I have a 1987 camaro iroc z with a 350 and the last thing i need to do is find the manifold air temp sensor and i knw where that is but i cant find the two wire connectors that plugs into the senor. So i wanted to if anybody knows where the two wire connectors come from thats the last thing i need to do and im getting fustrated not finding them!

 

It is under the intake plenum, virtually impossible to see while everything is assembled.

Here is an article on relocating it so that it can read properly & also be easier to reach in the future when you need to.
http://www.austinthirdgen.org/index.php?pid=24

 

Thats very helpful and i am going to relocate it but i still not sure where the wires come from?

 

From the harness near the distributor. Sorry I can't be more specific or know the wire colors.

Pulling your TB & plenum off might be the only way you can find it, if it can't be found otherwise.

 

If you cant find it in the harness by the distributor , it is pin GF16 on your ecm. Tan wire and the other wire is black ,which is a ground.

 

Ok thanks ill give it another try!

 

I really wish people would stop slinging this false information on the MAT sensor around because it had me mis-informed at one time as well.

On a MAF car, the MAT sensor plays virtually ZERO role in calculating the air/fuel mixture. It's main purpose is to detect the intake temperature to control the EGR. The only reason you would want to relocate it to the intake tract is for convenience reasons. Then again, there's not a whole lot you need to maintain with this sensor.

Also, You "shouldn't" have to remove the plenum and runners to access the harness. Taking into consideration that my engine has been modded with alot useless crap and the emissions removed, you "should" be able to reach under the plenum enough to access the connector. If you can't find it, behind the passenger fuel rail/distributor area is the first place I'd look.

 

It is not false in any way. Pull your water temp sensor & compare it to the V8 air temp sensor. SAME SENSOR.

Now lay a V6 Intake air temp sensor next to the V8 intake air temp sensor. Or just look at the pic in the link. OBVIOUS difference. And obvious reason why the stock V8 sensor can't give the ECM a true reading.

Have you done it to YOUR MAF V8? I'm guessing not. I did. And noticed the average MPG went up. I said AVERAGE, not just 1 tank to the next. I noticed better throttle response too, when the engine is warmed up. No more intake heat soak. It is actually reading the true incoming air temp, not just what the incoming air is able to cool the sensor down to.

 

Why do you think the IAT sensor on these cars was of the same type as the coolant temp sensor? It was DESIGNED to measure heatsoak which is why it is not an open element sensor as the V6's. Do you really think GM would have made such a blunder as to have a sensor that heavily influences the fuel mixture be reading off by 50+ degrees?

Better MPG? It could be because you are fooling you EGR operation, or it could be placebo effect. And I can't think of too many mods where people don't notice a "better throttle response".

You're speaking from speculation. I'm speaking from people who have actually looked into the PROM code around the MAT sensor. This sensor does NOT influence air/fuel ratio much if any on a MAF car.

 

YOU are speaking from 2nd hand experience, nothing first hand, huh?

I have 1st hand experience, as well as confirmed knowledge of the results from a tuner (PROM burner.

Oh well....I did it. It was better. I like it. You have done it. Your speculating. Your relying on 2nd hand information.

Dunno why you "hate" it so much. It is only a benefit with nothing negative with doing it. Original is not always correct, otherwise we'd never have had the LT1 & LS1,2,3. Factories build for mass production, not for the best results. Another reason the aftermarket exists.

Show me something...ANYTHING...negative about doing it.

 

, and you shall find.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tpi/...elocation.html
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tpi/...-does-mat.html


Look man, I'm not here to argue with you. I'm only here to save the OP the trouble of relocating his MAT for no gain. In fact, I WAS going to do this mod to mine. But unlike you instead of going by word of mouth I actually bothered to do my research beforehand, which is why I did NOT relocate my MAT and opted to just install a new one in the stock location for the hell of it ($14 hey why not?).

You have provided me with no credible information that this modification actually worked for you other than 1-2 MPG difference which could be EASILY attributed to different driving habbits or from the fact that you changed the way your EGR now operates.

BTW, there is a big difference between correcting an error and improving upon a design so your argument about different engine types makes no sense.

 

Idk about better miles per gallon ,but on a SD car the AIT sensor plays a major role in air/fuel mixture. Relocating it closer to the air box will result in a rich condition, thus mpg may suffer.

 

That is correct that the MAT DOES influence fuel mixture on a SD setup.

