Just removed MAF screens, tell me it aint bad?
02-24-2003, 11:58 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Just removed MAF screens, tell me it aint bad?
Im just a little worried, after doing a little reading on the internet. Some say good things and others say bad things about doing it. I just did to free up some more air, but then theres people on the net saying dont do it, WTF?
Cmon guys, u have done this stuff right? Theres nothing to worry about right, theres just some stupid screens that are in the way. The air filter is supposed to stop debri, so whats the point of a "secondary" screen?
Cmon guys, u have done this stuff right? Theres nothing to worry about right, theres just some stupid screens that are in the way. The air filter is supposed to stop debri, so whats the point of a "secondary" screen?
02-25-2003, 12:33 AM
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: sweden
Posts: 2,441
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: GTA -89
Engine: Blown 415"
Transmission: 4L80E
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt
From another post by .....
The numbers are all theoretical.
For example, your engine is a four-stroke cycle, naturally aspirated overhead valve piston engine. The theoretical displacement of the eight cylinders of the engine totals almost 350 cubic inches, or about one-fifth of a cubic foot (0.2025463 cu. ft., to be exact). Since your engine is a four-stroke cycle design, it can theoretically flow that amount of air on every two revolutions - one complete cycle for every cylinder. If your crankshaft spins at 5,000 RPMs, that would mean 2,500 complete cycles for every cylinder, or 506.365 cu. ft. every minute. If that same engine achieves 6,000 RPM, the theoretical flow would be 607.639 cu. ft. every minute.
Again, these are theoretical numbers. This assumes that the intake valves actually are removed from the ports, and the valve sizes are 4.000" intake and 4.000" exhaust - the same as the bore. The intake and exhaust ports would have to be the same size to assure no restriction and maximum air flow. The throttle body would have to have two 3" bores to accommodate 1.414 (square root of 2) cylinders on an intake cycle at any given time. If all these things were true, the air flow into the engine would be 607.639 cu. ft. per minute at 6,000 RPM. The stock MAF would then be a restriction, since it can only flow 544 SCFM without creating more than 0.1" W.C. static pressure drop.
This would be in a theoretical world. In the real world, the valves are only as large as the combustion chamber design will allow, and the intake and exhaust ports are significantly smaller than the 4" bore of the engine. This means that there is a significant decrease in theoretical flow right at the heads (more on that later).
Next, the only way the cylinder can fill with a fuel/air mixture is if there is a vacuum in the cylinder to draw the mixture in. The air in the manifold can't "wish" its way into the cylinder. To create a vacuum, even a slight one, the piston must travel down in the cylinder while the intake valve is open. This means that some of the theoretical displacement of the cylinder has been "wasted" to create this vacuum. So even though the cylinder volume may be 43+ cubic inches, you'll be really lucky to get 40 cubic inches of air/fuel mixture in to it, even with the theoretical 4.000" intake valve. And since the intake valves are nowhere near that theoretically ideal size, and the ports offer restriction of their own, the volume entering the chamber on even a well-designed engine is more like 75-85% of the theoretical displacement.
Additionally, these theoretically ideal valves would have to completely open the instant that the piston started on its downward stroke, and instantly close when the piston reached the bottom of its stroke (actually, a few degrees after that, but close enough for argument's sake). Since our small valves open and close very slowly in relation to the piston travel, there is additional loss and restriction. To compensate, the valves are opened a little sooner than the theoretical optimum, and close a little later to ram that last little bit of air/fuel mixture into the cylinder.
Farther upstream, the intake passages in the manifold and/or runners are nowhere near the size they would need to be to feed the engine at its theoretical maximum flow. The same holds true for the throttle body and ductwork. All of these passages would have to accommodate the 4.000" size for a zero-restriction system. This would mean that the MAF would have to be somewhere in the range of 4.756" (120.8mm) in diameter. Since it is only 70mm in diameter, it should be restrictive!
Factor in all the losses on a real-world "perfectly designed" engine. This engine would have at least 2.20" valves and the cam timing would have to be at least 50°BTDC intake opening to achieve maximum intake flow at that RPM. The exhaust valves would have to be 1.90" minimum, and the individual matched head pipes would have to be tuned and megaphone-belled at about 28-30" to make the most scavenging action at that RPM. (Is this beginning to sound like a top-fuel engine? - It should.) Intake passages would have to be as short as possible to provide the least possible restriction and tuned length.
