Johnny Hunkins

I just wrote this news item for the November 2002 issue of GMHTP, but I thought you guys would appreciate me posting it here first!

Magnum Lives!

After a long and painful journey through uncharted territory, most of it in schematic wiring land, Magnum TPI is almost ready to rumble. In review, our 1988 Firebird Formula has a 396 cubic-inch stroker engine built by Strope Speed Shop which sports a ported ACCEL SuperRam intake, CNC-ported AFR 190 cylinder heads, Comp Cams valvetrain, an Evans cooling system, a Cola forged crank, 11:1 Lunati pistons and Pro-Mod forged rods. Fuel system upgrades include 26 lb./hr. ACCEL squirters and a high-output in-tank pump from Cotton’s Performance.

After Strope installed our ACCEL Gen 7 DFI system with a jumper wiring harness from Fast Track Performance, we moved the car to Second Street Speed in Perkasie, PA to troubleshoot some minor electrical gremlins and to tune on their Dynojet chassis dyno.
A complete story will run in the January issue of GMHTP, but we’ve gotten so many inquiring letters from our readers that we wanted to update you as soon as possible on these new developments. With ACCEL’s Windows-based DFI and wide-band tuning option, the Second Street crew got up to speed quickly and produced 262 rearwheel horsepower through the restrictive stock mass airflow sensor, skinny ductwork and our old, small K&N filter. Not exactly what we expected, but the lack-o-power was very predictable. The restriction of the MAF and skinny inlet tract was so great, it caused a loud sucking noise over the roar of the engine!

With no real reason to keep the non-functioning MAF sensor (the DFI is a speed/density system), the meter was ditched and an open pipe into the throttle body was used for the next series of tuning pulls. Power swelled to 357 hp (up a whopping 95 hp!) at 5800 rpm and torque peaked at 486 lb.-ft. at a stump-pulling 3700 rpm. After backing out driveline loss, that’s about 450 smog-legal flywheel horsepower. Providing we can fabricate a free-flowing inlet, we think that’s enough power to get us into the 11s with pump gas. If that’s the case, we will have reached our stated goal of running 11s with a full complement of emissions equipment—including dual cats—and doing it on ordinary pump gas.

Of note is the fact that our fuel system was found to be well within the capabilities of this power—a major consideration considering the difficulty of installing an in-tank pump in an F-body. (Thanks Jack Cotton!)

Also, you may recall from our November 2001 issue that our Desktop Dyno simulation for this engine called for slightly more flywheel horsepower (470 hp). However, we actually got far more torque—approximately 600 lb.-ft. at the flywheel—compared to the Desktop Dyno simulation which predicted only 480 lb.-ft.
If we can get the intake air properly ducted with the hood closed, we may even include a dragstrip test with our results next issue. Stay tuned!

rezinn

Now I can sell a pipe on ebay and claim it adds 95rwhp to MAF tpi cars, yay.

Tom Keliher

Johnny, sounds like you got a real beast there! I think that is the first time I have seen a reference to a MAF system on the dyno, immediately being pulled and tested without the MAF. 95 HP...... WOW!

I hope you get your 11's. That would be sweet.

So, how much over budget did you go?

hectorsn

Does the Accel DFI have an E-O#? If it doesn't, I think you mean to say that it's emissions legal in your state. I don't mean to criticize your magazine or your work, but did you think about staying with a GM ECM? Burning a PROM (not legal either anyhow) for the ecm you have could have saved you some real dough and have given your readers some hope that there is an answer other than an aftermarket ECM or a "custom" PROM. It may not sell ad space, but it sure will be good reading and good learning for a lot of folks. You may be saying that you had a restriction in the stock ecm and MAF but there is a thread going on at the PROM board stating how to convert a 165 MAF ecm to speed density, using the same ecm. Look for 165 MAF to MAP with 808 code. Or you could have converted the whole ecm to a SD ecm from a 90-92 F body. One such person that has done this with his car is Mike Davis (there is a link to his site on this forum) and he already has an eleven second slip. As far as a wide band O2 goes, you can DIY one too. You can even put it into the data stream if you are crafty with code. There are lots of DIY things going on that I don't see in your publication but since it is a business and it has to make money, I fully understand. The problem for me was that all I saw was advertisement so I let my subscription run out.

Johnny Hunkins

Did I ever think about staying with a GM ECM?

