Sunoco 104 GT Race Gas + Cool Weather = Fastest FATS/FATS+ Times I've Ever Recorded :)
10-21-2006, 08:58 AM
#22
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the kind words. I was like a giddy school girl while doing these pulls...
even said to myself, "these must be 3.20s"
The best part is these are only baseline runs. We'll see if the timing curve continues to adapt. Eventually I'll try XR, too.
The best part is these are only baseline runs. We'll see if the timing curve continues to adapt. Eventually I'll try XR, too.
10-21-2006, 09:30 AM
#24
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and Yes.
Very similar weather conditions, only differences are boost (~1.5 PSI lower) and octane (93 octane insead of 104).
<a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2494717.phtml">Click</a>
Regarding your other point in previous post about MAF readings, I run a RS4 MAF housing so my airflow #s are scaled. A really dirty way of converting the #s to stock MAF readings is multiplying by 1.3 (280 * 1.3 = 364 g/s).
<a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2494717.phtml">Click</a>
Regarding your other point in previous post about MAF readings, I run a RS4 MAF housing so my airflow #s are scaled. A really dirty way of converting the #s to stock MAF readings is multiplying by 1.3 (280 * 1.3 = 364 g/s).
10-21-2006, 01:51 PM
#29
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's a programming thing... that's why I suggested XR would be better in the midrange.
Unless you know how to alter the base timing of X to eliminate this... by all means.