wrong MAF tuning!; (G/sec#s) for a ported MAF?
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 211
Likes: 1
From: Guatemala City.
wrong MAF tuning!; (G/sec#s) for a ported MAF? Hi guys.
does anyone have the MAF numbers (flow Vs Freq) for a ported polished stock maf, without the "wing profile" and without the plastic suporting the "support" wires....
I kept tuning with the values indicating by my maf (3.2 G/s) at iddle @ 5000ft omsl. for tuning the start up point for the iddle maf flow until I realized that maybe my maf is off.
how did the aftermarket sellers of the ported Mafs tune their frequencies.
gain Im trying to skip a maf translator...
Thanks
does anyone have the MAF numbers (flow Vs Freq) for a ported polished stock maf, without the "wing profile" and without the plastic suporting the "support" wires....
I kept tuning with the values indicating by my maf (3.2 G/s) at iddle @ 5000ft omsl. for tuning the start up point for the iddle maf flow until I realized that maybe my maf is off.
how did the aftermarket sellers of the ported Mafs tune their frequencies.
gain Im trying to skip a maf translator...
Thanks
This is actually fairly simply in principle. You tune a modified MAF for flow by watching the LTFT. If you know what were the LTFTs in several FTCs for the stock MAF, then when the modded MAF is installed, you change the flow vs freq table so that the new LTFTs equal what they were in the first place. This is the way I have tuned my GMAF.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 211
Likes: 1
From: Guatemala City.
I tried the numbers from the ZO6 corvette numbers... gosh! barely run, had to stop in the middle of the higway for upload last program!
non the less added 15% to the corvette #´s (still less flow than oem) and worked better, I think its truer than oem (with airfoil)
non the less added 15% to the corvette #´s (still less flow than oem) and worked better, I think its truer than oem (with airfoil)
And you will find that you might need 15% more at lower frequencies and maybe only 5% different at top end. Modifing the MAF table is very tedious because it is non-linear. I have always had to make more change at the bottom end , and much less change at top end, and in between, well, its in between change. I will make a unique change to one cell at a time. Heck, it could take me a 1/2 hour to modify the MAF table after studing my log data files.
best way I know of is to get a Wideband 02 and tune based off of that.
http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=671
http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=671
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
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
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
10 Reasons the LS7 Is GM's Most Extreme Naturally Aspirated V8 Engine Ever
Verdad Gallardo Not all of the same funtionality is there. I can apply a fraction of the correction based on the log instead of being forced to apply 100% of what's there. I can also adjust the correction factor (manually) easier because I can see the trends that occur easier. For example, say the surrounding cells around 3500Hz indicate a need for a 4% increase over stock after a log, but those same logged values say 3500Hz needs a 6% increase over stock. I'd be more willing to believe 3500Hz is really closer to 4% over stock based on the surrounding cells. I make the adjustment and move on.
My belief is....when you're adjusting the MAF table, you don't always want to apply the full correction from the log - especially towards the end when you're trying to dial it in. By setting the correction factor to something like 50% or 25%, I can avoid overshoot.
Keep in mind, a lot of the functionality has been built into the software. But, I have had this spreadsheet since before that functionality was there. So, part of it is me holding on to something that I created. But, a bigger part is me using something that is proven to work fast and well....for me at least.
My belief is....when you're adjusting the MAF table, you don't always want to apply the full correction from the log - especially towards the end when you're trying to dial it in. By setting the correction factor to something like 50% or 25%, I can avoid overshoot.
Keep in mind, a lot of the functionality has been built into the software. But, I have had this spreadsheet since before that functionality was there. So, part of it is me holding on to something that I created. But, a bigger part is me using something that is proven to work fast and well....for me at least.
Originally Posted by SSpdDmon
Not all of the same funtionality is there. I can apply a fraction of the correction based on the log instead of being forced to apply 100% of what's there. I can also adjust the correction factor (manually) easier because I can see the trends that occur easier. For example, say the surrounding cells around 3500Hz indicate a need for a 4% increase over stock after a log, but those same logged values say 3500Hz needs a 6% increase over stock. I'd be more willing to believe 3500Hz is really closer to 4% over stock based on the surrounding cells. I make the adjustment and move on.
My belief is....when you're adjusting the MAF table, you don't always want to apply the full correction from the log - especially towards the end when you're trying to dial it in. By setting the correction factor to something like 50% or 25%, I can avoid overshoot.
Keep in mind, a lot of the functionality has been built into the software. But, I have had this spreadsheet since before that functionality was there. So, part of it is me holding on to something that I created. But, a bigger part is me using something that is proven to work fast and well....for me at least.
My belief is....when you're adjusting the MAF table, you don't always want to apply the full correction from the log - especially towards the end when you're trying to dial it in. By setting the correction factor to something like 50% or 25%, I can avoid overshoot.
Keep in mind, a lot of the functionality has been built into the software. But, I have had this spreadsheet since before that functionality was there. So, part of it is me holding on to something that I created. But, a bigger part is me using something that is proven to work fast and well....for me at least.
That is the explaination I was looking for and I will agree with you 100%. How about I see what I can do and get this into EFILive? 