You're just making sure I'm paying attention right?

YES--we did stay with the stock computer to stay 50-state legal! That's what the jumper harness is for. The GM ECM runs all the smog stuff--EGR, canister purge, smog pump diverter and bypass valves--that's why we had all the damn problems. The DFI runs the engine.

According to federal anti-tampering law, you don't need an EO for a DFI as long as all the stock emission gear is present and operating as designed. (i.e. passes visual and smog checks.) Hell, even the factory diagnostics still work through the ALDL. At any rate, doing it this way is just as "legal" as burning your own non-stock, non-emision-legal calibration with a stock ECM, the difference being "you just can't get caught as easily."

The Gen 7 DFI is the newest system out there and lots of people are curious about it, in fact, this site even has a forum dedicated to chip burning and DFI. The Gen 7 is far more precise an engine control system than the 14-year-old ECM and far easier to make "clean." Don't let the lack of an EO number fool you, that's just for the clowns in Sacramento who don't no jack.

No conspiracy, we're just writing about what's new.

hectorsn

Ah, I see. But in that case, why have two ecm's? The factory one can do all that's required, with a little tweaking of course. With a lot of tweaking you can make it do whatever you want. After all, an ecm is just a bunch of inputs and outputs, it's the software that makes it happen. As an example, you could run a 730 ecm which has all the smog gear capability and is speed density so no air restriction. It also has a lot of empty space in the prom that advanced tuners can use for all sorts of little add ons. Also, as my mentor always says, what if that aftermarket ecm breaks down on a road trip? Can you walk into an auto parts store and get one in a few hours? It's just that I see a ot of aftermarket stuff in the mag but only it it's from an ad sponsor. There was this article you guys did on these two beautiful GN's, a white and a sl]ilver-black car. Both had MAF translators from the pictures I saw but not a word about it in the article. Then again, I haven't ever seen Bailey Engineering ads in there before.

Anyhow, enough of that. The reason I subscribed to your magazine was because it had lots of EFI coverage. I had a great time reading it. The reason I dropped it was because it had little GM in it. Hey, you said I was entitled to an opinion, not me.

formul8!!

Sweet!

So I take it you don't want to push it off a cliff anymore?

Johnny Hunkins

You mean "a lot of tweaking" don't you? You're also forgetting that the capability of the hardware has a lot to do with maximum performance--it's not all software. Wide-band 02 capability, volumetric efficiency estimators, sequential fuel injection, the ability to drive high-impedance injectors (a whole lot cleaner for smog on high-hp cars) and Windows-based menus can't even compare to the stock computer and burning a stock chip. BTW, the Gen 7 won't break down, but if it does, I'll remove the jumper and run it off the stock ECM.

You go ahead and have fun with burning chips. I'm sure it's a lot of fun to figure out for some folks. The challenge is always the point for some people. I'm just not a computer expert and don't get off on learning code. I'll tell you one thing though, after working with this DFI, I'll never even try to burn a stock chip. The DFI's operation is seemless and intuitive. Anybody will be able to program it--perfectly, and on the very first try. It's foolproof for even the most clueless beginner. When you've dropped big coin on a motor, it's a race against time to get the tune right. There isn't a lot of leeway for farting around burning chips with big horsepower motors, unless you're really good at it, and I'm not.

I gotta disagree with your centention about advertisers. The reason they give us stuff to try is the same reason they advertise: they are interested in spreading the word about their product in our magazine. We can't force any company to take part editorially in our magazine, it's by choice. There is no conspiracy, and that's my final word on this subject here.

hectorsn

More precise and easier to make clean? I guess those are two good reasons. Cynicism,... good word.

89ProchargedROC

Johnny, i think you meant LOW impedence...

Also, for those who want to play with Gen Vii software....click and save here:

http://members.telocity.com/~89proch...calmap2002.zip


----Hey johnny....remember that person Guido/Curt was telling you about for the thing in the magazine? Thats me I'm getting close to finishing up my stuff...maybe i'll send ya some pictures

grumpygreaseape

right on- was wonderin what happened to that car, picked up an issue a few back while browsing in a store, had that buildup in it and thats why i subbed. im running a gen 6 now and even the short time its been in-im sold, tamed some issues that chip burning was slowly taking care of. that gen 7 looks like the bomb-and when the pennies are up where they gotta be-im buying one. the wide band, sequential, boost, low impedance,neato windows based tuning software-far out . and really, no, there isnt much to compare to with the stock ecm-730 or otherwise. what is your guess as far as what the cylinder head work (and $ spent on em-whatsis $2400 wasnt it) gave you over some plain jane afr's? living in ca. that eo nonsense is for those who get bagged. if that gen 7 is set up and its tucked up where it belongs-the pipe numbers are the issue, eo or no eo.

