| Message |
lazy MFs, idiots, and a whole slew of other words I wouldn't say around my mother. Hard, factual data speaks for itself and I am merely following what it is concluding. If it shows that one design is better than another, it does so by facts, not by opinion. I'm not beating anyone down if you want to put it that way, the facts themselves are doing all the work. Im curious, can you elaborate more on the dual-pop configuration you were using that produced the results you are talking about? I would like also to see the dyno charts you are referring to. Were two MAS units installed and monitored or was only one of the two monitored or was there only one MAS unit in your car when the results you speak of were observed? Do you have an AFC and did you perform any correction on the dynocharts you will be posting? What percentage of correction did you use and at what RPM's were those corrections placed? Unfortunately, without backing up claims with dynocharts, we could sit and talk about the theory and what happened at the dyno forever. I'm not flaming you here, I'm just trying to understand why 5 cars with Dual-POPs that I have tuned are all behaving in this manner where you say yours didn't do any of this.
[ ashleypowers.com ]
[ agpowers@bellsouth.net ] [ Zemulator Information Sheet ] Enthusiasts soon understand each other. --W. Irving.
Are you an enthusiast?
|
 |
