MAF vs SD
Your info is nearly five years out of date.
Could you explain the "handlers"? The 85mm meter has been on all '99 & up 4.8L, 5.3L & 6.0L pick ups, using the same box, and often operating system, as the LS1 cars.
The 85mm table does not plateau. The 85mm GTO table goes to 512 gm/sec.
I've tuned three or four of those with a Maggie lately and didn't max the table.
Last edited by Ed Wright; Aug 7, 2007 at 07:03 PM.
I wonder why GM also uses SD to QA/blend MAF readings up to 4000rpm?
Yeah SD sucks, lets use MAF because its so easy and so cool and who can be bothered doing a good tune anyway? Let the MAF fix my f*ckups, kewl!
I gotta tell you, a couple of factory calibrators get a real kick out of reading some of the stuff in this section.
And, I have to admit, your one funny guy.
MAF systems are much more flexible in their ability to compensate for engine changes since they actually measure airflow instead of computing it based on preprogrammed assumptions. They are self-compensating for most reasonable upgrades, as well as extremely accurate under low-speed, part-throttle operation.
I might go back to MAF myself till I get enough mods where it start to be a restriction. Why not utilize as many sensors as you can. With the MAF being able to adjust with changes in the air I would think the gas mileage would be better also. My gas mileage currently sucks with SD but I still have to get some more logs b4 I get my bins dialed in. Im a noob to tuning also but from what ive read unless your maxin out the maf why not use it?
Last edited by SpdFrk1990; Aug 10, 2007 at 08:49 PM.
And, I have to admit, your one funny guy.

I dont think anyone is saying a correctly sized maf is a restriction, what is being said is that the stock ls1 ecm has inherent limitations when it comes to mid to high power applications such as strokers and forced induction which means that more control and flexibility can be gained from an SD setup, especially when running a custom OS. To deny that is to deny the world is round.




