FW: MAF Upgrad

[TBK]

But only half the air flow.

TK
-----Original Message-----
From: Clare Snyder <snyder at huron.net>
To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: FW: MAF Upgrad


>Atkinson, David wrote:
>>
>> How about running two MAF sensors in parallel?
>> I'm sure you'd need some kind of happy box to interface the two
>> and send out an integrated signal.  If there were enough interest,
>> this could be a source of income for somebody ...
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>  ----------
>> From:  Peter Fenske
>> Sent:  Monday, February 23, 1998 4:42 AM
>> To:  diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
>> Subject:  Re: MAF Upgrad
>>
>> Hi Larry
>>
>> I have looked at using the LT1 maf on my 86 MAF.
>> The LT1 is FM vs the 86 Bosch analog.
>>
>> Several people have used the Porsch Mafs bigger but mucho dollaro
>> And it is just a small matter to modify correction a wee bit.
>>
>> The LT1 FM is possible since the V8 TPI code has an appendage
>> left over from the V6 FM maf. Most of the freq handling code
>> is there. The tables would have to change a bit.
>>
>> However with the 89 with Vats there is a wee problem.
>> The Vats freq measuring pin is used by the V6 to measure
>> maf frequency. So you would lose your Vats a terrible thing.
>>
>> Anyways the software is quite a mess. Just saying it could be
>> done..
>>
>> And MAP ain't too bad.
>>
>> In addition there is provision for N-alpha in the code
>> Ie rpm and tps. This is the backup code section
>> for the Maf
>>
>> later:peter
>>
>> >
>> >      MAF is a better system theoretically than a MAP system. The reason
>> for
>> >      this is that you are MEASURING airflow/density rather than
>> calculating
>> >      it. In practice, a MAF system is harder to package and there is an
>>
>> >      inverse relationship between peak airflow potential of the MAF and
>> its
>> >      accuracy. The stock GM 3" sensor (i.e. 85-89 TPI) is fairly
>> inadequate
>> >      for a healthy motor (325+hp)...it just won't flow enough air. If I
>>
>> >      could somehow get a late model 3.5" MAF to work with my 89
>> >      harness/computer....that would probably be best...but I have no
>> clue
>> >      if/whether this would work.
>> >
>> >      TTYL!
>> >
>> >      Larry Kurek
>> >
>Why bother paralleling them? If they are identical, they will flow the
>same amount of air each, so you only need one connected. Put a switch in
>the circuit and you can carry a back-up.
>--
>                               _/\_
>                       --|-----([])-----|--
>                         S    0/  \0    B
>         Alls well that ends well!! www.snyder.on.ca is back
>                  E-Mail service is back to normal
>                  To avoid bouncing E-Mail messages
>                    Reply to Clare at snyder.on.ca
>                                OR
>Remove the R from clsnyder in my E-Mail Address to reply. Stop the
>spammers!!!
>It's hard to soar like an eagle when your stuck with a bunch of
>Turkeys!!!
>