comingbackdown wrote:That's about 6x12x3 in diameter.
so 216 in diameter?
Ha ha ha... Sooooooooo funny.
I was tired, man... Went on zero sleep, on a road trip, dealt with a whole bunch of stressful shit, and fell asleep more than once when I was sitting in a stationary (no, not a car) location.
I posted that just a few short minutes before I realized "Wow... I really need some sleep" since the monitor was starting to go fuzzy.
comingbackdown wrote:That's about 6x12x3 in diameter.
so 216 in diameter?
Ha ha ha... Sooooooooo funny.
I was tired, man... Went on zero sleep, on a road trip, dealt with a whole bunch of stressful shit, and fell asleep more than once when I was sitting in a stationary (no, not a car) location.
I posted that just a few short minutes before I realized "Wow... I really need some sleep" since the monitor was starting to go fuzzy.
i thought you said you was fixing said sleep schedule...
comingbackdown wrote:Push starting doesn't spit fuel into it.
Well, that's the polar opposite of what other people have said about it, that it injects more fuel than electric starting and could destroy your catalytic converter. Also, if it didn't inject any fuel, then it couldn't start unless it was previously flooded...but push starting works.
As far as I can imagine, there's no reason for fuel injection to differ for either starting method; it injects fuel based on the MAF and O2 readings when the engine is spinning.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT
Put your car in your sig!
Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
comingbackdown wrote:Push starting doesn't spit fuel into it.
Well, that's the polar opposite of what other people have said about it, that it injects more fuel than electric starting and could destroy your catalytic converter. Also, if it didn't inject any fuel, then it couldn't start unless it was previously flooded...but push starting works.
As far as I can imagine, there's no reason for fuel injection to differ for either starting method; it injects fuel based on the MAF and O2 readings when the engine is spinning.
Alright, so maybe it doesn't spit as much fuel into it as regular starting does?
But, once it got enough fuel pushed through to get a normal flow going, one spark and all the unburnt fuel is combusted.
Wouldn't a normal start put more fuel into the system than bump starting?
Hmmmm...
My mind is starting to smell kinda like popcorn...
I honestly don't really know how it works, but it's pretty common knowledge in the rotary world that push starting will always make a flooded engine start. I think having an extra push to keep the engine spinning helps kick out the old fuel better than the electric starter can by itself.
1986 Mazda RX-7 sport - slowly returning to the Earth
1986 Mazda RX-7 base - Project car, ???, In pieces, turbo parts around.
noob5,000,000 wrote:I honestly don't really know how it works, but it's pretty common knowledge in the rotary world that push starting will always make a flooded engine start. I think having an extra push to keep the engine spinning helps kick out the old fuel better than the electric starter can by itself.