I'm trying to dial in my MAF transfer on an 80mm LMAF. Right now I'm using a "known" MAF transfer that I pulled from this site, but I'm using a custom intake tract (3.5" pipe) so I assume the known curve is not dead on for my setup. I've been reading quite a bit here, but this is my first run at tuning. I think I'm starting to understand some of this - but please point out my errors.

I recently ran a datalog with forced OL, reset KAMS and learning disabled. I tried using EA's MAF tool to evaluate my datalog, but was getting some funky results (likely operator error), so I resorted to just tweaking an excel sheet to calculate average AFR (from WBO2) for equal ranges around each voltage point on my known MAF transfer. I initally just charted the avg AFR (in lambda) as reported by the WBO2 and calculated the % that it was off from lambda 1.0 and then converted that into a % of "error" at each voltage point for which I had data. I calculated that I was between 5 and 10% rich at lower voltages (and not a consistent or smooth amount), and then jumped to 15% rich at voltages over 2.88. Initially I did not understand why I went so rich at high voltages/high loads - WOT.

Then I did more reading on here about the base fuel table and understand that at higher loads we need to go rich (~.86) For my datalog I had used a stock fuel table, but based on research here, I think I will be changing my fuel table to 1.00 at loads of 55 and under and 0.86 at loads over 55 with WOT enrichment at 1. If I understand the fuel table correctly, this means my LAMBSEs in OL are exactly that: 1.00 at low loads and .86 at high loads, right?

So based on that, I selected all my datalog WOT data rows (these all had loads over 55, BTW) and recalculated how far they were off from .86 lambda (instead of 1.00). I came up with between about 2 and 7% rich. So far so good? Am I thinking about this correctly?

Assuming this is all correct so far, I'm between 2-7% rich at WOT and 5-10% rich at part throttle. Once I'm done tuning, I'll allow CL, so I'm less concerned with part throttle AFRs at the moment, correct? I'm inclined to lean out my MAF curve by about 4-5% across the board and move on to injector settings, etc. Thoughts? Issues? DO I need to be concerned that my OL AFRS are a bit erratic over teh voltage range at this point? How close are you guys able to get your MAF transfers set? If a 4-5% lean adjustment will get me close enough to dial in fuel, etc then I'll move on.

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

Here's the excel summary sheet I put together. The yellow highlighted area was my first calculation: all throttle positions, and targeting 1.0 lambda for everything. The blue highlighted area was my final calculation: WOT only, and targeting 0.86. Ignore the grey highlights.

The yellow area shows how the AFR error at part throttle in OL would not make for a smooth curve if I blindly moved the curve according to the data.

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

It may, it may not. But it should be close to the curve you have assuming the curve you have really is the curve for your MAF. But a 5% variance in a MAF value is well within acceptable range to expect to need to tweak a point on the MAF curve by. But if it were me, before I went messing with the MAF curve, I'd test to make sure my Injector Slope/BP values looked good in EA. If they are off, this will throw your MAF curve as well. Some people just throw numbers into the Injector parameters and call it good. I tend to prefer to make sure the parameters are good as any variance in those parameters relative to their actual behavior throws off any other calculation related to fuel...and being injector parameters affect fueling in a non-intuitive way (variance is over PW, not over RPM or Load directly). Verify your Injector Parameters and you may find your MAF curve a little more accurate than what you are seeing now.

Your funky results were probably due to not having enough info for EA to make a determination about every point on the curve. Just as your XLS file indicates areas of "no data", EA will simply not update datapoints on the MAF curve in those same areas leaving you with a MAF curve that can look awfully jagged. As the person running the software, you have to be aware of this and not take whatever EA spits out verbatim, and instead apply those changes to your MAF curve with some thinking and eyeballing. Ideally, you want a diverse enough log OR a number of different logs concatenated together to cover all possible datapoints so EA doesn't ever have a point on the curve with "no data". If you ever do load multiple logs into EA, they must all be logs produced from the same tune. Changes in tune will affect datalogs...as you would expect. Well you don't want an old tune's data to get in the mix and taint the data that is intended to be the results of your latest tune. EA could have you making adjustments that are NOT correct for your latest tune.

