TBI and DYI_EFI list

[Tom Cloud]

John Hess wrote:

        [ snip ]

>Why would you use MAF with TBI?  It's my understanding that TBI is 
>usually
>hooked up to MAP, which is the functional equivalent of "vacuum 
>control" that
>carbs use.
>
>Actually, the '85 through '89 systems were MAF.  '90 to '93 (not sure 
>of the date) were MAP, and then many applications changed back to MAF. 
> Reason.  The MAF maintains proper tune over a wider range (of engine 
>modifications, temperature variations, altitude variations, etc).
>
>However, I'm not so sure about using MAF with the stock aircleaner 
>from a
>practicality standpoint.  It would have to be placed upstream of the 
>filter,
>which would make for a short MAF life.  Then there's the issue of the 
>size
>of those things (Although I seem to remember seeing a while back in 
>some mag
>that researchers had come up with tiny, single chip airflow meters 
>that were
>the size of postage stamps.  They were saying that you could put one 
>of these
>in each runner, and have a very accurate EFI system.)  Sorry, got off 
>on a
>tangent.
>
>Anyways, that's my put on why you shouldn't do it (although you could 
>if you
>wanted to...)

John,
Here's what George (and I) are saying.  TBI fits anything
easily.  Just need a stock or Edelbrock, etc manifold and
a throttle body.  shroud the intake, run it to a MAF and
then to an air cleaner.  Shouldn't be too hard.  Then, you've
got a system that should work on _any_ vehicle.  Seems all
you'd have to do would be to determine the approximate
max air flow needed for the appropriate size MAF and throttle
body and boogey.

Someone told me that MAF required lotsa other stuff (e.g.
air temp sensors).  Alright, let's flesh out all that stuff.
Once that's all taken care of, you've got a universal, portable
system that's easy to install and minimal expense (i.e. fewer
injectors, lower cost manifolds).

Tom Cloud <cloud at peaches.ph.utexas.edu>