_____
With all these things in place, the 350 cubic inch engine would flow around 534.722 cubic feet per minute at 6,000 RPM. Your stock engine is nowhere near that efficient in flow. By that determination, the 544 SCFM of the stock Bosch MAF should provide enough flow for your engine to achieve 7,000 RPM easily.
Removing the screens and heat sink fins will undoubtedly reduce the restriction and decrease the static pressure drop across the sensor. But the difference will be so minimal that the little gain would probably be overshadowed by the nuisance problems you might experience with a modified MAF. Among these problems is the overhating of the electronics package in the MAF, potentially causing erroneous readings at the EM of MAF failure. Removal of the screens can also affect air flow through the MAF at part throttle. There have been at least two distinct cases on this board in the past year where a gutted MAF caused erroneous MAF readings at part throttle. The only explanation is that the air was not turbulent enough through the MAF body to cause a proportional amount of air to pass through the sampling tube in the MAF, instead taking the easiest path through the sensor and causing a low-flow error (Code 34). Within 600 mS, the SES light is on and you are in "limp-home" mode, bad performance and bad economy. The other potential problem is that the MAF hot wire is no longer protected from sonic shock by the now absent screens. The screens also deflect the sonic shock waves created by lean backfire and pulsation from intake valve "howl" at WOT (that growling noise from the intake when you nail the throttle). These same shock waves are strong enough to force extra air into the cylinders (Tuned Port Injection - duh!) and also to crack the hot wire sensor in the MAF. Once it's toast, you'll be shopping.
______
All of this is in regard to a 350 CID engine. If you're considering the modification on a 305, you'll never even get close to needing more flow through the MAF. Obviously, some people with 4" bore strokers would be closer to needing more flow if they ever got near 6,500 RPM, or 400+CID engines might be hampered by the stock MAF as well. But if you're going to sink a few thousand bucks into the large-displacement engine, why would you take the cheap route on the fuel system? You'd probably go out and get a larger MAF. Incidentally, the GMPP RJ502 BBC engine makes 510 HP/550Lb/ft torque with a 48mm throttle body, less cross-sectional area than that of a stock Bosch MAF. So where are all the MAF-gutters getting their "required" flow numbers from to substantiate hacking up a MAF to make more power? Did I miss something here? Maybe the engineers at GM don't know the MAF trick yet. Next year they'll offer the same engine at 600HP? Maybe, but don't hold your breath.
The numbers are all theoretical.
For example, your engine is a four-stroke cycle, naturally aspirated overhead valve piston engine. The theoretical displacement of the eight cylinders of the engine totals almost 350 cubic inches, or about one-fifth of a cubic foot (0.2025463 cu. ft., to be exact). Since your engine is a four-stroke cycle design, it can theoretically flow that amount of air on every two revolutions - one complete cycle for every cylinder. If your crankshaft spins at 5,000 RPMs, that would mean 2,500 complete cycles for every cylinder, or 506.365 cu. ft. every minute. If that same engine achieves 6,000 RPM, the theoretical flow would be 607.639 cu. ft. every minute.
Again, these are theoretical numbers. This assumes that the intake valves actually are removed from the ports, and the valve sizes are 4.000" intake and 4.000" exhaust - the same as the bore. The intake and exhaust ports would have to be the same size to assure no restriction and maximum air flow. The throttle body would have to have two 3" bores to accommodate 1.414 (square root of 2) cylinders on an intake cycle at any given time. If all these things were true, the air flow into the engine would be 607.639 cu. ft. per minute at 6,000 RPM. The stock MAF would then be a restriction, since it can only flow 544 SCFM without creating more than 0.1" W.C. static pressure drop.
This would be in a theoretical world. In the real world, the valves are only as large as the combustion chamber design will allow, and the intake and exhaust ports are significantly smaller than the 4" bore of the engine. This means that there is a significant decrease in theoretical flow right at the heads (more on that later).
Next, the only way the cylinder can fill with a fuel/air mixture is if there is a vacuum in the cylinder to draw the mixture in. The air in the manifold can't "wish" its way into the cylinder. To create a vacuum, even a slight one, the piston must travel down in the cylinder while the intake valve is open. This means that some of the theoretical displacement of the cylinder has been "wasted" to create this vacuum. So even though the cylinder volume may be 43+ cubic inches, you'll be really lucky to get 40 cubic inches of air/fuel mixture in to it, even with the theoretical 4.000" intake valve. And since the intake valves are nowhere near that theoretically ideal size, and the ports offer restriction of their own, the volume entering the chamber on even a well-designed engine is more like 75-85% of the theoretical displacement.
