a LH system expert write on the forum somewhere that it is entirely possible that the Cat-Trim Plugs actually may advance timing under certain conditions in an effort to make the car run leaner and hotter to make the cats more efficient.

 

[gerryvz]

Comparing the CIS-E 5.0 M119 to the LH 5.0 M119, the hp was the same, and the tq was only about 20 ft lbs less.

Comparing your bigger engined, heavier W126's fuel economy to that of your smaller engined, lighter W124's fuel economy is kind of unfair. Didn't you also install shorter gears in your W126s too?

The SEC doesn't weigh that much more than the E500E.

The shorter gears don't affect the power of the engine. Over about 60K miles of driving, the shorter gears have only affected MPG by ~1 MPG. Notice that the 560SEL gets WORSE MPG than the altered SEC does -- they are also not that much different in weight, with an identical powertrain save for the SEL's 2.47 final drive ratio.

Are you actually saying that CIS-E is superior to LH/ME?