I may be wrong but IIRC on the later SD they actually had this sensor in the airbox as the default location.

 

Good "research". 2 threads. I hope you based your thoughts on more than that.

In the first thread, ONE person responded that it only affected EGR. That is some incredible research there!

In the second thread, TWO people responded. I guess your right. Verdict is in. 3 people agreeing wins....

As for my MPG results...
I had the car for over 2 years, tracking MPG from day 1 (i'm **** about records), so I had a good average spread out over hot/cold weather. I did the mod. Over the next several months, in the same weather, I could see my lowest & highest MPG #s as well as the overall average rise. Not like I'm trying to claim a 50% MPG increase or anything. Just that it will give you something. Living in the same place, driving the same routes over & over, gives a pretty solid base to judge the results from. I eve just had the car worked on & despite me telling him not to use the bottom of the plenum location, the mechanic did it anyways. I switch the plug from one to the other & honestly, the idle did smooth out. Even he noticed the difference. The OE sensor was good when I did the switch, but left there to plug the hole. Maybe it had gone bad from just sitting there for years unused? Not likely but maybe.

I never said it was a lot, but over time, it is worth it to do the mod.

As for quicker throttle response...
You telling me that you cannot feel the difference between a cold start, first thing in a day, compared to after the engine is fully hot? Does your car have the same throttle response after it it is fully warmed up, as when it is cold? Even when mine got fully warmed up, my throttle response remained as good as in the morning. Compared to relocating the sensor I could feel the slower responsiveness after warmed up & the sensor in the stock location.

No arguing going on here. Just a person with personal results and a person with only 3 responses saying otherwise & no personal experience.

You think I based mine on word of mouth. Why? What gave you that idea? Because I haven't given you a 100 page detailed report? When I do a mod, I do research it before hand & compare ECM results afterwards. The ECM did see the lower temps. I don't know anything about the EGR affect. Never cared. I have no EGR (never did, it was plugged & only there for visual purposes at inspection time) so the EGR is kind of a moot point, since they have nothing to do with my car or my results. Those 3 responses are not enough to base an accurate opinion on. Just 3 guys thoughts on the subject.

I just wanna see you give a response with something more than second hand experience. Not sure you really have the credibility to judge when you haven't done it yourself and only basing it on 3 TGO posts.

I guess the OP can decide for himself as to whether or not he wants to do it to his car. Keep using a water temperature sensor for the air temperature sensor, or switch to a true air temperature sensor. 2 peoples reports....1 person with first hand experience or a second person without first hand experience & based on 3 other peoples thoughts.


Libradofavela....Let us know what you decide to go with. Getting the V6 Camaro inlet piece is not required, just makes it easier for the Camaro guys. You can always just drill a hole in the side & use a nut like the Firebird guys do (i had to on mine).

 

sigh...Didn't read the link I gave, huh? It was written by a SD owner. His MPG didn't suffer.

Only the V6 cars had the IAT up in that air box. The V8 (305 & 350) cars used a water temp sensor in the bottom of the plenum.

 

I honestly wish I knew the logic behind the V6 using a true IAT in the plastic y & the V8s using a water temp sensor under the plenum.

1 using a water sensor that can get heat soaked mounted in metal vs one that uses a true resistor air sensor mounted in cooler plastic that can't get heat soaked. Where is the logic in those 2 different routes?

 

Just for you, I just decided to do a little test by going outside, unplugging my MAT then driving around town for about 15 minutes to see the results. The car had previously been driven an hour beforehand so it only took it a minute to enter closed loop.

What did I notice? ZERO difference. I noticed ZERO difference in throttle response, ZERO difference in idle quality and ZERO difference in driving quality with no difference on the butt-dyno either. In fact, if you had snuck out to my car in the middle of the night, unplugged the MAT and disabled the CEL, god knows how long it would have been before I discovered something was amiss

The CEL light would come on briefly whenever I came to a stop and the engine idled down but would go back off as soon as I resumed movement. Got home and pulled the codes, and only 23 popped up.

Now, If this sensor influences air/fuel mixture wouldn't it stand to reason that I should have noticed a difference in power/smoothness as well as a good chance that an O2 sensor code would have popped up?

I actually searched through more posts than the two I quoted you. Those were just an example.

So, what have me myself and I learned from this experiment? I learned that my ECM now has a stored code which I have to reset in order to erase (pet peeve of mine I don't like having stored codes).

