ha ha...

I'm thinking of using a dual intake for the TPI... what about using two MAF's...

I'd like to vent off the fog lights on each side.... put the battary in the back, relocate the vapor canister thing, use two air filters and two MAFs...

anyone done this?

 

Its been thought of. But, youd have to add in a module to average and double the signal from each MAF and youd also have to recalibrate the MAF tables in the ECM. Might be easier to go to speed density.

 

or Y the 2 tubes into one MAF.

 

There's nothing to be gained from 2 MAF's other than really confusing the computer. You'd end up sending two different temperatures into it. Just Y your tubes and put the MAF fairly close to the TB, but try to keep it from getting too much engine heat.

 

It's just that the MAF diameter is small and two together would open-up the intake. I know an electronics guru and maybe he can help, or I'll just go with one MAF... Maybe on MAF, with a little circuit that cut the sensor signal in half.

btw... there are a lot of wires attached to the MAF... Crabhart mentioned temperature, but there must just be either a variable resistance or voltage signal... anyone care to enlighten me on the electronics of an MAF sensor?

Thanks!

 

The MAF sensor itself is not much of a restriction. I know a number of people producing well over 500 HP with the '165 MAF system. What the real problem is, the MAF '165 ECM cannot process a reading greater than 255 gm/sec (ie. "maxing the MAF"). 255 is the mathematical limitation of GM using 8 bits for the MAF tables and calculations when processing the MAF readings.

At the time, GM never intended the TPI to make the power people are obtaining. In fact, the TPI system was originally developed with the idea that the 305 was going to be GM's "flagship" engine.

That is why GM made the PCM's for the 4th Gen MAFs use 512 gm/sec.

However, this does not mean you cannot tune a 3rd Gen 165 MAF system. All you do is add more fuel via the P/E tables if the engine maxes the MAF (basically you tune as if it was an SD system).

So, if your primary rational for using "dual MAFs" is to overcome the MAFs being a "restriction", then I agree with dimented24x7 and would just convert to SD....less work, proven results, and less cost...all for something that may not work.

 

I put the stock guts to a maf in a 4" tube a long time ago..
I never did "finish" it but I did have the car up and running with it...
It ran just fine but Im sure it could of been better with a lil tweek n the tune