Additionally, these theoretically ideal valves would have to completely open the instant that the piston started on its downward stroke, and instantly close when the piston reached the bottom of its stroke (actually, a few degrees after that, but close enough for argument's sake). Since our small valves open and close very slowly in relation to the piston travel, there is additional loss and restriction. To compensate, the valves are opened a little sooner than the theoretical optimum, and close a little later to ram that last little bit of air/fuel mixture into the cylinder.
Farther upstream, the intake passages in the manifold and/or runners are nowhere near the size they would need to be to feed the engine at its theoretical maximum flow. The same holds true for the throttle body and ductwork. All of these passages would have to accommodate the 4.000" size for a zero-restriction system. This would mean that the MAF would have to be somewhere in the range of 4.756" (120.8mm) in diameter. Since it is only 70mm in diameter, it should be restrictive!
Factor in all the losses on a real-world "perfectly designed" engine. This engine would have at least 2.20" valves and the cam timing would have to be at least 50°BTDC intake opening to achieve maximum intake flow at that RPM. The exhaust valves would have to be 1.90" minimum, and the individual matched head pipes would have to be tuned and megaphone-belled at about 28-30" to make the most scavenging action at that RPM. (Is this beginning to sound like a top-fuel engine? - It should.) Intake passages would have to be as short as possible to provide the least possible restriction and tuned length.
_____
With all these things in place, the 350 cubic inch engine would flow around 534.722 cubic feet per minute at 6,000 RPM. Your stock engine is nowhere near that efficient in flow. By that determination, the 544 SCFM of the stock Bosch MAF should provide enough flow for your engine to achieve 7,000 RPM easily.
Removing the screens and heat sink fins will undoubtedly reduce the restriction and decrease the static pressure drop across the sensor. But the difference will be so minimal that the little gain would probably be overshadowed by the nuisance problems you might experience with a modified MAF. Among these problems is the overhating of the electronics package in the MAF, potentially causing erroneous readings at the EM of MAF failure. Removal of the screens can also affect air flow through the MAF at part throttle. There have been at least two distinct cases on this board in the past year where a gutted MAF caused erroneous MAF readings at part throttle. The only explanation is that the air was not turbulent enough through the MAF body to cause a proportional amount of air to pass through the sampling tube in the MAF, instead taking the easiest path through the sensor and causing a low-flow error (Code 34). Within 600 mS, the SES light is on and you are in "limp-home" mode, bad performance and bad economy. The other potential problem is that the MAF hot wire is no longer protected from sonic shock by the now absent screens. The screens also deflect the sonic shock waves created by lean backfire and pulsation from intake valve "howl" at WOT (that growling noise from the intake when you nail the throttle). These same shock waves are strong enough to force extra air into the cylinders (Tuned Port Injection - duh!) and also to crack the hot wire sensor in the MAF. Once it's toast, you'll be shopping.
______
All of this is in regard to a 350 CID engine. If you're considering the modification on a 305, you'll never even get close to needing more flow through the MAF. Obviously, some people with 4" bore strokers would be closer to needing more flow if they ever got near 6,500 RPM, or 400+CID engines might be hampered by the stock MAF as well. But if you're going to sink a few thousand bucks into the large-displacement engine, why would you take the cheap route on the fuel system? You'd probably go out and get a larger MAF. Incidentally, the GMPP RJ502 BBC engine makes 510 HP/550Lb/ft torque with a 48mm throttle body, less cross-sectional area than that of a stock Bosch MAF. So where are all the MAF-gutters getting their "required" flow numbers from to substantiate hacking up a MAF to make more power? Did I miss something here? Maybe the engineers at GM don't know the MAF trick yet. Next year they'll offer the same engine at 600HP? Maybe, but don't hold your breath.
02-25-2003, 12:43 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
ALOT of info there, thanks. OK there are some cons into this, but why then does TPIS, and even on this site under mods have modify MAF for performance even with all these risks? I mean there has to be some good to come out of this for them to post it?
02-25-2003, 09:00 AM
#4
Hey, that all looks familiar....
With a 305, gutting a MAF is a complete waste of time. With a 350, you're on the borderline. You might get a little benefit at the upper RPM ranges, but a TPI is already starting to choke the engine via the long runners at much above 4,400, and it gets worse with more RPM. With something larger, like a 383, the Bosch MAF is restrictive, and other options should be investigated.
Restrictions are additive, so relieving any of them can be beneficial. The potential problems may not be worth the risk, however. On your engine, the restriction created by the MAf is inconsequential up to about 5,000 RPM, where you should be considering shifting the transmission anyway.
