not too jack this thread or anything but for the ones who have installed the screen, what ratio did you go with? i've been looking and not sure what would work best. i have the TSP 100mm MAF. thanks

 

X2! I would also like info on this. What ratio are you guys using on the honeycomb screen?

 

I think the 4:1 is sufficient from what I've seen.

Btw, why are you guys running 100mm MAFs? Are you at 550rwhp+? I mean the TSP kit is nice, has the 100mm aluminum housing, GM MAF slot sensor, and silicon coupler. But why this vs stock MAF or 1-bar SD tune? I've seen the stock MAF good upto 550rwhp.

There seems to be a lot of issues with the 100mm MAF kits, especially with older ECMs like in our cars.

 

yeah i made 500whp, when i did my build i didn't want to bottle neck the air flow but at the time i didn't know there were problems with the TSP MAF. but evidently people are throwing these screens in and love them so i figured i would try that. however, i'm looking to possibly do a SD tune early next year. just doing more research about it, i don't know too much about them.

 

There is a difference in what a part can support and when it starts to become a bottleneck. Ive seen 1000 made through an LS6 intake before, doesn't mean it can support it. The stock LS1 MAF can accommodate a decent amount of power, but the gain by going to an 85mm or 100mm MAF is there also, even at a bolt on level

 

Is it? I've seen 2 or 3 before and after dyno setups at 450+rwhp here on this site that showed absolutely nothing going from the stock GM to a 100mm MAF.

It only helps if there is a restriction.

 

Ive seen it first hand

 

How much of a gain on say a 400rwhp car (typical weak heads/cam with mismatched parts on this site)?

Not being a dick, but if it's a noticeable difference, then I might have to spend the cash on it. If it's less than 5HP, then it's within the variance of the dyno, and I'd rather spend the money on something else.

 

Geoff himself told me an 85mm would gain jack-****. I'm at 450 myself. No need to mess with it if the readings are good.

 

LOL. That's what I thought. There is some marketing crap on this site that makes people think a 4" opening must be better than a 3.5" opening even if the CFM of the 3.5" opening is greater than the CFM requirements of the engine.

 

Bigger MAF wont help unless your maxing out the Hz reading in the tune, thats not going to happen unless your making big power (boost or very efficient N/A combo)

 

My point exactly. I do see other's points though. Once you get to that stage, bigger is a must.