X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 10:32:13 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 935511 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 May 2005 00:04:11 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.37; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r1.7.) id q.1f5.93ec2cb (14374) for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:03:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1f5.93ec2cb.2fad9800@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 00:03:12 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Plasma III on Hi Compression Engines - Firewall Install Notes X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1115438592" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5000 -------------------------------1115438592 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/6/2005 9:51:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, cberland@systems3.net writes: Question...does LSE believe a staggered spark timing to be beneficial for power/economy? I was going to test this at GM but never had the chance. My intuition said any benefit real or imagined would be hard to measure, but as I said...I was not able to test. Craig, I don't know. I would have expected the interconnected units to use the timing from the primary unit, thus exactly the same. Maybe the display only shows the timing info from the secondary unit, not using it unless the primary unit is off or fails. It is a question I must ask. <<<<<<<<<< I'm willing to bet at a 5 deg retard you are giving up power and fuel economy. Unless you are detonation sensitive, I would expect no more than a 2 deg retard on a 27 deg baseline for a 10 to 1 CR motor. I would be happy with the 3 deg shift. >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I am tempted to leave the 3 degree retard alone until I have done some testing. I am just slightly over with a 9:1 CR. Scott Krueger -------------------------------1115438592 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 5/6/2005 9:51:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 cberland@systems3.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Question...does LSE believe a staggered spark timing= to be=20 beneficial for power/economy? I was going to test this at GM but nev= er=20 had the chance. My intuition said any benefit real or imagined would= be=20 hard to measure, but as I said...I was not able to=20 test.

Craig,

I don't know. I would have expected the interconnected units to u= se=20 the timing from the primary unit, thus exactly the same. Maybe the dis= play=20 only shows the timing info from the secondary unit, not using it unless= the=20 primary unit is off or fails. It is a question I must ask.

<<<<<<<<<<

I'm willing to bet at a 5 deg retard you are giving up power and fuel=20 economy. Unless you are detonation sensitive, I would expect no more t= han=20 a 2 deg retard on a 27 deg baseline for a 10 to 1 CR motor. =20= I=20 would be happy with the 3 deg shift.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah, I am tempted to leave the 3 degree retard alone until I have done= =20 some testing. I am just slightly over with a 9:1 CR.

Scott Krueger

-------------------------------1115438592--