TPI Tuned Port Injection discussion and questions. LB9 and L98 tech, porting, tuning, and bolt-on aftermarket products.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

MAF or speed density?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 15, 2004 | 09:49 AM
  #1  
l98+t5's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Car: 1988 camaro iroc-z z-28
Engine: L98 5.7 liter 350
Transmission: T-5 manual 5-speed
MAF or speed density?

what years did the tpi engines have speed density and what years had MAF because i have an 88 350 and it has MAF but wasent it speed density in 88 ?
Reply
Old Dec 15, 2004 | 10:17 AM
  #2  
speed88's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
From: St. John's, NL, Canada
Car: 1988 Trans Am GTA
Engine: 383
Transmission: 700R4
'87-'89 was MAF, '90-'92 was speed density.
Reply
Old Dec 15, 2004 | 10:29 AM
  #3  
rawley2's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
From: Houston MS
Car: 87 GTA Trans Am
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt posi 3.23
A little off topic. Is there a place I can read up on them and compare so I can see first hand what is better about a SD set-up.
Reply
Old Dec 15, 2004 | 10:44 AM
  #4  
92droptopws6's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 915
Likes: 29
From: Las Vegas
Car: '88 Trans Am
Engine: 5.7L TPI
Transmission: Slushbox
Axle/Gears: 3.27
85-89 maf
90-92 SD
Reply
Old Dec 18, 2004 | 10:42 AM
  #5  
John Millican's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 1
From: Savannah, GA
Car: 1997 Jeep Wrangler
Engine: 4.0L
Transmission: 5 speed
Axle/Gears: 8.8 rear, 4.56 gears, 4:1 transfer
To be more precise:

'85 MAF
'86-88 MAF
'89 MAF
'90-92 SD
Reply
Old Dec 25, 2004 | 09:51 AM
  #6  
mystikkal_69's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,823
Likes: 1
From: San Antonio, TX
Car: 1988 IROC-Z
Engine: L98 (350 TPI)
Transmission: MD8 (700 R4) + 3.42 LS1 Rear
85 is the year of maf to avoid. well if you already have maf then run it. no need to get into a sd swap if the maf system you have is working fine.
Reply
Old Dec 25, 2004 | 10:10 AM
  #7  
ThirdGenFire's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
From: El Paso, Texas
Car: 2000 Trans Am and a 85 Iroc-Z
Engine: The Mighty LS1& 305 just beat meTPI
Transmission: 4L60E and 700R4
Whats wrong with 1985 MAF's? Seriously? Never heard anything about that. Other than my ECM being crappy but thats it.
Reply
Old Dec 25, 2004 | 10:21 AM
  #8  
mystikkal_69's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,823
Likes: 1
From: San Antonio, TX
Car: 1988 IROC-Z
Engine: L98 (350 TPI)
Transmission: MD8 (700 R4) + 3.42 LS1 Rear
in 85' they used the MAS module for burnoff control. the module is expensive to replace when it goes south. with the later 86-89, burnoff control was also intergrated into the ecm instead of using a seperate module.

yes the 85 <-ecm was slow.
Reply
Old Dec 26, 2004 | 12:53 PM
  #9  
ThirdGenFire's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
From: El Paso, Texas
Car: 2000 Trans Am and a 85 Iroc-Z
Engine: The Mighty LS1& 305 just beat meTPI
Transmission: 4L60E and 700R4
Yeah I know it is slow, why pain me more by telling me again? lmao.
Thanks didn't know that.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BumpaD82
Tech / General Engine
37
Feb 26, 2016 02:57 PM
Nick McCardle
Firebirds for Sale
1
Sep 10, 2015 08:36 PM
FLAP
Camaros Wanted
0
Sep 2, 2015 09:22 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 AM.