I was just wondering which was better the MAF or speed density?

 

I think SD is better if your going to stay stock, but the MAF is better for lots of power. I believe the reason for this is because the SD calculates the incoming air flow based on pre-set tables that it has to go look the information up on whereas an MAF just caculates the incoming air by the wire inside of it.

Someone else will be able to explain it a little better.... I'm not 100% sure on this. Doing a search is always a good idea, I'm sure you'll get your answer that way.

 

MAF sucks for lots of power because you'll be limited by how much incoming air the sensor can read.

see here: https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...density+vs+maf

 

THAT REMINDS ME, DOES ANYONE MAKE A MAF TRANSLATER SO I CAN USE AN LT1 MAF?

 

no restriction here i have went as fast as 11;10 at 124 mph using a maf i think if you try and go low 10s then it might be a restriction

 

In terms of stock ThirdGens, the MAF is superior up to a point. After about 330 HP, the MAF is no longer capable of metering the incoming air correctly. A well-tuned (custom EPROM) SD system will be equal to a MAF system to that point, and above that point, will outperform a MAF with the older ECMs that came with our cars. The MAF cars tend to be more modification-friendly using the stock EPROM up to that point, whereas equal modification of an SD system would require EPROM tuning to maximize the changes.

In more general terms, MAF systems are inherently more accurate, thus, will produce more power than a less-accurate SD system at varying intake volumes. They will also emit fewer pollutants. MAFs are a permanent fixture on 1993 and later GM V-8s with sequential injection.

As for a "translator", the limitation of the MAF system on ThirdGens is not the MAF itself, but the ECM firmware. The ECM can only recognize intake flows up to 255g/S, so any higher MAF input signal would be ignored. If you want to install a 1992-93 LT1 PCM and all its components, however, you might have something there. I've been working on a modified ECM to enable it to meter air beyond the 255g/s limit, but so far I have had limited success with a lot of other problems arising as a result.

 

i figured that using a larger maf instead of removing the screens, thow it wouldnt be cheaper, thanks.

 

:hail: yeah, what vader said