IIRC, the front of the car is to the right in this diagram, I'm not quite sure anymore. But yes, the numbers coincide with the cylinders, so there is a way in which you can align the diagram with your engine.
Anonymous on 23 Apr : 21:10
Hey Bjoern. I have a question about your wiring diagram on the MAF conversion. Is the diagram of the injector wiring from the top view of the engine? Because I'm guessing the injector numbers don't coinside with the cylinder numbers? Thanks
The auto tranny is a problem, because you have a very limited choice of computers. Unfortunately, I have no idea about auto trannies and can't help you there. Conversion to standard is a big deal and not for the faint of heart. I bought a book on Ford EFI which I found to be very helpful and I learned a lot from it. I think it was this one: [link]
hey bjoern, ive had your maf conversion in my favorites forever... i finally rebuilt the engine, but put in a lumpier cam, along with some other minor mods, so now basically, it runs, but with the old map sensor, not so good. thats alot of technical words, and all ive worked on up to this point is oldies with carbs and no EFI, but im learning alot and im loving it. i have one difference, but i dont think it bothers anything, i have an automatic transmission, so if i install the maf system out of a newer pickup it may want to read the e40d when i just have an aod... unless maybe i can find one with a standard transmission?? i dunno, im getting so confused with all this technology, i would like to do it step by step just as you did. can you help me somehow?
The journal "Epidemiology" has a series of great articles on why we need to get rid of Thomson Scientific's Impact Factor. I've reported about this ridiculously influencial number before and how irrational, stupid and detrimental to science it is (1, 2, 3). Here the links to the great Epidemiology articles (via Coturnix):
I think there's more than enough evidence that the Thomson Scientific impact factor is a pernicious invention that needs to be eradicated and replaced by a multivariate measure consisting of post-publication reviews, ratings, access statistics, citations, media coverage, link-counts, etc.
To say it with the authors at Epidemiology:
in its present format, the impact factor should be killed off, and the sooner the better.
Having a collection of impact measures will only be sensibly feasible in a large, decentralized databank in which all peer-reviewed scientific primary literature is collected, cross-referenced and stored. Of course, the algorithms for any such metric need to be transparent. The data is all there, the technology is around. Now we only need to get the word out and bring the majority of scientists behind us. If scientists are as rational as they claim, they have no choice but to follow their rationality and get on with the program
If this is so, why do we still have journals? One of the authors has the answer:
The irresistible fascination with (and picturesque uses of) a construct so scientifically weak as BIF are simple reminders that scientists are embedded in and embody culture. We are vain and contradictory human beings too [...].
Friday 09 May 2008 - 04:30:34
-----
feedburner.com