With a 305, gutting a MAF is a complete waste of time. With a 350, you're on the borderline. You might get a little benefit at the upper RPM ranges, but a TPI is already starting to choke the engine via the long runners at much above 4,400, and it gets worse with more RPM. With something larger, like a 383, the Bosch MAF is restrictive, and other options should be investigated.
Restrictions are additive, so relieving any of them can be beneficial. The potential problems may not be worth the risk, however. On your engine, the restriction created by the MAf is inconsequential up to about 5,000 RPM, where you should be considering shifting the transmission anyway.
02-25-2003, 09:18 AM
#5
Supreme Member
Wow, that's a bit chunk of text.
I have seen firebirds run badly with the screens removed from their MAF sensors, but this was because of the air intake. The front screen sort of directs air over the hot wire so that the sensor can get an average reading. Remove it, and you're relying on your air intake to do the same thing..which it likely will not do as well with the screen removed.
I'd advise that you don't make a cold air intake out of dryer hose in the future, unless you stretch it really tight.
I have seen firebirds run badly with the screens removed from their MAF sensors, but this was because of the air intake. The front screen sort of directs air over the hot wire so that the sensor can get an average reading. Remove it, and you're relying on your air intake to do the same thing..which it likely will not do as well with the screen removed.
I'd advise that you don't make a cold air intake out of dryer hose in the future, unless you stretch it really tight.
02-25-2003, 10:25 AM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Thanks, more opinions. Well the thing is the screens are removed, and in fact i removed them before i even posted this topic. But my consience, or however u spell it, became questionable.
The thing is i have an SLP CAI and an SLP Air Foil that im in the middle of installing.
And Vador u say the MIGHT be some benefits in power in the upper-band, which is good.
Heres where now im confused at. Ok u say that gutting the MAF is not worth it because of little or no gains, but the big factor is that it might cause problems. However, why is it when u have a big engine making alot more power its OK to do this mod, in other words, its not as much rejected. I mean arent the same risks involved?
I figure there would be less problems with a stock engine rather than high power engine cause it doesnt demand as much air, therefore less abuse on the MAF.
Rezinn, the air intake thats causing problems, what kind are they? Im assuming there home-made?
Thanks for replies so far guys, hopefully within a few days i'll the CAI all setup, and FINALLY i'll start the car up and see if it all runs fine.
The thing is i have an SLP CAI and an SLP Air Foil that im in the middle of installing.
And Vador u say the MIGHT be some benefits in power in the upper-band, which is good.
Heres where now im confused at. Ok u say that gutting the MAF is not worth it because of little or no gains, but the big factor is that it might cause problems. However, why is it when u have a big engine making alot more power its OK to do this mod, in other words, its not as much rejected. I mean arent the same risks involved?
I figure there would be less problems with a stock engine rather than high power engine cause it doesnt demand as much air, therefore less abuse on the MAF.
Rezinn, the air intake thats causing problems, what kind are they? Im assuming there home-made?
Thanks for replies so far guys, hopefully within a few days i'll the CAI all setup, and FINALLY i'll start the car up and see if it all runs fine.
02-25-2003, 01:38 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you need more flow from you MAF why not buy a Wells MAF (P/N SU-147 IIRC) it is supposed to flow 750 CFM and uses a film(sp?) style like 4th gens instead of a hot wire.
Trending Topics
02-25-2003, 01:45 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Ya ive thought about that Drakar, but can u kind enough and exactly direct me to site or somewhere so i can purchase that MAF sensor. I go to Wells site and has nothing about products.
Im still going to use the gutted MAF sensor, i mean after all i havent even tried it yet, so i aint gonna purchase a new sensor, unless i know for sure that the gutted sensor is causing problems.
But again, if u can get a link to that Wells MAF sensor that would be great, thanks guys.
Im still going to use the gutted MAF sensor, i mean after all i havent even tried it yet, so i aint gonna purchase a new sensor, unless i know for sure that the gutted sensor is causing problems.
But again, if u can get a link to that Wells MAF sensor that would be great, thanks guys.
02-25-2003, 01:47 PM
#9
Supreme Member
well if u have a big engine that requires ALOT of air flow then you get rid of MAF and either go with Speed Density or a Carb. the MAF ecm's can only support up to about 350 HP anyways..
02-25-2003, 01:47 PM
#10
Supreme Member
Right. Some cheap home made air intakes tend to have problems with modified MAF sensors because they mess up the direction of air flow, but I wouldn't worry with the SLP intake.
