I understand what both are and how they work, but someone told me one works better at higher rpm, the other at lower and I forgot which. But what about one would make it better on one area than the other from a physics standpoint? And, what was the criteria GM used to determine which cars got one vs the other? Mine is a 92 with MAP only, but I see 80's cars with MAF, then some motors use both. How was this determined by the manufacturer?

 

The reason GM went from MAF to MAP in '90 was that the early MAF sensors were very unreliable. Also, being an analog output had limited resolution and range.

It wasn't until the LT1s came out that GM went back to using MAF sensors. Although these were a completely different design and manufacturer and used a high frequency pulse train for the output versus airflow.

As for which is better, MAF or MAP, not going there.

RBob.

 

LOL...You'd rather debate politics? Haha... IIRC, I read that MAP is better at high rpm, and MAF at low, but I couldn't remember if I had it straight or backwards. But the early MAF sensors not being as good explains why they went away and came back, so that sort of answers my question. But I'd still like to understand the pysics of it all. May have to Bing it some more and see what else comes up.

 

Have owned MAF and MAP....MAF is codes central and sensor failure. MAP is most reliable to me.

 

I've never heard of such a thing. The only thing I could skew to that sort of thinking is the MAP efi isn't restricted to the MAF sensor's CFM. That doesn't make one better than the other per se, it just means the MAP isn't physically limited to sensor size without upgrading to a larger one.

 

One of my maf cars (89) spins up to 7800-8,000rpm fairly easy, hope this helps.

 

Yeah, I hadn't either. You never know what you read in some of thes forums. I didn't know enough about it to know if he was right or wrong at the time, I was just confused about how/why certain cars had one or the other.