Input Needed on Honeycomb for lS7 MAF Sensor
02-15-2013, 07:05 PM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Input Needed on Honeycomb for lS7 MAF Sensor Need guidance! I have a '04 CTS-V with an LS6 that has a FAST 102 intake and I am in the process of upgrading my intake to a custom 4" tube. I'm ditching my LS6 MAF sensor and installing a new blade LS7 MAF sensor. I have HP Tuners which I will be using to recalibrate.
From what I've read adding a honeycomb before the sensor will greatly improve my MAF readings and reduce turbulence. Question is does the size of the screen make a big difference?
Here are the two options I'm looking at, either the spectre MAF holder with an added honeycomb:
http://www.spectreperformance.com/in...apter-kit.html
PARED WITH THIS
http://www.saxonpc.com/100mm-cells-for-100.html
Or the slightly more expensive route with just this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/251223300513...84.m1423.l2649
The e-bay one is appealing to me because it has a machined recess for the screen but the comb cells seem really large to me, would I be better off with a small comb size from Saxon PC?
Thank you in advance for any feedback!
From what I've read adding a honeycomb before the sensor will greatly improve my MAF readings and reduce turbulence. Question is does the size of the screen make a big difference?
Here are the two options I'm looking at, either the spectre MAF holder with an added honeycomb:
http://www.spectreperformance.com/in...apter-kit.html
PARED WITH THIS
http://www.saxonpc.com/100mm-cells-for-100.html
Or the slightly more expensive route with just this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/251223300513...84.m1423.l2649
The e-bay one is appealing to me because it has a machined recess for the screen but the comb cells seem really large to me, would I be better off with a small comb size from Saxon PC?
Thank you in advance for any feedback!
02-16-2013, 09:04 AM
#2
You are probably wasting your time and money.
The smoothing is a good thing, but mostly when you have large sharp bends right by your maf sensor. Your airbox setup would allow for a nice signal as there isn't much of any corruption if you use a nice filter. On a Camaro, it is more of an issue because of the way the airbox and filter setup on them is. Yours is a lot better of a setup.
Just remap the mass air frequency table and call it a day..
The smoothing is a good thing, but mostly when you have large sharp bends right by your maf sensor. Your airbox setup would allow for a nice signal as there isn't much of any corruption if you use a nice filter. On a Camaro, it is more of an issue because of the way the airbox and filter setup on them is. Yours is a lot better of a setup.
Just remap the mass air frequency table and call it a day..
02-18-2013, 03:48 PM
#3
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are probably wasting your time and money.
The smoothing is a good thing, but mostly when you have large sharp bends right by your maf sensor. Your airbox setup would allow for a nice signal as there isn't much of any corruption if you use a nice filter. On a Camaro, it is more of an issue because of the way the airbox and filter setup on them is. Yours is a lot better of a setup.
Just remap the mass air frequency table and call it a day..
The smoothing is a good thing, but mostly when you have large sharp bends right by your maf sensor. Your airbox setup would allow for a nice signal as there isn't much of any corruption if you use a nice filter. On a Camaro, it is more of an issue because of the way the airbox and filter setup on them is. Yours is a lot better of a setup.
Just remap the mass air frequency table and call it a day..