Z_Ghost

Thanks Johnny for the update, when the mag gets in that's the first thing I look for and was disappointed that the last issue did not have anything about what was going on with the car.

Grumpy

So what are you writting about?.
The fact that you were able to com/promote enough money to not get your hands dirty.

From the sounds of it all you did was write checks.
WOW, I'm impressed.

If you'd bother reading up on things you would have noticed exactly what to have expected with removing the MAF. Swing over the GNTtype and read about the relocated MAF article.

Given the budget, and access to freebies you have, I find nothing remotely interesting in what you've done.

How much have you got in you ecm?.
Oh please tell, and include the money you spent having someone else program it for you.

Unchartered Terriotory, reading a wiring diagram, your really laughable. Some car guy, you haven't any clues, and then you write up an article acting like you did something new, when you can't read a diagram. How can you profess to be informative when in fact you know so little?.

Check Please.....

tpi_roc

Lets back this one out of flamer mode before it goes south.

Kaiser

Then why bother to post?

Looks like Bruce ran out of readers to flame on his other boards, wants to start on this one.

Check Please.....

slowTA

iTrader: (1)

tpi_roc, I couldn't agree more!!

Hey Johnny I agree that the stock ecm isn't the easiest thing to work with. But I think that allot of us would have liked to see the stock computer used to controll everything.

Can you go into some detail about the jumper cable? Like how it installs, what aftermarket computers it will work with and such.

Glad to see that you are making progress, I wish I was!

tpi_roc

Bruce Did go a little far on that one, but he's going to win by default anyways. So lets just drop it, bruce doesn't do this regularly and everybody wakes up on the wrong side of the bed once in a while.

Back to tech content

Seeing that MAF put to dyno sure makes me even more depressed about running that kind of setup

Guest

Oh arent you the special guy that you can reprogram a GM prom. I'm not impressed by you either.

Check please...

tpi_roc

What a treat to see the boards most respected and possibly knowledgeable members come together and start a flame war that could compete with any post in the street racing forum. You of all people should be above this and I would seriously like to avoid locking this one, grumpy is truely an exception, he can take a GM ecm (which really IS nothing special) and modify it to do whatever he wants, he's got some skills a lot of people would die to have, some times I question if he forgot where he came from, he's covered alot of ground and in that lost track of his begining. He's no longer challenged by most peoples questions/problems and tends to be more "friendly" with people who are coming up on him and share his level of knowledge on the subject and maybe expects everyone should be so smart. Truth be told most people honestly couldn't care less about a GM ecm, and could run a car 10x faster by buying DFI and working in a more user friendly nature so they can move on to more power. If you had the money, you'd use it too. As would I.


As for johnny work with what you got, if your goal is power make it how you have to. GM or DFI doesn't matter, if GM's potential is higher but you dont have the time to invest into it, then DFI is your sollution plain and simple.

Lets get back to tech!

Grumpy

Why is it it when some one states an opinion it's instantly taken as a flame?.
I just considered what he wrote, and replied.
He wrote a bunch of checks and had others do the work, and then says how great it all turned out. OK, I guess that's impressive.
I just happen to remember when hotrodding wasn't about who had the fatest wallet in town.
OK, back to check book hotrodding.

Grumpy

Other then just being on a rant, what are you trying to say?.

