MAF vs MAP

[xxalexx at ix.netcom.com]

> Date:          Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:51:42 -0700
> From:          Shannen Durphey <shannen at mcn.net>
> To:            diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Subject:       Re: MAF vs MAP
> Reply-to:      diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu

> 
> 
> xxalexx at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > > Priority:      Normal
> > > To:            diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> > > From:          "bruce plecan" <nacelp at bright.net>
> > > Subject:       Re: MAF vs MAP
> > > Date:          Mon, 23 Feb 98 13:43:45 PST
> > > Reply-to:      diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> >
> > > ref KV:
> > > GM (OEM) specific
> > >   IMHO it's as much about application as anything.  Both use
> > > feedback from the O2 sensor for the final trimming of injector timing,
> > > so at less than WOT, there is about 0 difference.  Now at WOT,
> > > and for off-highway use racing the MAP is the winner since there
> > > is no MAF restriction.  As I understand things now, on the newest
> > > GMs some use both a MAF, and MAP.  Does anyone know if they
> > > do this for averaging, or backup, or what conditions they use each
> > > for??..
> > I would say atmospheric correction, most flow meters are calibrated
> > at STP(std temp press 29.92"Hg  68F) you need intake air and
> > atmospheric pressure to get actual corrected flow.
> > alex
> 
>   And backup.  Unhooked MAF of running 96 Corsica 3100 V6, engine never even
> hiccupped.  smooooth and snappy.
> 
> Shannen
> 
Yes, I accidentally did the same thing, must say a liitle surprised 
and alot of comments like throw it away, who needs it.
Rather busy with other problems at time so did not look in to it
further.  How does it run under load?
alex