Ok heres the deal I have my MAF 87 305 TPI, in 89 or 90 when ever chevy swiched over to MAP them cars are stronger than mine right? Well a friend of mine is going off to school and is willing to sell me his
88 Mustang GT, it exellent condition for 2500 bucks in payments. My question is Ford did the oppiset, the 88 is a speed desity and there 89 is MAF. which one of the set ups is the best for the most power. Because one of there frist mods from the guys on the stang page is to switch to MAF what to do?

------------------
87 Z28 305 TPI, Auto, 2.73, Gutted air boxes, K & N fillters, Dyno Max 3" cat back, Accel 8.8 mm spirals, Accel cap and rotor, Accel coil, rapid fires, and 160 Stat.
Best 15.414 @ 87.47

[This message has been edited by new87 (edited November 23, 2000).]

 

On the GM cars, the commonly expected explanation for the change from MAF to MAP in '90 was because the MAP was a less expensive setup for GM to install. Both systems are capable of providing excellent power levels, and switching from one to the other on a relatively unmodified engine would not really benefit you at all.

The newer thirdgens were more powerful than the earlier ones primarily due to changes in the camshaft profiles. Nothing to do with the change to a MAP system.

Some people believe that the MAF system allows the hotrodder to do more modifications to his car before reaching the level where he has to do PROM changes because the closed loop feedback system of the MAF sensor directly measures the air coming into the engine instead of interpolating it from the vacuum levels inside of the intake plenum.

------------------
89 IROC with lots o' stuff

-=ICON Motorsports=-

 

New,

If you continue following the history of fuel systems at GM, you'll realize that GM went back to the MAF system in 1993. Actually, the '93 and later systesm use a MAF to monitor intake air mass and double-check the fuel and spark calculations with a MAP input. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd stick with the MAF system due to its greater accuracy in metering fuel to air, regardless of pressure or vacuum in the intake. Using both is best, but even GM realized the value of the MAF after a couple of years of the TBI-style fuel control on TPI engines.

This is all a control issue. There are a lot of SD cars making respectable power, and a lot of MAF cars that are as anemic as my '86 305 TPI. The fuel control is important for power production, but everything else being equal, the type of intake air monitoring has a lot less to do with the power output than other factors. It's important to remember that GM started getting away from the "LA" cam in the same years they went to SD on ThirdGens, so the comparison is not as direct as you might think. The later MAF/MAP engines were producing a lot more power at a lot better economy than the SD cars, so you be the judge.

P.S. - I'll give you ten bucks if you have him roll that Mousetank over to Erickson's and run it through the crusher. I'd bet we could sell videos for ten bucks each and end up netting more cash than you'd spend on the thing. I saw an '86 TA/TPI in the paper recently for $2k (not mine) with about 60,000 miles. Which is the better bargain?

------------------
Later,
Vader
------------------
"No matter how hard you try you can't stop us now"
Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0

 

Vader I take it your familure with the area. I get to trash alot of Erickson's car thats where We train for the Fire department. I'm sure Brian would love to help with that. But I dont think so, the Stang for the track and Z for the crusing I think.

 

And the reason is...

The Ford MAF system uses a MAF and MAP like the 94-up LT1's, and unlike the thirdgens that just have a MAF. Thats why alot of them change it, it is better on those cars.

 

Actually the 90-92 cam is smaller than the 88-89 cam. The 5 HP difference is due to the change in pistons, resulting in a compression ratio increase. Who knows how much more power the speed density cars would have if they came with the 89 cam. Also, I've never seen a 89 car run better than 14.7 stock, but I have seen a 92 car go 14.6, and a 91 car with free mods and a passenger go 14.4.

Disclaimer: For those of you with superfast stock 89 cars, remember I said "I've never seen..." That doesnt mean they dont exist.

------------------
1991 Camaro Z28
5.7L 5-Speed (originally 305)
13.25 @ 107.18 MPH
Southern California
Member: SoCal 3rd Gen F-Bodies
Webmaster: SoCal F-Bodies
-=ICON Motorsports=-

 

I agree with Kevin, the 88-89 MAF cars had 5* more intake duration and 6* more exhaust duration. It was the other mods that Kevin mention that helped make up for the power difference.

So from a modding view point the SD cars will yield more power if you install the same cam profile as the MAF car.

With MAF cars, it will compensate for mods automatically (up to a point) whereas you have to tweak with the fuel pressure (minor mods) or burn another chip for more serious mods to get optimum power from an SD car. But, to get optimum power from a MAF car, you should also burn a new chip too.

From the guys that burn chips, they prefer the SD cars over the MAF cars...less variables to play with which makes it easier to make a change and gauge its results. Lastly, MAF cars have that restriction and some expensive parts to replace when they go bad. You never see the guys with SD cars having the problems that the MAF cars seem to have when it comes to certain codes.

I think SD is more reliable just because there is less to go wrong.