While in Open Loop, the LAMBSEs represent the target AFR the EEC expects to get based on its calculations. Compare those to the Wideband's feedback. The difference between commanded and actual indicates the error. The error is what the spreadsheet and EA should be using to calculate a change in your tune. But just to be clear though, there is another function in GUFx (FN320A) that does additional enrichment on top of the fuel tables. To make tuning easier, I highly recommend you null this function out by entering all 1s in there. Otherwise the LAMBSEs you type into your table and the LAMBSEs you see while in those same RPM/Loads will not be the same.


For forced OL, this is what I would expect. Now are you using FN1306/FN1307 or do you have the FN1360 patch applied to your tune? If you don't have the patch, that's OK. I just want to make clear you don't want to set the entire FN1307 table this way as that's not RPM/Load based. That's RPM/ECT based. If this doesn't make sense to you, go search within BE for FN1306, FN1307, and FN1360 and read their comments for more details about them. For additional info, read relevant threads here containing discussions about them.

Based on what I'm hearing so far, I think you got it. But just to be clear, when you came up with your 2-7% rich, your LAMBSEs were 2-7% higher in value than your average WB for those same flow voltages? If so, then you got the idea. Although doing this through EA, once you figure out what EA is doing is much easier than what you are doing with the spreadsheet. Although if it took you doing the spreadsheet to get your head wrapped around what's going on, then the spreadsheet exercise was worth the effort.

As I said above, I would stop and do Injector Slope/BP/Offset analysis right now instead. An across-the-board rich tends to tell me you have slope/bp issues. My bet is if you load your logs into EA, find some better slope/bp values, then rerun all your MAF analysis, your MAF will be much closer. Even if it isn't, it shouldn't be "across the board" rich. Any time you have an across-the-board rich or lean condition, I immediately think there's something off with injector parameters. Even if the MAF curve is dead-on, the across-the-board problem can be reduced via the injector parameters thus minimizing the amount of adjustment required when you do get back to MAF adjustments. Again, this is my way of doing things. There are others here that just put whatever value they trust into the Injector parameters and tweak everything else in the MAF curve and let the KAMRFs work out the kinks and error at drive-time. There's no single right way to do things as long as the engine is getting the amount of fuel and spark it wants when it needs it...this method is just mine.

What are you calling erratic? My AFRs jump around some but they average in a range that I'm targeting. The jumping around is just differences in combustion from cylinder to cylinder and even differences in exhaust mix within the same cylinder. We all like to think that the entire cylinder of air & fuel burns exactly the same. But it doesn't for some engines. Depending on how well your injectors atomize the fuel into the air, how much raw fuel sticks to the walls& piston top, and how much swirl & tumble there is going on as the mix is being aspirated in and compressed will determine just how homogenous the burn will be. Point is, if you could take ultra-high accuracy and ultra-high speed samples of the exhaust from each cylinder, you'd likely find consistent differences from the exhaust that leaves early on vs the exhaust that leaves in the middle vs the exhaust that gets out just before the exhaust stops flowing...and even those samples would be mixed averages of air/fuel that burned in the center of the cylinder vs air/fuel that burned at the edges. The best you can do is go with rough averages based on all gasses coming from all cylinders in the bank you are sampling from. The average will be close enough for you to tune by even if it does give you some erratic "jitter" when you watch the WB. But the jitter shouldn't be wild swings that vary multiple points. For instance when you go WOT, if you are targeting .85 lambda, you should expect logs that jitter with occasional flashes as wide as .82-.89 range but with the vast majority of the samples much closer to target and ideally averaging very near the LAMBSE the EEC is targeting. Well built engines with consistent injectors and a steady MAF can get you readings that won't vary more than +/-.01 lambdas from target.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

tuning step 1 lambse's

go search it

_________________
http://www.efidynotuning.com/ford/

OK, I'll analyze my injector setting first before changing my MAF transfer. I'll do some research on that - I have been approaching this one step at a time (MAF first, injectors second, etc), but your suggestion makes sense to me. But just to be sure I'm starting at the right point: I have stock blue topped fatties and am currently using the "GUFB FRPP EV1 24# Injector Settings" template from EDS50. I've been assuming that all fat-body 24# injectors are the same. Is that correct, or are there FRPP 24# injectors which are different from stock 24#'s?



