It appears that because I did challenge some other "opinions" that that is
where the problem lies. Not that I was wrong with my opinion, but more so
in who I disagreed with.
As for the personal experience, I was speaking for my own personal
experience with not only an IAT adjuster(on my '99), which as I stated, I'm
pretty sure Bernd made, but also with re-locating the IAT to the intake tube
on the K&N tube on my trucks(both my '99 and my '00). In all cases, my gas
mileage suffered as compared to having it in the intake manifold. Your
results may vary, but I'd be surprised if they did. So far other than a
mathematical equation that obviously neither you nor Bernd can solve,
nothing has been posted to make me believe any different. Math's not hard,
doesn't matter what value changes in the equation, the answer is always
affected. Seems you don't want to comprehend that it has any effect at all.
As far as going back and re-reading old posts, I follow along via email, and
delete messages after I read them. Don't remember my log on to the DML
webmail and don't care to try and figure it out. And since you are the
third leg in this debate, you can take the first step in ending it by not
replying.
brian cropp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Ray Block
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:31 PM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Cold engine puts out
more hp/tq...
This poor horse doesn't deserve this much abuse. Brian, your latest
response has at least two errors in it.
One: I was in this "debate" from the beginning. I responded to your first
message at about 10 PM yesterday. You might want to go read it again. Oh
yeah, my math tells me that's three people discussing this.
Two: You do not have "personal experience" with every combination, let alone
mine.
If your intent was to raise a "possible" issue, then you've accomplished
your mission and its been addressed. If your intent is simply to challenge
every dissenting opinion so you can read, and re-read your own words, I for
one have had enough.
Jeesh, if I'm not careful I'm gonna end up sounding like I agree with Bernd.
I'm not sure the DML is ready for that. ;-)
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:40 PM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Cold engine puts out more
hp/tq...
>From my personal experience it is, and I'll stick to it. There are two
people taking part in this debate, if you are going to tell one person to
"give it a rest" then you need to address everyone involved. All Bernd is
doing now is talking around in circles to avoid straight up admitting that
changing the IAT value does affect fuel mileage. And it is correct to say
that, because even using his words, it is PART OF the calculation and
changing any part affects the final value.
brian cropp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Ray Block
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 7:54 PM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Cold engine puts out more
hp/tq...
Brian, please give it a rest. I think this horse is dead enough. Accept
the fact your original statement concerning gas mileage vs. IAT sensor
placement is not correct for every combination and move on. Please....?
:-)
Ray
http://www.dragtruk.com/ENTRIES/20KM1FD2KWBP.html]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net [mailto:owner-dakota-
> truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Brian
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:15 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Cold engine puts out more
> hp/tq...
>
>
> I'm not arguing that there aren't other factors involved, but even by your
> equation, the IAT is part of it. You change ANY value in the equation and
> the end result changes too. And since that includes IAT, then, by posting
> that formula, you supported what I said that tricking the PCM into
> thinking
> the IAT is lower than it actually is, you are changing the PW and
> therefore
> amount of fuel used. Or are you going to try and argue that the formula
> doesn't work the way it's written??
>
> brian cropp
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1680 - Release Date: 9/19/2008
8:25 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1680 - Release Date: 9/19/2008
8:25 AM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2008 - 00:13:23 EDT