Mass Air Vs. Spped Density
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Branford, CT
Car: 1991 Trans am
Engine: 350
Transmission: tremec tko600
Mass Air Vs. Spped Density
I have a 91 Pontiac Trans Am. With a blueprinted and balanced tpi 350 with 10000 miles on it. L98 heads and tpi specialties l98 super profile cam. I had superchips burn a custom chip and i have delco computer. Brand new battery, brand new msd coil, 8.8 ignition wires and new bosch platiunum +2 plugs, new accel ignition moduale. It has a flowmaster 3"catback system and high flow cat.
I have a speed density motor and some more expierenced gearheads say i should convert it to mass air meter. What are the benifits and draw back. How do i do it and how much should i epect to spend????????????
I have a speed density motor and some more expierenced gearheads say i should convert it to mass air meter. What are the benifits and draw back. How do i do it and how much should i epect to spend????????????
Supreme Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 309
Frankly, the only advantage I see to MAF systems is that, for a given engine and calibration, you can deviate a little bit and not upset the ECM ability to manage fuel and spark properly. MAP systems cannot match this. All other things being equal, you won't see any power difference between MAF and MAP systems.
Having said that, I'd advise against changing from a MAF to a MAP system. What you should do instead is to spend the money on the equipment to burn your own chips and personally adapt the ECM to your specific engine combination. It takes a little bit of homework to figure out what to do, but once you get going on it, it'll be extremely straightforward. You'll also be able to inspect Superchips' calibration and see how little they actually changed from stock (as I have seen from outfits like Hypertech and TPIS).
Having said that, I'd advise against changing from a MAF to a MAP system. What you should do instead is to spend the money on the equipment to burn your own chips and personally adapt the ECM to your specific engine combination. It takes a little bit of homework to figure out what to do, but once you get going on it, it'll be extremely straightforward. You'll also be able to inspect Superchips' calibration and see how little they actually changed from stock (as I have seen from outfits like Hypertech and TPIS).
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 18,457
Likes: 16
From: Loveland, OH, US
Car: 4
Engine: 6
Transmission: 5
Technically, the MAF approach to metering is far superior to MAP; it directly "counts" the air molecules entering the engine, literally, as opposed to the S/D system which attempts to infer that from a number of other data. GM's implementation of the MAF system in these cars however is pitiful, which is why most people with MAF find themselves eventually converting to S/D if they want to try to go fast.
THe Mustang people are in the opposite situation; they have a poorly executed S/D system, and a good MAF will do them wonders.
In order to use a better MAF in your car, you have to use some other electronics. The GM MAF ECMs only understand values up to 255 grams/sec of flow, which is a little over 300 HP IIRC; once that flow limit is exceeded, metering fuel becomes a guessing game. So there's no improvement in switching to a GM MAF TPI system.
Incidentally, the later LT1s and the LS1s use a MAF for metering.
THe Mustang people are in the opposite situation; they have a poorly executed S/D system, and a good MAF will do them wonders.
In order to use a better MAF in your car, you have to use some other electronics. The GM MAF ECMs only understand values up to 255 grams/sec of flow, which is a little over 300 HP IIRC; once that flow limit is exceeded, metering fuel becomes a guessing game. So there's no improvement in switching to a GM MAF TPI system.
Incidentally, the later LT1s and the LS1s use a MAF for metering.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post