OK, help me out with this one. I looked up fn320A in BE and it looks to me like this function just determines WHEN the computer dictates it goes into OL from CL (over load of 78 at ECT of 200). I'm probably missing something here, but I'm not seeing how this enriches the fuel tables - please explain.



I'm using fn1306/1307, and I think I understand this issue. See your last sentance, above. I think you meant to say that 1306/1307 is ECT/Load based (not RPM/ECT based). If this is correct, then I understand the difference between the two. I am not clear, though on how you would modify a 1306/1307 table. Would you suggest going with 1.00 up to 55 load and .86 over 55 load ONLY in the operating temperature ranges and leaving the colder and hotter ECT settings at stock? I guess that does make sense now that I think about it.



Well, the answer to this is yes and no. The LAMBSEs in my datalog were not exactly 1.00 at loads up to 55 and .86 over that because I had not modified the fuel table and WOT enrichment yet when I ran that datalog. But I don't think that matters, because LAMBSEs are set by the tuner via the fuel table, so I can just compare my WB to my dictated (or imaginary) LAMBSEs of 1.00 at loads up to 55 and .86 at loads over 55, since I know that those would have been my LAMBSEs in my datalog had I made the modifications to the fuel table and WOT enrichment prior to the datalog, yes? I do understand that additional enrichment functions may throw of my theory here...



By erratic, I just mean that my MAF curve is not off by a constant % across all voltages. At some voltage points, it's off by 5%, at others it's off by almost 11% (non-WOT). I've read Decipha say something to the effect of 'if your MAF is off by a consistent amount, your MAF transfer is dialed in'. That's really what I was getting at by 'erratic'.

Thanks for your response, this is very helpful - I just with I had more time to devote to this. A few hours a week just isnt enough...

Decipha, I did search and read that thread again. I had read that a while ago when I first started thinking about attempting to tune. I understood SO much more if it this time - good stuff. Thanks.

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

It's me that needs the help. It's actually FN303 I was trying to refer to. BE still has an intermittent bug in it that will display the wrong PID name when you view certain S/F/Ts. I got bit trying to look it up and not verifying the number.

Another goof on my part. You got it though. Typing too fast again. Damn 2 goofs back-to-back.

To be honest, I don't have much of a recommendation for you here. In my own tune, I have all the values a fair amount rich even for the lower load areas. But that's only because I use Closed Loop and FN1360 so much. The only time I'm ever in FN1307 is during the early parts of crank. And even before FN1360 was available for GUFx, I still wasn't in FN1307 often...only during early start and DFSO mode. Best advice I can give here is if you find the values are too rich or too lean, change'em. But as for good starting values, your guess is as good as mine.

Commanding a richer LAMBSE should result in a correspondingly richer value at the Wideband. Even if the 2 don't match, a lower LAMBSE is giving more fuel, thus you should be getting a lower WB lambda. The differential between the two should be the same, but I don't want to promise that.

Erratic in this case just means you got work to do. If the MAF is rich or lean across the board, then I would immediately look at Injector Slope/BP values as the fault. Once you got the Slope/BP values to where they "fit" your datalogs (as viewed in EA), then move on to MAF. At that point, I would expect the MAF to be both closer AND not rich/lean across the board anymore. There's a tech doc about tuning Slope/BP values. I keep meaning to do a video or get some screenshots of doing Slope/BP calcs, but I don't have enough varied datalogs to feel comfortable putting stuff out there that only shows my logs. My logs are atypical due to me running stock 19lb injectors. I want to show people typical 30+lb injector logs and ideally a log or two with some 60lb and 80lb injectors. For the 331 build I have on the engine stand, I have 36s that will go in there. Perhaps when I get that build installed, I'll have datalogs I feel more comfortable showing in a video.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

No worries on the goofs, your help is GREATLY appreciated. I looked at your 'tuning injector slopes' tech doc and it was quite helpful. I plugged in my latest datalog to EA and plugged in slopes to get the yellow line to be about in the middle of the red data lines. The red line did take off and head in a strange directon near the top of my chart - not sure what this is indicating... I've attached a screen shot - would you mind checking it out and telling me if you see anything out of the ordinary?

