Question for those messing with the ve table
#2
It depends. On quite a few things. First, if you messed with your IFR or MAF tables it could go either way depending on which way you tuned (rich or lean). Second, it depends on your mods, and which way your stock VE table put you (rich or lean). I am finding it very very hard to move the low vacuum and low RPM VE values. But my VE values (because my car was running naturally lean) are higher than stock by more than 10 all around, and a lot more in some places. A lot more. But I have found another fueling table I think we can play with... I will be back to post later. After my nagging wife goes away for awhile.
#3
TECH Addict
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Central, MA
Posts: 2,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, mine are smaller. A LOT smaller in the lower rpm's - a few points lower in the upper rpm's. (only real mod is the cam, so the aboves 'does' make some sense)
#6
[QUOTE=HumpinSS]After caluclating your ve table are the values bigger or smaller than the stock values?[/QUOTE
Lower than stock at low RPM and low kPa. Greater than stock above about 3000 RPM - at mid to high kPa.
Lower than stock at low RPM and low kPa. Greater than stock above about 3000 RPM - at mid to high kPa.
#7
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: La Porte, TX
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Bink]
Same here
Originally Posted by HumpinSS
After caluclating your ve table are the values bigger or smaller than the stock values?[/QUOTE
Lower than stock at low RPM and low kPa. Greater than stock above about 3000 RPM - at mid to high kPa.
Lower than stock at low RPM and low kPa. Greater than stock above about 3000 RPM - at mid to high kPa.
Same here
Trending Topics
#9
Originally Posted by tici
98 TA: the measured VE is higher at low RPM and lower after torque peek. The VE table of later models fits pretty well!
#13
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
I tried the 02 VE tables (I also have a 98).
The low RPM response is a little better, the biggest difference is at WOT. I had to scale the IFR table by 7% and was running very rich (960 mV). After reducing the VE using the 02 table the WOT mV went to 930.
I'm not saying it's the way to tune WOT, but it helped for me.
The low RPM response is a little better, the biggest difference is at WOT. I had to scale the IFR table by 7% and was running very rich (960 mV). After reducing the VE using the 02 table the WOT mV went to 930.
I'm not saying it's the way to tune WOT, but it helped for me.
#14
Originally Posted by tici
I tried the 02 VE tables (I also have a 98).
The low RPM response is a little better, the biggest difference is at WOT. I had to scale the IFR table by 7% and was running very rich (960 mV). After reducing the VE using the 02 table the WOT mV went to 930.
I'm not saying it's the way to tune WOT, but it helped for me.
The low RPM response is a little better, the biggest difference is at WOT. I had to scale the IFR table by 7% and was running very rich (960 mV). After reducing the VE using the 02 table the WOT mV went to 930.
I'm not saying it's the way to tune WOT, but it helped for me.