pokes87iroc

well does anyone no where it is. i didnt think that they had one on them but someone said they do so where r they????

Danno

There is none. MAF models do not require or use a MAP. Chevy switched over I think in 91 for cost reasons but the later camaros went back to it. MAF is the best system, but it is very expensive even on a manufacturing level.

pokes87iroc

thanks i didnt think they did my buddies 87 trans am is shooting black smoke and runing really ruff and shuting off and he replaced the maf and everyone said its the map sensor and i didnt think it was i think he wants to go to carb so i am going to offer to

pokes87iroc

thanks i didnt think they did my buddies 87 trans am is shooting black smoke and runing really ruff and shuting off and he replaced the maf and everyone said its the map sensor and i didnt think it was i think he wants to go to carb so i am going to offer to do buy his carb and intake and take his tpi set up well thanks bye

JPrevost

LOL, you think MAF is a better system :lala:
I wonder why guys are going from MAF to speed density (MAP systems)...could it be because it's faster to react or is it the cost, maybe it's because it's no longer a restriction.
A MAF is great and probably best if you've got a cam with very little vacuum, else go with speed density. A lot of guys are going from MAF to SD so that must say something. The trouble with MAF is it's price to accuracy ratio. A MAF can be effected too easily by small changes in placement of the sensor in the intake path, the screens or lack there of.
It's been long debated that Mustangs still use MAF and GM went back to MAF but did you know that both Ford and GM's newer "MAF systems" also have a MAP sensor which I'm assuming is used the majority of the time and the MAF is to measure the difference in air volume for fine tuning itself. I really don't know how the newer setups work other than you can unplug one or the other and the vehicles will spit out an SES light yet still drive like it was!

Danno

If you are honestly trying to say that a MAP or speed density system is more desireable for engine management I would suggest you pick up a textbook on modern emission systems. By it's very nature it is more precise. I am aware that the later engines use both(the LS1 I think) but look at it this way, they STILL use mass air flow. Do you honestly think they would spend the money if it was not worthwhile. The fact that so many guys go through the trouble to change is of little consequence to me. What it tells me is that perhaps want to modify the air intake, it's bad and they are cheap, or they want a simpler system. Whatever the reason, why do you think the engineers went back to it. I'll tell you why they use both, the newer engines are generating more HP. To meet emission standards, more precise engine management is required.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

You can barely compare the 3rd gen MAF system to the next generation MAF systems. The only thing they have in common is the MAF unit, but even then they are not the same. As far as Thirdgens are concerned the SD system offered more HP and way more tunability due to the MAFs disability to read very high levels of air flow, plus the fact that it is a air flow restriction.
I want to see something that actually says that the SD system is less accuarate then a Thirdgen MAF system. With the more advanced fuel maps and such of the MAP system I think it was actually more accurate, especially when modded.

Danno

I'll agree with you on a couple of points. SD lends itself more easily to modified engines than does a MAF system. As was pointed out changes in intake air volume etc. can possibly drive the MAF sensor out of range. If one were comparing a vane type to a hot wire or hot film then yes I would probably want SD. The reason a modern MAF is preferred is because the reaction time is faster. A MAP does a mechanical to electrical conversion hence there is some propagation time involved. A hot wire or film sensor has no mechanical conversion so it can offer as little as a 1ms reaction time providing more accurate engine management. No argument that current PCM control has reached new levels of sophistication although I am not completely sold on electronically controlled transmissions. The fact that they can look at transmission shift flares is still pretty impressive to me. One place to see information on this is the Haynes FI injection techbook. #10220, page 1-15. In all honesty there is a theoretical and a practical side to this. If heavy mods are being done you are probably correct that SD is the way to go, but for a stock engine a properly working MAF is the more efficient of the two. Have a good holiday, Dan

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

I agree w/ Danno on everything he said!