Hopefully, you've learned something as well. I'm basing my argument off facts and PROM code while you're going by theory and speculation. Granted, the little experiment I did was just that, but I believe it goes to say alot.

I'm done now. Hopefully I have shed some light on the MAT for whoever stumbles across this post. I emplore ANYONE who is considering doing a modification to ANY factory design to do your research beforehand and not go by the fact that it is just a popular mod to do. I'm not saying the factory always comes up with the brightest ideas, but odds are they designed it that way for a reason.

 

Truly amazing. 1 15 min test & your ready to convince you are are 100% correct & I am not. Whatever.

My over 5 years of results & tests. Looking at codes of mine as well too.

"wouldn't it stand to reason"...Going on pure speculation now, huh? Mine is NOT just theory & speculation. Based on others real world first hand tests (not just one for 15min) tests & in PROM programming.

Fact is...You are not going to convince me & apparently me not you. Difference is, again. Mine is based on years of test & multiple peoples tests. Yours are based on a few TGO posts & 1 15min test. :lol;

UNSUBSCRIBED!


You do yours however you want & I'll do mine, OK?

 

 

This is correct. The amount of resistance the PCM is looking for from the temp sensor has the heat soak factored in.

 

nah, sensor was never used in the airbox on any v8 thirdgen.

 

Air mass flow rate can be directly measured, independent of pressure and temperature effects, with thermal mass flow meters.

 

Sure, bring physics into it. Don't they have enough fodder already?

 

As an aside, if Trax voices an opinion with regard to the programming in these things, I'm listening to him regardless of anyone's SOTP results.

 

Damb... I have a question about something but Im afraid of being trampled or being hit with a train... Is it okay to ask a question????

 

There's a difference between a question and a fact. In this case, we were arguing over a fact that was incorrect. A question means you're trying to determine the correct fact.

 

Okay. Well go easy on me. I'm installing a Edelbrock high flow intake manifold. Problem is that this base has no provision for the PCV valve. I was told to remove the MAT sensor and use the port under the plenum as the source for vacuum. Then mod the MAT/IAT sensor into the Y intake duct. I fully understand that there will be no performance difference if moved to the front. But will there be issues in the long run if mounted up front?

 

mpg will go down with relocating the MAT or AIT sensor into the airbox. I am sure there is a reason that GM put it in the hot plenum. The way i understand it is it is measuring the temperature of the air coming into the engine. Sure, if you relocate it into the airbox the air there is a lot cooler,but by the time the air gets into the plenum it is going to get heated up. That air in the plenum is closer to the head and thus would be a more accurate measurement of the actual air entering the head. If you relocate the thing into the cool airbox, the ecm would think the temp of the air about to enter the head was cooler than it really was and adjust fueling accordingly. Usually resulting in more fuel and poorer mpg. I guess you would benefit if your car needed to richened up a little for some reason. I am also sure it will change your BLM's. There is an article (tuning section) on making the proper MAT adjustments in the bin for the relocated MAT sensor.

 

That was the whole original idea.
More fuel equals more free Hp (sic)

The sellers of these products never BS
"Your 1985-96 MAT sensor's stock location is near a great deal of heat, causing loss of performance."
"power loss can occur due to false (hot) readings being sent to the ECM"

 

who told you more fuel equals more hp? not always, that is only true if you NEED more fuel.

 

how is that a false (hot) reading? the temp of the air IN the plenum, is the temp of the air in the plenum.

 

The mat becomes a heat sink throwing off the actual resistance of the thermistor it fine to put in front of the thottle body.

 

mpg will go down with relocating the MAT or AIT sensor into the airbox. I am sure there is a reason that GM put it in the hot plenum. never heard of that one, actually look at the thirdgen v6 its in the airbox, as well other gm vehicles.

 

I'm sure it will lower your BLM's if you relocate it, i think the proper tuning should be done if you want the vehicle to operate correctly. I think the other GM cars are tuned for it.

 

I've tracked my MPG from day 1. Mine went UP after the relocation of the sensor, without ANY retuning of the PROM.

 

you might want to call tpis and street and performance and tell them they have been selling snake oil

 

I did say (sic) at the end meaning some people "think" so which is why they relocate it

exactly
Fool the ECM into adding more fuel and it will just pull it back out again when it gets the feedback
from the O2 to say it is running rich