My new suggested slopes are: high = 25 (old was 24.91), low = 29.5 (old was 26.21), BP = 1.75 (old was 2.23). EA suggested bumping my offset slightly between voltages 13.2 and 14.4 (probably the only places I had data) to .6661 at 13.2; .5920 at 13.6; .5204 at 14.0; .5248 at 14.40. I'm not sure how much of a difference this will make, but I'll incorporate these into my tune, and should be able to datalog it next saturday. I'll post up results. Again - THANK YOU.

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

At the very bottom, it does appear your red area is below the yellow line a bit. That's an indiication you don't have enough Injector Offset. Although the line is close enough I probably wouldn't mess with it. I'm just pointing this out for others to see. The more common scenario is that the red will be above the yellow line forcing you to run a higher value for low slope to stay within the red.

That's just noise. No clue why it does that either. Focus on the obvious trend, not on the noisy jumps. I wish there was an intelligent way to filter that noise out, but there's no single datalog filter that can catch this. It would have to be a filter applied at the time of Injector slope analysis.

The most important thing is to play around with the numbers yourself. While EA can sometimes suggest combinations you wouldn't see. Your eyes can fit the yellow line into the red sometimes better. So don't be afraid to go with a high/low/bp combination that your eyes found. And really play around with the numbers putting in big and small values to see how they affect things. Once you got numbers you like, run them. The way you know they are good numbers is when you can consistently run datalog after datalog and you can put your numbers into EA and see the yellow line through the red area on any datalog your engine will produce. One feature request I've had for EA is for a user to enter their Injector Parameters and have EA "remember" them so you don't have to fat-finger them in each time.

I don't trust EA nearly so much on Injector Offset calculations. In addition, I would NOT incorporate those changes. Injector Offset is more characteristic of the injectors. If you move points up or down, I would recommend moving the entire curve up or down by the same amount, not individual points on the curve. Without some fairly high tech equipment or the ability to change the running voltage of the vehcile over lots of different driving conditions, I don't honestly think it is possible to come up with an accurate Injector Offset curve purely from datalogs. The voltage just doesn't vary enough in a vehcile under normal circumstances.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Chris, I had a chance to datalog yesterday. I left my MAF transfer alone and just tweaked my injector slopes/BP as you suggested and described using EA. I'm still having issues with EA's MAF transfer "calculate" function, so I prepared a manual spreadsheet again, and it indicates that I am getting closer. When I analyze all throttle positions, I am still rich across the board (but less so than before). But when I analyze just the WOT throttle positions, I am right on the curve until the upper end when I actually go 3-5% lean.

I'm a bit confused on where to go from here. I know that once I allow CL, that will lean out my cruising AFR at least to a degree (enough?). But I am still rich across the board - and I'm not sure what to do with that. Should I rely on CL to correct my rich condition for cruising, or does the fact that I am still rich across the board indicate that I need to make a MAF transfer change (this is the way I am leaning)?

And if I do change the MAF transfer, what is prefered? I could do a wholesale leaning of 5% of the entire curve, or massage it point-by-point and have the curve be a little less smooth.

Once I do that, then I need to deal with my WOT lean condition. Is this as simple as adding back some WOT enrichment (currently at 1.0)? Or are there other means to do this? I'll attach my spreadsheet - which contains some notes, and my datalog. Thanks for your help, Tom

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

And here's the actual datalog zipped in 7z format...

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

I loaded that log into EA and I have figured you need 26.5 high slope, 29 low slope, and a breakpoint value of 4. I recommend you load that same log into your copy of EA and manually enter those same values so you can see why I chose them. They just seem to fit your datalog the best.

