Hello!, and MAF/MAP ramblings

[Gary Derian]

I don't think there is a clear choice, MAP or MAF.  The OEMs have changed
back and forth so I think its a matter of personal preference.
Theoretically, using MAF means you don't have to play with tables.  I used
to be a firm believer in MAF but there are some problems with flow range,
getting it to measure idle and max power requires 30:1 range.  A turbo is
worse, needing 60 or 80:1.  In practice, MAF systems run out of flow and use
tables for the upper end.  Bottom line is you will have to play with tables
anyway so you might as well go for the MAP.  Since 2 and 3 bar MAP sensors
are available all the pieces you need are there.

In my mind, the question is  it worth slogging through a GM system which is
available and cheap but designed to be NOT programmable by the end user or
an aftermarket system that is user friendly but more expensive.  If I have
to buy a PROM reader/writer, a Diacom, and a bunch of other stuff to start a
GM ECM project, it may well cost me more than going with an aftermarket
unit.  If I plan on several projects, the economies of scale tip the
advantage towards the GM system.

Just my $0.02

Gary Derian <gderian at oh.verio.com>


>
> I'm still struggling with the MAF/MAP decision.
>
> Frederic Breitwieser