Maf-t/safc2/e85???

[9SECAWD]

I need some advice from someone with some tuning knowledge . Current setup is running a 3.5 maft and an safc2 on 650cc injectors on 91 pump. I am switching to E85, and am thinking 1000cc injectors is what I am going to go with. Now my question is, could i get away with throwing in the 1000's, setting the base on the MAFT to, say, 700cc (-30%), and not mess up the rest of the tune?

 

[bryanwheat]

I wouldn't even consider running injectors that big with an safc and maft. Sell both and pick up ecmlink lite.

 

[92AWDHX40]

I ran the maft but if im correct it cant tune that high, with link yes, again i forgot the amount of fuel you can tune with the maft.

 

[9SECAWD]

they cant tune 1000s on pump gas. but on e85 it shouldnt be a problem.

Thats why i'm saying that if i run e85, it will be just like tuning with 700cc's, or at least it should be

 

[My1GLaser]

I don't see why it wouldn't work. Were you having any knock issues on the 650s with pump? Do you have a datalogger?

I use -32 to-35% when calculating for E-85. My fuel trims are right in line and my car acts properly with that calculation.

-35% would put you right back to 650 setting.
-32% will put you at 680s.

 

[9SECAWD]

we believe it was the knock sensor getting pissy at the top end on the dyno. the car made 300awhp at 19psi on pump and we stopped there and decided to wait and switch to e85. I guess my question was not if it will work or not, but if i could get away with just dropping in the 1000s, draining the tank and switching the maft to 700 the tune should be about the same without having to put it back on the dyno.

 

[My1GLaser]

It was probably actual knock, especially 91 pump!!!

IIRC, the stock 1G timing map calls for 25* of advance at 6k. I can't imagine what it uses when it sees 30.7% less airflow. 27-28* maybe? FWIW, I am pulling 2* at 6k running 60% E-85 and I imagine your ECU is adding a minimum of 2-3 there.

I personally wouldn't do it blindly. (ie; without a datalogger and/or a WB) but it should be relatively close. Like I said, the numbers I use work well for me and I got them from the Link forums.

 

[9SECAWD]

thats what i was wondering