HUGE gains with MAF removed completely...
uncalibrated to me is when SD/VE and MAF modes behave differently. my method of tuning MAF is exactly matching DynamicAirflow values onto a MAF table, that's why it's crucial to have the full VE table done perfectly.
Originally Posted by Bill @ Hi-Flo Turbo
fwiw i did the same on my vette, was running SD tune with maf still on intake and took maf off on back to back dynos and picked up 15 ft/lb of torque and 8 hp.
Originally Posted by RedHardSupra
i dont' belive in huge 'gains' like that. what you witnessed was the effect of 'unfucking' the computer by removing a miscalibrated sensor. if you got it right, there'd be no difference. go find a post by HumpinSS where Maf to Mafless difference was 0.5hp max throughout the entire revrange.
Last edited by 02sierraz71_5.3; Jul 24, 2006 at 01:30 PM.
Sounds to me like he had disabled the MAF via tuning before he remove teh physical restriction, so Tune does not play a roll in the gains here. It could however play a roll in how the computer figures out delivered torque.
I definately believe the stock 75mm f-body MAF is a big restriction on a modded car, which is why im such a big fan of ported MAFs, assuming theyre recalibrated afterwards. I do find it a little difficult to believe that an 85mm de-screened maf would restrict you to the tune of 20 rwtq though.
I definately believe the stock 75mm f-body MAF is a big restriction on a modded car, which is why im such a big fan of ported MAFs, assuming theyre recalibrated afterwards. I do find it a little difficult to believe that an 85mm de-screened maf would restrict you to the tune of 20 rwtq though.
tuning...its all in the tuning.. you can get the same power both ways, its already been proven. some people can't get CL tuning done right... others can do MAFless and get it dialed in fine...
i'm sticking to this.
i'm sticking to this.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Originally Posted by ZL1Killa
tuning...its all in the tuning.. you can get the same power both ways, its already been proven. some people can't get CL tuning done right... others can do MAFless and get it dialed in fine...
i'm sticking to this.
i'm sticking to this.
He was already in speed-density mode. The tune did not change and was not altered. The MAF was not functional, it was only along for the ride... Any gains would have come from removing a physical restriction.
I do agree with you that there should be no difference between properly tuned MAF and SD setups, all else being equal, ie. unplugging the MAF but not removing it.
Originally Posted by Bill @ Hi-Flo Turbo
my car was in SD already before i removed the maf completely.. so the only difference made was removing the maf from the intact tract. a/f remained the same.
Originally Posted by txhorns281
maybe i referred to the wrong person in my first post... or something IDK,...
but this thread is what I was talking about, HumpinSS tested this.
Originally Posted by ZL1Killa
GuitsBoy this is exactly what I was talking about.
maybe i referred to the wrong person in my first post... or something IDK,...
but this thread is what I was talking about, HumpinSS tested this.
maybe i referred to the wrong person in my first post... or something IDK,...
but this thread is what I was talking about, HumpinSS tested this.
For all intents and purposes, its as if the MAF has already been unplugged, but he realized the gain when he physically removed the MAF, even though it had been unplugged and rendered inoperable for some time.
Obviously the guy's MAF was a restriction. Ported stocker vs straight bellows yielded nothing drastic on my old setup, as mentioned earlier, the difference would be minimal, a couple HP at best, which is certainly not inteligible by SOTP.... I "love" the SOTP dyno....
I don't think anybody would disagree with you about your results, you pretty well covered the variables with your expirement. I know I don't need to tell you this, but you did good work for verifying it. But at the same time, your car is but one car, and it can't represent every LSX vehicle out there for how it responds to a certain mod. I really don't think a car with a 75mm lid opening would gain much by even using a bigger MAF, so removing it wouldn't help much more. A bottleneck is a bottleneck.
Do I think this guy's results were extreme? Yep, sure do. I'd even feel confident saying something (unknown) impacted the dyno result. Maybe the shop prankster was squeezing off a little nitrous in the cooling fan during the run, I dunno. But he made one change in a tight enough time span that the weather didn't likely change, and made a big power increase.
I'd personally like to see the same thing done another time or two on the same dyno just to verify or disprove that the MAF in the intake path was what was holding it back.
Do I think this guy's results were extreme? Yep, sure do. I'd even feel confident saying something (unknown) impacted the dyno result. Maybe the shop prankster was squeezing off a little nitrous in the cooling fan during the run, I dunno. But he made one change in a tight enough time span that the weather didn't likely change, and made a big power increase.
I'd personally like to see the same thing done another time or two on the same dyno just to verify or disprove that the MAF in the intake path was what was holding it back.
well, when we talk about how the MAF he took out was a screened stocker, that can certainly make difference, we all know the screen is a hinderance in airflow velocity draw, which affects airflow volume over time unit. Take that screen out, and the MAF unit is virtually no different than running a straight bellows in terms of airflow requirement for most setups.
I am not saying that in this case there is not a power increase. I'm saying the MAF housing itself (the area of the section plane) if unrestricted, offers no sizeable benefit when removed. The title of this thread is a bit misleading in that it will have unexperienced tuners rushing to remove their MAFs and once again there will be a useless debate about which is better b/w MAF and SD. The numbers compared here are merely estimations the PCM outputs in order to reference saver functions, certainly not to be held for any real word comparison. I am not the only one to verify these concepts, just trying to keep us all on earth.
I am not saying that in this case there is not a power increase. I'm saying the MAF housing itself (the area of the section plane) if unrestricted, offers no sizeable benefit when removed. The title of this thread is a bit misleading in that it will have unexperienced tuners rushing to remove their MAFs and once again there will be a useless debate about which is better b/w MAF and SD. The numbers compared here are merely estimations the PCM outputs in order to reference saver functions, certainly not to be held for any real word comparison. I am not the only one to verify these concepts, just trying to keep us all on earth.
I have personally only see one true comparison between MAF/SD and the results speak for themselves. This is even with a 90/90 and a 85mm MAF. Get it on a dyno and see what it does.
Originally Posted by txhorns281
I am not the only one to verify these concepts, just trying to keep us all on earth.
I think we're all in agreement here.