B0793, B0794, and B0795, LBZ VS LMM?

[THEFERMANATOR]

Has anybody noticed that these tables work opposite off of each other in the LBZ OS's VS the LMM OS's? I know in LAMBDA when you go down this should add more fuel, but i nthe LBZ it did teh opposite to me and gave it less. Also if you compare B0793 and B0794 between the 2 you will see that they are opposite. In a LBZ teh rich is 1.4 and the lean is .920 whereas a LMM is .5 rich and 1.250 lean. I know I played around with it on a LMM and it responds correctly in accordance with LAMBDA, but the LBZ does the opposite.

[Dmaxink]

Yes this is true...I've run into the same scenario

[THEFERMANATOR]

At least its not just me. Through me for a loop when I used the B0795 table from the LBZ tune I built for somebody in this LMM and it didn't work so well. Basically flip flopped it to the other axis of 1 and it worked great. Gets confusing with some of this stuff. I'm beginning to wonder if diversifying my tuning was worth it or not. LB7's are pretty simple to do, but this LMM kicked my but with all of teh differrent tables and learning it's differrences from the LBZ.

[JoshH]

I've never had that happen to me. Also, on my LBZ tunes the rich is .9 and the lean is 1.4. They do swap the tables though. On the LBZ, B0793 is rich and B0794 is lean. On the LMM, B0793 is lean and B0794 is rich.

[Dmaxink]

Ya out of habit early on and without reading them just assuming I slapped the table in from the lbz...talk about limited. Lol