What I think Vader is saying that your 305 doesn't likely need the MAF to be gutted, so the only consequence of doing so is a higher probability of shortening the life of your MAF by removing its ability to have excess heat extracted. However, on a larger engine where removing the heat sinks and screens would most definitely increase performance, the benefits may outweigh the possible consequences.
What I think Vader is saying that your 305 doesn't likely need the MAF to be gutted, so the only consequence of doing so is a higher probability of shortening the life of your MAF by removing its ability to have excess heat extracted. However, on a larger engine where removing the heat sinks and screens would most definitely increase performance, the benefits may outweigh the possible consequences.
02-25-2003, 02:03 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Well i didnt really want to go a whole conversion to like Density format.
Had i not ordered that TPIS book i wouldnt never have done it, cause to be honest, i really didnt know about it. To me i just thought, more airflow is more power, and so i rushed into this thing without asking
Now im just hoping i didnt pay it up the *** by doing this mod.
And i have the 350 engine, not the 305, and i only took out the screens, i didnt touch nothing inside or the heat sinks.
Heres a question, isnt there anyway of just buying those screens again and putting them back on rather than buying a whole new MAF if something were to go wrong, cause mine are useless.
Had i not ordered that TPIS book i wouldnt never have done it, cause to be honest, i really didnt know about it. To me i just thought, more airflow is more power, and so i rushed into this thing without asking
Now im just hoping i didnt pay it up the *** by doing this mod.And i have the 350 engine, not the 305, and i only took out the screens, i didnt touch nothing inside or the heat sinks.
Heres a question, isnt there anyway of just buying those screens again and putting them back on rather than buying a whole new MAF if something were to go wrong, cause mine are useless.
02-25-2003, 05:09 PM
#12
Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newark,NJ The state where racing on I 78 rules.
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My best advice to U is to just bolt it on & try it out! I doubt if your going to have serious problems from this mod. When I performed the mod a couple of years ago, I followed the directions on this website & it worked out pretty fine. I didnt notice any difference in performance. The motor at the time was a HO 305 in my 86 Trans Am.
When your really ready to ride U should try one of these on your 350. This manifold will really shatter the 4500 rpm barrier forever!
When your really ready to ride U should try one of these on your 350. This manifold will really shatter the 4500 rpm barrier forever!
02-25-2003, 06:55 PM
#13
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: MI
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: I
Engine: Taunt
Transmission: Mustangs
Here is some reading on the subject. I would have to agree with this guys train of thought, but unfourtunatly my screens have been hacked also. Check it out:
http://www.gmtips.com/3rd-degree/dox...maf-screen.htm
http://www.gmtips.com/3rd-degree/dox...maf-screen.htm
02-26-2003, 12:20 AM
#15
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: sweden
Posts: 2,441
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: GTA -89
Engine: Blown 415"
Transmission: 4L80E
Axle/Gears: Strange 12-bolt
But again, if u can get a link to that Wells MAF sensor that would be great, thanks guys.
For pictures se sign.
/N.
02-26-2003, 07:16 AM
#16
Supreme Member
If you are looking for a site to buy the Wells Maf SU-145 try this:
WORLD DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
1635 ELMWOOD AVE
BUFFLO, NEW YORK 14207
1-800-288-6728
www.wdautoparts.com
The last price I had was, 156.95 + 6.50 Shipping=$163.45
I hope this helps.
WORLD DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
1635 ELMWOOD AVE
BUFFLO, NEW YORK 14207
1-800-288-6728
www.wdautoparts.com
The last price I had was, 156.95 + 6.50 Shipping=$163.45
I hope this helps.
02-26-2003, 07:27 AM
#17
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had this debate at a dyno session with a TPI 305 with light mods (if you call a pulley, and CAI a mod that would affect a dyno too much anyways).
So he took off his MAF screens and we saw a gain of around 10 HP-10 ft/lb of torque... just to be sure he put it back on and it went back to the old readings.
To be sure PM 88redxtsy for a pic of his dyno results, they're interesting to see the changes the maf screens alone can do on a TPI 305.
His engine didn't run any different either so he opted to keep the MAF off.
He only had 1 strange issue prior to the dyno session though and it was his horrible mileage which was no different after the change either.
So he took off his MAF screens and we saw a gain of around 10 HP-10 ft/lb of torque... just to be sure he put it back on and it went back to the old readings.
