Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.164.252] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.2.5)
  with HTTP id 578031 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:09:30 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Electrical ignition
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2.5
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:09:30 -0500
Message-ID: <web-578031@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <E8D9A32F94C65B4AB6D8F4730E38460E2E65DD@sdf1.mail.taturbo.com>
References: <E8D9A32F94C65B4AB6D8F4730E38460E2E65DD@sdf1.mail.taturbo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:
  
  Gary,
  
  I think 10% is probably the outer limit, based on published data, and data 
we
have collected.
  
  But there are real problems with this approach.  Which electronic ignition
are you going to use?
  
  Are you going to manually adjust the E-ignition ?   Or are you going to
depend on someone's idea of a MP based advance curve?
  
  Need more information.
  
  Regards,   George
  
"""
  How much advantage at high altitude (20 inches MAP and
  lower) is there to advancing one of ignitions and not the other?  How much
  advance is appropriate?  What is the optimum advance compared to if both
  could advance?  There are some that claim a 20% (maybe they said "up to
  20%") BSFC improvement at higher altitudes.
"""