|
2point0… I’ll pm you since it’s a bit off topic… short answer is yes.
HRTROD… nice post. I second 2point0, nice group of cars. I’m always a bit reluctant to comment on dyno stuff I wasn’t present for because there are so many variables. That said…
I wouldn’t sweat the AFR much because of the high ambient temperature... especially if you don't have repeatable runs. Typical “target” AFR numbers are for conditions close to SAE/JAE/DIN standard day conditions which are significantly lower. As the IAT rises, the ECU adds fuel to cool the combustion chamber… (richer = cooler, leaner = hotter). As the mixture gets richer, you’ll lose a little power BUT THAT'S GOOD. Heat = power = reduced component life… it’s one of the major reasons race engines don’t last.
A better test would be on the road with a mobile wide band early in the day when the temperatures are better. If you still see those sort of numbers, I’d try a fuel out map… but I think you see them a little leaner when it’s cooler.
With 100 RON, I'd certainly try Timing + to see what the car thinks. Pretty simple test, if the car is slower or gets a flashing CEL for a misfire, go back to the Timing ~ map. If the car is quicker and feels good, stick with the Timing + map. If you don’t feel/see any difference, I’d run the (more conservative) Timing ~ map.
Cheers
|