The stock MAF will work fine. leave it alone. it works for what it is supposed to.

please quit buying aftermarket MAF's without calibrating them and running your car, you must realize that you need to change the MAF table that is pre-programmed into those NEW MAF's

 

do you have a link on how to tune the after market mafs?
I think I tuned mine, but the hz are lower than that of the factory. I have the granentelli.

 

Good luck with this, I have been informing the world about this for the past couple of years, the old 5.0 mustangs with "calibrated mafs" has put a bad image in peoples mind, and people think they need to buy a maf to make thier car fast.

I never reccomend an aftermarket maf for a f-car. I only run a GMS maf on my car, since my stocker had a problem, and I bought it for $10 off a friend with 500 miles on it. (I did tune it of course)

Ryan

 

Those Granatelli units are junk... even at best they are very inconsistently manufactured.

 

Agreed....we took one off a stock tuned car one day on the dyno. It was running real rich; we swapped it on to another stock tuned car,and this car went dangerously lean. Very odd that on two almost identical combos this MAF produced completely different A/F curves. Both cars were right around 11.7-12.0 with the stock MAF.

 

That's probably because on the original car, the fuel trim
learning nulled out the closed loop part but enriched WOT
and on the new car, it knew nothing so you saw the lean
bias of the calibration.

 

Why is it that they can manufacture new aftermarket mafs for mustangs.. even ones that will read on boosted cars but not for us...

I know mustangs use 0-5v's i think opposed to us.

 

Most likely due to PCM limitations the F-Body PCM limitation is 512 gm/sec and I don't think there is anything programming can do to solve it

 

there is a similar 63.9 #/minute limitation on a Ford PCM as well, but that does not stop people from making it work

It is purley the fact that nobody has made adaptions to allow for this to work on a gm application, and all of the GM maf's are "trickery" maf's not "support more power" maf's (other than maybe the new lingenfelter maf)

Ryan

 

The main difference here, as I see it, is that on the older EEC-IV Fords, adding almost any aftermarket MAF would add good, useable power mainly because it was removing a major restriction in the intake tract ( the stock MAFs on those cars was 55mm! ). Can you say breathing through a straw? For whatever reason, the theory that adding an aftermarket MAF to an LSX motor will add power has 'carried over' from those days. So far I have not seen a stock GM MAF that was a restriction up to about 500rwhp levels on a N/A application. Besides that, there are no aftermarket GM MAFs that I have seen that have the resolution and metering ability of the stockers.

 

There is one positive to adding an SLP MAF that I've seen. Because of the design and the bellow it uses to connect to the lid, my IAT's are down. I'm 99.9% sure this is because the stock, metal MAF housing suffers from heat-soak. That heat then radiates off right next to the IAT sensor. At idle last summer (if I sat long enough), I was not surprised to see intake temps in the 130's~140's. This would then produce a lean condition in my fueling even though the tune was dialed in and the stock MAF was enabled/working properly. On my '01 SS that I bought (which came with an SLP MAF), I rarely see IAT's over 110 when sitting at idle. Performance of the meter aside, it does provide alterior benefits. Personally, I have yet to notice an issue with the SLP unit.

 

My rant is just for people to tune the crap, or not even get them. People buy the things and then complain about it not working... think about it.. you need to tune the new MAF...

not saying they are bad, just that a LOT of people are like, 'i got a slp maf' now my cars not running right. hhhmmmm....

YOU must tune the new MAF

 

that's probably because ford maf's are voltage based, not frequency based, so you can easily do things like half/double the voltages, while it's nowhere near as easy to manipulate the frequencies.

 

It's the pcm side of things that needs the trickery to get around the 63.9 limit, just like our 512 g/sec limit.

although, it is nice to have the maf extender options, such as the MJ or Mafia units.

GM does have companies who have made translators, just nobody has made one that allows for more power with the same 12Khz output, for more power support, vs tricking the pcm. I wonder how high output the factory mafs can support, and still be reliable.

I have run a ford Voltage based maf on my car, using an adapter, so it can be done

Ryan

 

You must have had a bad dream about MAF's last night.

 

man, its just all the time i hear about people and replacing mafs, when they worked fine in the first place. and people complain about having problems, running lean, etc.....etc

leave them alone.... GOD. LMAO. OR tune for it.

 

I'm of the opinion that most people shouldn't modify their cars period

I don't know that I'll ever mod another car as much as I have this one...too much of a snowball effect.

 

A local guy was telling me he could get a ford maf to work on my car.. Wasnt sure how since I knew it was voltage based and ours wasnt.

 

OK ... everybody (well, most everybody) keeps saying the stock MAF is worth up 500 HP ... when we're talking horsepower on LS1tech forums, the general population is speaking of RWHP ... does the same apply here when talking about how much the stock MAF will handle? Will the stock MAF handle up to 500 HP as measured on a engine dyno or a dynojet rear wheel dyno? I'm pretty certain people are talking about RWHP here. Can't find an answer using the Search feature ... can somebody confirm which it is the stock MAF can handle?

 

We see the stock MAF "PEG" any where from 450 to 475 RWHP....
Mustang DYNO of course...