<VV> Re: [fastvair] Fiero--Corvair related.

[Frank F Parker]

> polishing, and roller tip lifters. We did roll- ons from 3000 rpm to 6000rpm.
>     The stock one was .75 second faster!!!!
>    The moral to this and Corvair tuning is that all of these add ons
> can't exhaust port size and on the Corvair it is intake port
> restrictions. I know that this is rather simplistic, but the
> manufacturers have balanced the system around the problems. The new cam
> requires the testing to be done above the balanced range of the
>    When tuning on our Corvairs we can't change just one thing. We have to
> balance/tune  the entire system for the new operating range. a new camshaft
> requires a new operating range as does larger carbs/throttle bodies and headers.
> Food for thought,
> Warren
>
There is a whole lot of wisdom in this post. All those ads you see about
adding 20 hp by doing such and such usually do not mention getting the
whole combo correct. Alot of times, it is not what the ads or magazine
article says but what they do NOT say!!
Shows the importance of testing and measuring performance with a logger or
device like GTechPro. Some of these new systems are faily cheap for the
serious tuner. The new Innovative wb meter that Ray is offering has built
in logging and for $250 more you get a data box with G sensors, temp
capability and rpm measurements.

Given all that it is interesting that the apparant torque improvement from
3.1L vs 2.8 L did not show up. Fierros used both MAF and speed density.
Maybe the 3.1 was speed density and since WOT fueing is not fixed by O2
sensor but fixed at factory from dyno runs, it was lean and thus not
running as good as possible. There are work arounds. If it was MAF, it
should have had pretty good fueling. Sure would be interesting to see wbO2
runs on both cars.
Interesting post.

regards,

frank

PS: at Luguna Seca race for fun!