California Speedway 6/27/09

[socaliallstar82]

im out. Its too hot, and i think im gonna wait till i get my x pipe put in and a slight re-tune. i know i said no more mods, im done, but im itching for 13's. I dont care if its a 13.999.

[400Eric]

I'm still going even though my ride hates the heat too.
Like I said at the top of this tread, I actually didn't want to go to this one cuz I knew a month ago it was gonna be too hot by the end of June but my Volvo buds wanted to do this plus there is finally an old MB very similar to mine coming which is a first. I can't believe the turbo Volvo guys still want to do this when you consider the fact that high heat hurts them worse than anyone. I figure if they can handle it, I can too.
Regards, Eric

[Cali_Screw]

So Eric, what PCM you going to be running this time ?

[400Eric]

In my car it's just an ECU. Funny you would ask. Last time I was there (5/30/09), I was trying an ECU for a 1 year older 4.2 400E and it's a solid 1/4 second faster than the 5.0 ECU that I had been running. A MB buddy of mine in Idaho saw a similar gain when he went from a 95 4.2 ECU to a 92 4.2 ECU. This means that the 93 5.0 ECU, contrary to what I thought, didn't do a dadgum thing for me! Contrary to the problem of being too rich at WOT that you and the titan guys have, My problem has been being too lean.

The 92 ECUs are well known for providing a more generous WOT A/F ratio than the later ones do. I've known this all along but I've only recently finally been able to score one. (When it rains it pours...now I have 3 of them!)

So, to answer the question, I'll be running the same ECU this time. (Why change it? It works!) I will however, be trying the 5.0 ignition module again which gained me a 1/10th reduction in E/T when I used it with the 5.0 ECU on the 5/09/09 track day. I will also try that neat little European market resistor "plug" for the ignition module that I showed Jeremy on the 05/30/09 but wound up not using cuz I wanted to analyze the 92 ECU on it's own.

BTW, I've been told by some very sharp people that 12.5:1 is the ideal WOT A/F ratio.

Are you gonna be there?
Regards, Eric

[Cali_Screw]

Originally Posted by 400Eric

In my car it's just an ECU. Funny you would ask. Last time I was there (5/30/09), I was trying a ECU for a 1 year older 4.2 400E and it's a solid 1/4 second faster than the 5.0 ECU that I had been running. A MB buddy of mine in Idaho saw a similar gain when he went from a 95 4.2 ECU to a 92 4.2 ECU. This means that the 93 5.0 ECU, contrary to what I thought, didn't do a dadgum thing for me! Contrary to the problem of being too rich at WOT that you and the titan guys have, My problem has been being too lean.

The 92 ECUs are well known for providing a more generous WOT A/F ratio than the later ones do. I've known this all along but I've only recently finally been able to score one. (When it rains it pours...now I have 3 of them!)

So, to answer the question, I'll be running the same ECU this time. (Why change it? It works!) I will however, be trying the 5.0 ignition module again which gained me a 1/10th reduction in E/T when I used it with the 5.0 ECU on 5/09/09 track day. I will also try that neat little European market resistor "plug" for the ignition module that I showed Jeremy on the 05/30/09 but wound up not using cuz I wanted to analyze the 92 ECU on it's own.

BTW,I've been told by some very sharp people that 12.5:1 is the ideal WOT A/F ratio.
Regards, Eric

12.5 is safe for N/A

[Warp09]

Originally Posted by 400Eric

In my car it's just an ECU. Funny you would ask. Last time I was there (5/30/09), I was trying an ECU for a 1 year older 4.2 400E and it's a solid 1/4 second faster than the 5.0 ECU that I had been running. A MB buddy of mine in Idaho saw a similar gain when he went from a 95 4.2 ECU to a 92 4.2 ECU. This means that the 93 5.0 ECU, contrary to what I thought, didn't do a dadgum thing for me! Contrary to the problem of being too rich at WOT that you and the titan guys have, My problem has been being too lean.

The 92 ECUs are well known for providing a more generous WOT A/F ratio than the later ones do. I've known this all along but I've only recently finally been able to score one. (When it rains it pours...now I have 3 of them!)

So, to answer the question, I'll be running the same ECU this time. (Why change it? It works!) I will however, be trying the 5.0 ignition module again which gained me a 1/10th reduction in E/T when I used it with the 5.0 ECU on 5/09/09 track day. I will also try that neat little European market resistor "plug" for the ignition module that I showed Jeremy on the 05/30/09 but wound up not using cuz I wanted to analyze the 92 ECU on it's own.

BTW,I've been told by some very sharp people that 12.5:1 is the ideal WOT A/F ratio.
Regards, Eric

We know how many you have and how much trash you talk on your benz forums. ha ha.

[Cali_Screw]

Originally Posted by Warp09

We know how many you have and how much trash you talk on your benz forums. ha ha.

I know Eric, for you painting such a nice picture here you are sure a trash taker,

nice to know you spank a lifted supercharged F150.. lol

[Warp09]

Originally Posted by Cali_Screw

I know Eric, for you painting such a nice picture here you are sure a trash taker,

nice to know you spank a lifted supercharged F150.. lol

Don't forget how you scared all the Titan guys from racing you too! lol

[400Eric]

I'm always linking you guys to my different sites. I knew it was only a matter of time before you found my secret one lol. Did you also see where I also said how stellar of you 2 it was that you 2 gave me a bag of ice?

You could have saved me a lot of typing time if you had told me you already knew all about my ECU experiments lol.

The invitation for this Saturday still stands!

Are you guys in?
Regards, Eric

[Cali_Screw]

Irwindale Fap the rest!