To be sure PM 88redxtsy for a pic of his dyno results, they're interesting to see the changes the maf screens alone can do on a TPI 305.
His engine didn't run any different either so he opted to keep the MAF off.
He only had 1 strange issue prior to the dyno session though and it was his horrible mileage which was no different after the change either.
02-26-2003, 09:42 AM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Hey thanks guys for more help. Well the first order of business is to try it out and see if it all works out. My main concern right now is that it just works, and if it gives more power, well then thats a secondary benefit.
Thanks alot for that link to buy the Wells MAF. Everyone kept on talking about it, yet i had no idea where the hell they get it, and so if anything goes wrong, im 100% getting that.
Slade1, thats pretty cool that he got some power benefits out of that, and its a 305. That pulley and CAI, are u saying that those were in that 10HP increase?
Well im ALMOST done with the SLP CAI, the canister is being a bitch. Alls i have left is to put in the air box, and the ducts. Soon as that is done, u guys should know if another thirdgen owner has a successful MAF modification success!
Later
Thanks alot for that link to buy the Wells MAF. Everyone kept on talking about it, yet i had no idea where the hell they get it, and so if anything goes wrong, im 100% getting that.
Slade1, thats pretty cool that he got some power benefits out of that, and its a 305. That pulley and CAI, are u saying that those were in that 10HP increase?
Well im ALMOST done with the SLP CAI, the canister is being a bitch. Alls i have left is to put in the air box, and the ducts. Soon as that is done, u guys should know if another thirdgen owner has a successful MAF modification success!
Later
02-26-2003, 11:56 PM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Hey guys, well after all this time i finally got my SLP CAI installed. What a PITA with those lousy instructions. Im 95% done, i just have to got back and double check everything and make sure everything is nice a tight.
Stupid me one of the four screws that holds down the CAI lid fell into where the hood closes, by that hatch where theres like a 3x3 inch opening. Well i look down there i couldnt see it, it has to be right over the air damn.
And i think i dropped another screw on the drivers side right next to the battery, it fell into one of those little holes, basically right above the fender.
I wish i can get those screws out somehow
Anyways let me tell u that i started the car up, but didnt drive it. The first time i started it, it was rough, it idled then died, no more that 5 seconds. Im assuming the fuel filter changed affected this, cause the fuel lines were drained, so it probably just died like that.
Second time i turne it on, BAM! Beautiful strong start, idle was normal, never died, and i even revved it a few times, all went well. I know this was only the beginning in testing it, but it could of been alot worse. Cant wait to take it out now and see how it really feels.
Stupid me one of the four screws that holds down the CAI lid fell into where the hood closes, by that hatch where theres like a 3x3 inch opening. Well i look down there i couldnt see it, it has to be right over the air damn.
And i think i dropped another screw on the drivers side right next to the battery, it fell into one of those little holes, basically right above the fender.
I wish i can get those screws out somehow
Anyways let me tell u that i started the car up, but didnt drive it. The first time i started it, it was rough, it idled then died, no more that 5 seconds. Im assuming the fuel filter changed affected this, cause the fuel lines were drained, so it probably just died like that.
Second time i turne it on, BAM! Beautiful strong start, idle was normal, never died, and i even revved it a few times, all went well. I know this was only the beginning in testing it, but it could of been alot worse. Cant wait to take it out now and see how it really feels.
02-27-2003, 12:27 AM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 5.7L 350 V8 TPI
Transmission: Automatic 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Oh and keep in mind that the last time i started the car i didnt have all this stuff:
Castrol GTX 10x30 Oil
Prestone Anti-Freeze
Puralator Fuel Filter
K&N Filter Oil Filter
K&N Air Filter
PCV Valve
180 Thermostat
AC Delco Rapidfire Plugs
Taylor 8mm Pro Wire Set
MSD Cap
MSD Rotor
MSD GM Blaster Coil
SLP Flow Booster
SLP Cold Air Induction Package
MAF Sensor modified (screens out)
So i was VERY nervous when i turned it on again today.
Castrol GTX 10x30 Oil
Prestone Anti-Freeze
Puralator Fuel Filter
K&N Filter Oil Filter
K&N Air Filter
PCV Valve
180 Thermostat
AC Delco Rapidfire Plugs
Taylor 8mm Pro Wire Set
MSD Cap
MSD Rotor
MSD GM Blaster Coil
SLP Flow Booster
SLP Cold Air Induction Package
MAF Sensor modified (screens out)
So i was VERY nervous when i turned it on again today.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NBrehm
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
1
08-25-2015 11:49 PM
