Is there a way on edit to change the maping of the mass air in order to make it read more air. Im going to max that thng out at about 550 rwhp, and if Im going to get 600-650 I need to figure how to change the way the mass air gets read.

 

Actually, we made ~570rwhp with Harlan's car last year on our MD1750 (over 600rw dynojet) with the stock MAF. This year we are pushing the envelope a little more, so we've been working with Pro-M on a blow-through prototype with a MUCH larger range. If all goes well with our testing, it will be on the market before too long...

 

There are LS6 based MAF's that go to 68lbs on the street already and have been for quite some time. (Pull through units both Vortech & ATI)

The market was asked to gauge interest in them on here and other UBB's and response was low. I guess no one minded the 58.1lb limit. Do a search, you will find the post.

Scott if you need one, drop me an email.

If Pro-M is prototyping, then GMS should have a unit out shortly.

 

didn't Rob Raymer use the slp unit? he got 707ish on the dynojet.

 

i have a 99 c5 maf. The ls1edit maf table stops at like 428 g/p/s and i just extended it above that by adding like 13 to each cell after that....example 428...441...454...469....etc. I'm sure there is a much better way but that seems to be working ok for me. before it maxed at 58lb/min.....now It has been up to 63lb/min. It dynod 573 dynojet reading 61-62 lbs/min. If it will go to 68, that should have my turd covered. Harlan or SJH could tell us what approximate rwhp is needed to max it at 68lb/min

 

generally speaking, 68 lb/min should get you 680hp at the flywheel. Probably close to 650 RWHP.

My biggest issue now is frequency range, thus the new proto-MAF <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I'm hitting the 12 kHz barrier on the stock MAF, so extending the table does me no good.

too bad the car is down right now, i'd have data already <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

Now getting the tune happy is the trick, stratagically placed factors of 2 can do wonders.

 

I'm tired of screwing with mine. Just scheduled some dyno time on a mustang dyno for saturday. I get more done in 3 hours there than 3 weeks on the street

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by y2khawk:
<strong>generally speaking, 68 lb/min should get you 680hp at the flywheel. Probably close to 650 RWHP.

My biggest issue now is frequency range, thus the new proto-MAF <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I'm hitting the 12 kHz barrier on the stock MAF, so extending the table does me no good.

too bad the car is down right now, i'd have data already <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

Now getting the tune happy is the trick, stratagically placed factors of 2 can do wonders.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Harlan, if you are not concerned about low frequency granularity (some accuracy), you can extend the MAF not to hit the 12hz limit before you hit the PCM's 512g/sec. The MAF is the EASY part, the PCM limit (512g/sec)is the hard part.

 

yeah my pcm is setup for 511.99 gms/sec at 11250hz.
So we( Me and JAS) reworked the meter electronically to match the new table.Works very good.
I have a 98 f-body and 11250hz is the limit.
Newer pcms can go up to 12khz but your still stuck with 511.99 gms/sec.

I was hitting 65lbs/min on my last motor.
Have not boosted it up that high yet on this motor so I don't have current readings.
But 67lbs/min means some pretty strong power to the wheels.
Steve

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JAS:
<strong>Harlan, if you are not concerned about low frequency granularity (some accuracy), you can extend the MAF not to hit the 12hz limit before you hit the PCM's 512g/sec. The MAF is the EASY part, the PCM limit (512g/sec)is the hard part.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where a .5 multiplier on some things and a 2 multiplier on others comes in. I was flowing about 75 lb/min through the stocker before i hit 12+ kHz limit. I can't read any more at that point, thus the new MAF

The new one hits about 1200 g/s at 12 kHz <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

but my target range will keep me under 10 kHz, about 800 g/s <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Too bad the motor went south, but i got my donor shortblock today, so it'll be running soon

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by y2khawk:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JAS:
<strong>Harlan, if you are not concerned about low frequency granularity (some accuracy), you can extend the MAF not to hit the 12hz limit before you hit the PCM's 512g/sec. The MAF is the EASY part, the PCM limit (512g/sec)is the hard part.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where a .5 multiplier on some things and a 2 multiplier on others comes in. I was flowing about 75 lb/min through the stocker before i hit 12+ kHz limit. I can't read any more at that point, thus the new MAF

The new one hits about 1200 g/s at 12 kHz <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

but my target range will keep me under 10 kHz, about 800 g/s <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Too bad the motor went south, but i got my donor shortblock today, so it'll be running soon</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Harlan - You say you were flowing "about" 75lbs. I'm willing to bet that's not what the log file says. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" /> Don't get me wrong, I DO believe you achieved it, but the log only says 512g/sec @ 12kHz. <img border="0" alt="[angel]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_angel.gif" />

Your still bound by the 511.99 limit. (You know this, unless it's been 'rewritten' <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) I'm guessing your splitting or under reporting the MAF, just as a ported MAF does... in a way. Then to achieve proper load values, you are doubling the PCM stuff to achieve 100% load value usage at 50% reported. So, when your reporting 512g/sec on proper tune MAF, with a split version, it would report 256g/sec. At this point I would really be concerned about the accuracy of the MAF unit. I don't see an LS1 pulling 134lbs anytime soon so with a little more math, a calibration to your needs is a better idea than jumping to 1024g/sec. It's late, I might of might of missed something, but I know that you know what I mean.

Now if we could only convince you to quit using the blow through method. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

<small>[ October 03, 2002, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

 

BTW, it should be possible to an extent we talked about (MAF tube flow diameter allowing) without having to use a "bypass" tube. You know how room concious we are. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

JAS- email me at scottyrm3s@yahoo.com thanks

<small>[ October 03, 2002, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: scott ws6 ]</small>

 

reducing the reported flow rate was how we used to run 42lb injectors with stock injector scaling before ls1edit.
It works OK but resoloution sucks when you cut it in half or less.

I used to see maybe 24lbs maf flow peak reported but was t well over 40 in reality, That was NA of course..
Steve

 

Scott, I replied last night, did you not get it?

<small>[ October 03, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

 

jas I might have typed it wrong. scottyrm3s@yahoo.com just cut and past it.