Re: safe boost

[ptimmerm@mashtun.JPL.NASA.GOV]

Richard Wrote:

>I haven't quite decided how to go im my urQ, but the most conservative
>approach may be to use any design which keeps timing stock to minimize 
>the threat of pinging, and external sensors/relays to regain overboost
>protection.

I think that a little clarification of STOCK ignition timing needs
to be made here.  The cars with US spec motors are running with
less ignition advance than the EURO spec cars, so you have a LOONNGG
way to go before there is any risk of detonation.  

These cars were brought in on the heels of the last energy crisis. 
The conservative Audi engineers didn't trust our petrol.  We are in
better shape now wrt octane.  

At the risk of sounding volatile, I find the idea of running stock 
timing in a US spec Ur_Quattro UNTHINKABLE. The gains are TOO BIG 
to be ignored.  Ask Bob D'Amatto the difference, just going from a 
clamp circuit to a voltage divider. I designed both, have tested both
and posted results of both.  As for Modified EEPROMS, I think that it
is the best way to the last 10th, but it is much more work.  As for
recurving the thing to get stock timing, that would be one BIG
waste of time.  Am I making myself clear?

paul timmerman