Map, baro @ wot
Map, baro @ wot I've been doing quite a bit of data logging lately and I've noticed that my MAP kpa does not hit BARO kpa @ WOT, I'm at altitude so Baro is quite a bit lower, usually not higher than 88 kpa. My WOT pulls see a MAP kpa of about 84-85, always off by at least 3 kpa. I've read around and it sounds like @ WOT MAP should equal BARO. It is the SAE calculated BARO, where it gets that info from I'm not sure but I've compared it against the weather channel and it's definitely accurate. MAP never approaches any real time BARO I've been able to find.
Trying to tie other things in, there was a seam on my k&n intake just behind the filter before the MAF that almost appears as if it's imploding on itself, coincidence maybe but it's almost like the engine wants more air than is being provided and maybe this could explain something. This would be more true right now because I just added lift with 1.85 RR, how much over stock I would have to calculate. The thing of it is the filter is good for over 600 CFM and it's relatively new so that doesn't make sense to me because my VE % combined with theoretical max CFM for a 5.3L doesn't come close to that high of flow demand. My MAF frequency is definitely not smooth either but how smooth it should be I dont know. My laptop took a **** along with all of my logs so i'll have to go out and log some more and post that up if needed. Any insight would be appreciated.
Trying to tie other things in, there was a seam on my k&n intake just behind the filter before the MAF that almost appears as if it's imploding on itself, coincidence maybe but it's almost like the engine wants more air than is being provided and maybe this could explain something. This would be more true right now because I just added lift with 1.85 RR, how much over stock I would have to calculate. The thing of it is the filter is good for over 600 CFM and it's relatively new so that doesn't make sense to me because my VE % combined with theoretical max CFM for a 5.3L doesn't come close to that high of flow demand. My MAF frequency is definitely not smooth either but how smooth it should be I dont know. My laptop took a **** along with all of my logs so i'll have to go out and log some more and post that up if needed. Any insight would be appreciated.
"Good for xxx CFM" is bullshit market-speak. It's all about
the test limits & conditions. How much pressure drop is
"good for"? 2 in H2O? 10kPa? There are standards but you
would have to read the unpublished fine print to find out
if they were followed, or which.
You are going to drop some. How much, is the sum of all
the inlet tract pressure drops @ flow from outdoors to the
butt end of the intake plenum. Filter, duct, MAF screen,
TB blade max angle, accordion bellows, all that stuff costs.
The marketing game is "let's pretend"; figuring which pieces
matter and which ones are good enough, is on you and
your ability to "think like the wind".
the test limits & conditions. How much pressure drop is
"good for"? 2 in H2O? 10kPa? There are standards but you
would have to read the unpublished fine print to find out
if they were followed, or which.
You are going to drop some. How much, is the sum of all
the inlet tract pressure drops @ flow from outdoors to the
butt end of the intake plenum. Filter, duct, MAF screen,
TB blade max angle, accordion bellows, all that stuff costs.
The marketing game is "let's pretend"; figuring which pieces
matter and which ones are good enough, is on you and
your ability to "think like the wind".
Well I could do some runs with different setups, maf screen no maf screen, adjust the elbow lengths. No accordian tube here she is smooth. Going to do a pcv delete here shortly if anything was leaking through the gromet it would reflect there too I'm sure. Ill let you know how it goes