So, what are you using in your tune? You didn't include your tune for me to compare against. If you are running slope values less than this, then that would explain why you are running rich.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

My slopes were 25.0 high; 29.5 low and BP of 2.0. I plugged in your suggestions manually to EA to see what you are looking for. This is helpful - I guess I didn't know exactly what to look for. I was trying to get more of the line right in the middle of the thickest red part of the chart. The line this gives me seems a bit high at the top end of the chart, but I'd trust your eyes on this over mine. If the attached screen shot is the same thing you were seeing, then I'll make these injector changes and datalog again.

I'll attach my tune and a screen shot of the EA injector line with your recommended slopes/BP.

Thanks again. Tom

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

Hmm, I also just went back and re-read all of this post and looked at my tune. I had changed (reduced) my injector offsets per EA, but I see that you don't necessarily recommend doing that. So that is at play in this datalog as well. Although if I reduce offset (at 13.0v went from 1.0 to .6563, etc.) it should lean me out a bit, so I'm still off to the rich side in spite of that...

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

Actually, my line doesn't look like yours. My view had the line going dead-thru the center. I'm curious why your EA and my EA are showing different visible results with the same datalog. I'm wondering if things aren't configured on your settings tab for EA the same. Here's what I see using that datalog in the zipfile above:

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Odd. But I do see what you mean on your screen shot. That is what I was going for, it's just that my copy of EA puts the slopes and BP a bit lower. I checked my settings and the only difference between yours and mine are that I didn't have the "LAMBSE/KAMRF instead of Fuel trims" box checked. That shouldn't cause the difference - I checked that box and indeed got the same results.

I am using EA version 5.1.0 and I see you are using 4.0.8. Did Clint change the way EA calculates slopes between these versions? This is a head scratcher - deffinately want to figure this out before I go any further...

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

When I do an EA update, the updater says no updates at this time. Hmm...

I wonder if I'll have to reinstall EA to get the latest? But I'm almost reluctant to do that because I've come to trust this version of EA when it comes to slope calcs. Although I can't imagine Clint would've changed something as it relates to the slopes. But maybe he has. I can't imagine it is for the better. Do me a favor, try my numbers and see if it runs better. My numbers seem to be a change in the direction I'd expect would lean you out where it sounds like you need to be.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Will do, Chris. Gotta travel later this week, so I may not get back to this for a week or so, but I'll let you know how it goes... Take care.

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

Chris, finally got back to the car today. I modified my tune with the injector specs you suggested (new = high 26.5, low 29, BP 4.0) and indeed it DID lean me out overall. You'll recall (see April 28th analysis sheet attached above in this thread) with my old settings of high 25, low 29.5, BP 1.75 I was about 2-8% rich overall, and 0-6% lean at WOT before the change. After the change, I was overall lean up to about 5%, and 5-11% lean at WOT. I'll attach the analysis result spreadsheet.

Help me out with the theory here. It appears that I'm not going to get dead on across the range AND at WOT with injector settings. So is it preferred to try to tune for WOT and let CL fix cruise/idle AFR (what I've been doing so far), or should I try to get the overall AFR close - which will make WOT lean - and then add in WOT enrichment to bring that into line. I think I'm closer to being there if I go with option 1, tuning for WOT. But if option 2 is preferred, I'm open to a bit of education here.

If option 1, tuning for WOT, is acceptable, I'm inclined to switch back to the old injector specs since that gets me closer to .86 lambda for WOT. Thoughts? I can post the tune and/or datalog if that would be helpful. Thanks.

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L

Bump - any inputs from anyone on my theory question above?

_________________
67 Mustang Coupe, 5.0 EFI: Stock bottom end, 80mm LMAF, 70mm TB, TMoss Cobra intake, 30# FRPP injectors, AFR 165s, Comp XE270, Tri-Y longtubes, 2.5" exhaust, T-5, 3.55 gears, A9L GUFB, BE/BA QH and MTX/L