1999 Camaro SS desperately seeking advice on MAF
05-15-2003, 02:04 AM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 Camaro SS desperately seeking advice on MAF I need some help. I have a stock 1999 Camaro SS and have purchased an SLP
cat-back system with Loudmouth, an SLP 85mm MAF sensor, a direct flo
induction lid, Strut tower support, sub-frame connectors, ripper shifter and
I already have an MAF translator.
Question 1:
Since I am not doing any "engine" mods, will the new MAF sensor make any
difference over the stock MAF sensor without the translator?
Question 2:
I was told by LS-1 Motorsports that the MAF translator is not necessary in
my car with an upgraded 85mm MAF sensor vs. the 75mm stock sensor and will
actually negatively affect performance. is this true?
I have spent hours searching the web and newsgrous to no avail and need to
drop the car off in 2 days with the parts. Please let me know your
opinions. Thanks in advance.
cat-back system with Loudmouth, an SLP 85mm MAF sensor, a direct flo
induction lid, Strut tower support, sub-frame connectors, ripper shifter and
I already have an MAF translator.
Question 1:
Since I am not doing any "engine" mods, will the new MAF sensor make any
difference over the stock MAF sensor without the translator?
Question 2:
I was told by LS-1 Motorsports that the MAF translator is not necessary in
my car with an upgraded 85mm MAF sensor vs. the 75mm stock sensor and will
actually negatively affect performance. is this true?
I have spent hours searching the web and newsgrous to no avail and need to
drop the car off in 2 days with the parts. Please let me know your
opinions. Thanks in advance.
05-15-2003, 08:55 AM
#3
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 12,604
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Re: 1999 Camaro SS desperately seeking advice on MAF If you set the MAFT switches to 0, 0, then it is
not going to do a thing to your engine controls
and the answer you got to Question 2 is crap.
As to Question 1, that depends entirely on the
MAF calibration as the stock engine isn't going
to overtax the stock MAF. You might gain 28% of
the =MAF= pressure drop back, from the airflow
improvement due to increased area. Never seen
flow numbers for stock MAF or SLP MAF other
than my own, which are hokey setup. If you want
to see the difference directly, look at the WOT
MAP readings. If you picked up 0.1PSI then you
picked up maybe 3 HP. But the early-years cars
seemed to respond better to "mods" that cause
lean mixture error.
That SLP has two different models ('98-'00 and
'01-'02) to replace a single GM OEM MAF, indicates
that one or the other dicks with the mixture
somehow. I know the late-years one didn't mess me
around any, and that the early years seemed to
like lean-error-inducing tweaks, so you might see
some of that in the early-years model cal. Then
you might want the MAFT. But for now, just leave
it in, zeroed, until you get some learning time
in and can monitor results.
not going to do a thing to your engine controls
and the answer you got to Question 2 is crap.
As to Question 1, that depends entirely on the
MAF calibration as the stock engine isn't going
to overtax the stock MAF. You might gain 28% of
the =MAF= pressure drop back, from the airflow
improvement due to increased area. Never seen
flow numbers for stock MAF or SLP MAF other
than my own, which are hokey setup. If you want
to see the difference directly, look at the WOT
MAP readings. If you picked up 0.1PSI then you
picked up maybe 3 HP. But the early-years cars
seemed to respond better to "mods" that cause
lean mixture error.
That SLP has two different models ('98-'00 and
'01-'02) to replace a single GM OEM MAF, indicates
that one or the other dicks with the mixture
somehow. I know the late-years one didn't mess me
around any, and that the early years seemed to
like lean-error-inducing tweaks, so you might see
some of that in the early-years model cal. Then
you might want the MAFT. But for now, just leave
it in, zeroed, until you get some learning time
in and can monitor results.
05-15-2003, 10:39 AM
#4
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Goldsboro NC
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1999 Camaro SS desperately seeking advice on MAF thats probably b/c the 98-99 cars ran a lil rich from the factory.....i had a buddy of mine w/ a '00 T/A gain 8hp from the slp on the dyno...its hit or miss w/ those things
