MAP vs MAF, again

[TBK]

I found the opposite. On my V6, the WOT went from 130 to 255 and the idle
went from 6 to 20.

TK

Owner of the only stealth cone-shaped hat

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Plecan <nacelp at bright.net>
To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:49 PM
Subject: MAP vs MAF, again


>In the not to distant past there was a post about how when an
>individual changed from MAP to MAF in a engine with a larger
>than stock cam how the grams per second changed.  As I recall
>the idle grams/second went from like 20 to 6, and the WOT went
>from 255 to like 150.  I'm just curious if this was most probably from the
>lack of dampening of the MAP sensor.  The MAF has to change
>current loading (?), or some better engineering term to register
>a change, where in the MAP all it is a diaphram moving.  My point is
>that in this case the MAP was actually more accurate, and the
>problem is actually how the ecm sees the more violent intake tract
>pulses.  In one series of experiments I did I tried mounting the MAP
>on the engine, and then with various lines, starting with min lenght
>ID, and then large ID, and long line.  What has always seemed to
>work best is a min lenght/ID hose from the manifold to the MAP
>sensor.
>  Any other experiences, comments
>Cheers
>Bruce    In the spirit of good will when you see a pal at work
>              having a bad day, please feel free to offer him/her
>              the use of your Cone Shaped Hat...
>
>