MAF options out there
08-15-2013, 09:02 PM
#1
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAF options out there Looking for something non restrictive, any ideas would be appreciated.
My build will be using a 92mm lid, 92 TB, and 92mm FAST intake. Using my old 85mm maf is not an option as it will not work well with my new set up.
Thx!
My build will be using a 92mm lid, 92 TB, and 92mm FAST intake. Using my old 85mm maf is not an option as it will not work well with my new set up.
Thx!
Last edited by LASTOFTHEBREED02T/A; 08-15-2013 at 11:22 PM.
08-16-2013, 12:11 AM
#2
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
85mm will work just fine. IMO its not worth the money to upgrade to a 92mm MAF. You are talking minimal hp for $250. It would come out to about $125 per hp for that mod.
08-16-2013, 06:49 AM
#3
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some jackass I know, is a nutswinger for a performance shop out here that use to make these housings and just insert a maf card. The gains where 7 to 10 hp depending on the application. They are worth it, just too bad they Dont make em anymore due to cost.
Not worried about 100 bucks, when I've already sunk Thousands in my build. Just trying to find something similar that works.
Not worried about 100 bucks, when I've already sunk Thousands in my build. Just trying to find something similar that works.
08-16-2013, 09:40 AM
#4
TECH Resident
10.5hp and 6ftlbs of torque were gained on my tuners custom designed housing.... Testing was doen on same car same day same dyno... did a pull, put the new maf housing on and ran it again.
the car used for this was JohnBells G8 GT.
the car used for this was JohnBells G8 GT.
08-16-2013, 10:51 AM
#5
I suppose some depends on your power goals but I wouldn't think a 85mm maf would be much of a restriction up to approx. 600+ hp n/a due to the approx. 900cfm they're able to flow. But I understand where you're coming from. TSP has their 100mm maf going for $250. I've seen plus reviews on them and also some negative about tuning issues with them. Another and less expensive route could be installing a 4" housing with a LS7 maf card...???
08-16-2013, 11:34 AM
#6
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 12,604
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Necking down from 92 to 85mm over a short distance
is going to be a trivial hit, as far as flow/pressure drops.
Provided you can keep the entry & exit smooth and have
no screens. Look to your present =(BARO-MAP) @ top end
and see the sum total of what's "on the table".
Power gains are more likely from mixture tweaking than
simple plumbing diameter.
Turbulence-wise, will you gain anything from going from
a 92-85-92 neck-down to a 92-100-92 neck-up? You
have a roughly similar step-diameter, and you can pretty
much discount the 3-4 inches of either one as far as the
contributed drop in the MAF. Your air filter, paper or rag,
will contribute more.
is going to be a trivial hit, as far as flow/pressure drops.
Provided you can keep the entry & exit smooth and have
no screens. Look to your present =(BARO-MAP) @ top end
and see the sum total of what's "on the table".
Power gains are more likely from mixture tweaking than
simple plumbing diameter.
Turbulence-wise, will you gain anything from going from
a 92-85-92 neck-down to a 92-100-92 neck-up? You
have a roughly similar step-diameter, and you can pretty
much discount the 3-4 inches of either one as far as the
contributed drop in the MAF. Your air filter, paper or rag,
will contribute more.
08-16-2013, 03:11 PM
#7
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,258
Likes: 0
Received 1,692 Likes
on
1,213 Posts
I wonder if the venturi effect of 92-85-92 (assuming flow is not choked from the smaller diameter in this application, which I do not think it would be) might bring more benefit than possibile turbulence from 92-100-92?
Trending Topics
08-16-2013, 07:42 PM
#9
TECH Resident
ok but this is DYNO proven gains guys... heres before and after pulls.. nothing was changed except throwing the different housing on...
this is on a 2009.5 G8 GT so it already had a card style MAF this is just a housing change
i know the tuner as well as the guy with the car... he wasnt out hunting for a dyno queen.. its a boltons car with a baby stealth cam... He just volunteered to be the test dummy for the new MAF housing.
this is on a 2009.5 G8 GT so it already had a card style MAF this is just a housing change
i know the tuner as well as the guy with the car... he wasnt out hunting for a dyno queen.. its a boltons car with a baby stealth cam... He just volunteered to be the test dummy for the new MAF housing.
08-16-2013, 08:49 PM
#10
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 12,604
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
"Just" a housing change, changes more than "just"
airflow - it also changes the total air / sampled air
ratio, the fundamental calibration. If the car wanted
leaner, the bigger housing gave it. And the change
in HP could perhaps be had by simple tweaking. The
lower air mass reading would also bump timing up.
Both of these are well known HP and TQ improvers.
That the TQ line is up across the board, says that
something besides raw airflow is at play, because
the screenless MAF nohow limits MAP or airflow at
the lower end.
airflow - it also changes the total air / sampled air
ratio, the fundamental calibration. If the car wanted
leaner, the bigger housing gave it. And the change
in HP could perhaps be had by simple tweaking. The
lower air mass reading would also bump timing up.
Both of these are well known HP and TQ improvers.
That the TQ line is up across the board, says that
something besides raw airflow is at play, because
the screenless MAF nohow limits MAP or airflow at
the lower end.
08-16-2013, 09:52 PM
#11
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the housing I wish I could get... regardless of tweaking, calibration etc. It still made a noticeable improvement.
Just trying to figure out who sells a 92mmaf housing that will accept a maf card.
Just trying to figure out who sells a 92mmaf housing that will accept a maf card.
08-17-2013, 02:05 AM
#12
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,258
Likes: 0
Received 1,692 Likes
on
1,213 Posts
"Just" a housing change, changes more than "just"
airflow - it also changes the total air / sampled air
ratio, the fundamental calibration. If the car wanted
leaner, the bigger housing gave it. And the change
in HP could perhaps be had by simple tweaking. The
lower air mass reading would also bump timing up.
Both of these are well known HP and TQ improvers.
That the TQ line is up across the board, says that
something besides raw airflow is at play, because
the screenless MAF nohow limits MAP or airflow at
the lower end.
airflow - it also changes the total air / sampled air
ratio, the fundamental calibration. If the car wanted
leaner, the bigger housing gave it. And the change
in HP could perhaps be had by simple tweaking. The
lower air mass reading would also bump timing up.
Both of these are well known HP and TQ improvers.
That the TQ line is up across the board, says that
something besides raw airflow is at play, because
the screenless MAF nohow limits MAP or airflow at
the lower end.
In other words, much/most/all of the gains seen in the above dyno may have been entirely possibile with the "before" MAF housing and further tweaking of the tune. At that point, the housing swap may have shown little or no gains at all.
