ZZPerformance Mini-AFC - Adjustability question - FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com Message Board

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZZPerformance Mini-AFC - Adjustability question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ZZPerformance Mini-AFC - Adjustability question

    AMinor65 said in a previous post:
    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You can look at the mini-afc from zzperformance.com. It works with later model 3-wire mafs. I have one, it does work. I'm using it to lean my LTs by 5% right now.
    --------------------

    <hr></blockquote>
    MAFT says it can do different parts of the fuel curve - Does the mini-AFC change the entire curve only or can it do parts of the curve?

    Thanks,
    Ron
    I know - Camaro 67-02.. 2000 Camaro V6/A4 Black T-Tops<br />1969 Camaro 350/PG 12.69 @ 102.5 1966 Chevy II Wagon 283/PG Destined for NHRA stock eliminator.

  • #2
    Entire curve. It does not have a WOT setting like the MAFT.

    DEE
    1997 GTP(13.3@104)-Sold<br />1999 Trans Am M6

    Comment


    • #3
      Good to know.

      So why would you want to run a MAFT+ instead of the mini AFC?

      [ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Dominic ]</p>
      2002 5-spd NBM Camaro
      Details: www.1lev6.com

      Comment


      • #4
        <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dominic:
        Good to know.

        So why would you want to run a MAFT+ instead of the mini AFC?

        [ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Dominic ]
        <hr></blockquote>

        If I was running nitrous or forced induction, I'd have the MAFT+ so that I could have separate settings for cruise and WOT, especially with WOT requiring more fuel. The fuel requirements at cruise, and the fuel requirements at WOT when using forced induction or nitrous oxide are probably non-linear, plus the o2s are not being used at WOT. I know from personal experience that it doesn't take much fuel enrichment to throw the SES light. That was one of the mistakes I made when I first got the Mini-Afc.

        Hope you understand how I wrote this.
        <b>1998 Firebird 3800 Series II, A4</b><br />Direct-Flo Lid,K&N Filter,DEE TB Spacer,TPS-TEC,ZZP Mini-AFC,Raised and Cutout Airbox 7mm,BMR STB & Boxed LCAs,KYB AGX Shocks,Drilled/Slotted Rotors,180* Thermo,2.5\" Catco Cat,Dynomax 2.75\" custom catback,Kumho Ecstas/245,Jet Stage 2,3.42,Edge Racing 2870 Stall,B&M Tranny Cooler,B&M Deep Tranny Pan,LSD,AAM Girdle,1LE DS,NX Wet Kit,MSD DIS-4,MSD Blaster Coil Packs,Taylor Spiro Pro 8mm Wires,NGK TR6\'S gapped .045,ZZP UD WP Pulley,SLP Fan Switch,TT II\'s<br />N/A: 15.6342 @ 88.44 (On stock converter. Strugglin\' to beat it.)<br />Nitrous 50 Shot: 14.7463 @ 93.49

        Comment


        • #5
          <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Good to know.
          So why would you want to run a MAFT+ instead of the mini AFC?
          <hr></blockquote>

          The additional option of changing timing also with the MAFT + would be nice. My idea with the mini was to use it along with my HPP III to help fine tune the generic HPP tune to my car. Ultimate goal is to run Pure Stock (14.65 index @ about 3200-3300 lbs) in IHRA competion while keeping the car "economic" and not lose any streetability (including long trips). Just weighing the mini option cost wise verses probably wanting the enhanced tuning of the MAFT+, but at $279 vs $99. Might hold out for the MAFT+ as every hundredth of a sec may be important. Do have OBD-2 software on order though
          [img]smile.gif[/img]
          Thanks for the replies and thanks to Tony for the email.

          Ron
          I know - Camaro 67-02.. 2000 Camaro V6/A4 Black T-Tops<br />1969 Camaro 350/PG 12.69 @ 102.5 1966 Chevy II Wagon 283/PG Destined for NHRA stock eliminator.

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          FORUM SPONSORS

          Collapse
          Working...
          X