"Stewart DIBBS" <sjd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f0998$47498f56$cebf3868$13843@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On 11/22/2007 2:46 AM, TE Chea wrote:
> > Mine has a manual choke, 1st bought in 12-90.
>
> So, we now know what his car has: a manual choked carburetor with an ECU
> that controls the spark advance. Since its now 17 years old, we can
assume
> there's certainly some wear in the butterfly spindle that's letting air
in.
> ie the engine is very likely running lean, hence the combustion
temperature
> is elevated. I suppose though that TE Chea will now start complaining
that
a
> part should not be worn after a mere 17 years...
>
> So, it's not unreasonable to expect that cooling the thermostat region
would
> cause the ECU to retard the timing somewhat.
>
> Let's suppose that the hotter lean burn is causing the ECU to set the
timing
> at (say) 2 degrees BTDC, whereas the correct fuel-air mix would require
5-8
> BTDC, then the engine will not be generating its maximum torque at a
given
> rev range. Running cooler (or cold) requires a retarded timing setting
from
> the ECU, so cooling the thermostat region (and the coolant temperature
> sensor) results in the ECU retarding the timing. The question is how far
is
> it being retarded. If its back to about 10 BTDC (more or less where it
> should be) , then perhaps more torque (or more accurately, the normal
> operation torque capability) would be noticed. Reduced exhaust noise?
> Excessively retard the timing on any engine and the exhaust noise will
> reduce.
>
>
> Stewart DIBBS
> www.pixcl.com/lancerproject
Very logical answers.
Perhaps TE Chea got embarrassed and cannot accept that his assumptions
were
flawed.
I am really surprised that anyone tried to help him after his hostile and
infantile responses.
|