The Technical nature of the original post was what?. how he spent money to get a 480 HP engine?. Or that he he paid someone to program the ECm for him?. I fail to see the technical end of check writting, which I thought this board was about. For the tech end was the one sentence of pulling the MAF got us some HP.

tpi_roc

Since this obviously is going t be the topic of this thread then I guess let it be so. Granted what you said was opinion, and I believe you've earned your rights to express your opinions considering even your opinions thus far have held enough water to be worthy of me investing a good deal of weight onto. However you fairly "Passionatly" expressed your opinion and In your opinion its undeniable that you're knocking the way that certain people are acheiving what they want (in the end power/speed) Do you honestly feel its in this one mans best interest to drop this "magnum" project and run out and learn absolutely everything there is to know about a '730 so he can tweak it enough to run this combo. He's got the money, he's spending the money. Granted It takes less effort on the work/tuning, but so what? Sometimes that just isn't a persons bag. You and I share the drive to tinker, we both probably invest alot of time in the little things trying to hammer them out and make them work how we want, you happened to focus a great deal of time and effort into gm ecms. Its imature however to knock someone else because they dont feel it benifits them to invest the same that you might have chosen to. Yea he dropped some checks on it, but he had the checks to drop. If i had the money, I'd go spend the rediculous amounts on a GM SD harness. I dont, so I'm making do for the time being with the '165. He has the money, maybe not the time, and it suited his needs best to go with DFI.


"HOT RODDING" is in the eye of the beholder. You're going to go to car shows, and you're going to lose to the guy who has the most money in his car. Thats how it is, Its to bad. However YOU hotrod for YOUR enjoyment. If thats economically making the most power on the smallest dollar, RIGHT ON. Personally I'm the same way. However there are other people who might not like "Hot Rodding" and might like to just go fast and happen to have money. ( I can think of a twin turbo LS1 that comes to mind)

The sport has endless aspects and lets all enjoy it OUR way, without criticizing how others enjoy it their way.

Grumpy

Forgot?
Ya right.
I spend more time in a day answering and thinking about replies them you might imagine. Did I seem short, yep, but that's only an ilussion, I usually pare down my responses to be meaningful and apply to the crux of the matter. Yes, I let some threads go, just to see where they go, and who's getting it, and who needs help, both on and off list.

If folks were to get together like I've suggested more then just a few times, you could have had you own system to equally match or exceed any of the aftermarkets, but everyone is to busy to try and present a united front on an issue.

But, with Megasquirt getting as popular as it is, there is hope.
DIY, and open source code. Megasquirt brings us back to being TPI related.

tpi_roc

Mega what?

Scott 88 GTA

OK, am I the only person who finds the claim of removing the MAF netting 95 RWHP unbelievable?? So you're trying to tell me that if I go convert my car to SD I will now have a 366 RWHP car? I find that hard to believe. Especially since I have heads considered by the majority to be far worse than AFR's, and a completely stock intake! I have more RWHP right now than you claimed to with the MAF. There has to be more to the story here. It sounds to me like that first dyno run was done with absolutely no tuning whatsoever. That should be the only possible way that you made less hp than me. And once the MAF was removed, then engine was tuned. That could account for 95 hp, but I have a very hard time believing just removing the MAF got you 95 more ponies.

Guest

Actually, Johnny was just informing us about the car they've been working on for... forever. Quite a few people have asked about it in the past, and made remarks about it as well. How is this technical in nature? Well if you had been following this car at all, its a picture perfect example of what NOT to do. Pretty good information IMO.

Technical nature? Tell me what exactly you added to this post of a technical nature with your first response? The FINAL ANSWER to that question is nothing. Sorry to inform you, but you are not a moderator on this board (or any board) and its not your job to come here and attempt to moderate by ranting about someone else's post. If you have nothing good to add to posts, keep it to yourself next time or you'll find people like me throwing it back.

grumpygreaseape

this is it for me-i know that nearly everyone can see enough to hazard a swag concerning the overall popularity of our f-bodies. any generation. now stand back even further, i cant but barely discern but a c-hair, blonde one at that, of support\coverage\whatever that includes the 3rd generation. now it is there in this limited instance and oy what we gotta say. we might as well be gm. kidding-i dont think that the general will be getting it for some time yet. unfortunately, imo, the decisions were all about how many beans were in this pile and how many were in that pile-you get the picture. dunno where the hot rod spirit got off to there, i always assumed that if you had it in ya, it was there to stay. i understand profit and loss but how much is enough, if the f bod was selling like s.u.fu-kin.vees, we prolly wouldnt be here now with this. actually its the same motivation here, selling magazines to the %age of the populace that does the prom thang, methinks that the editors and writers would be having a difficult time bringin home the green paper rectangles. lighten up all. it could be a buildup series we all would dig-"follow along as tommy installs the newest 3 foot diameter chrome exhaust belcher from the "grotesque"line of auto accessories" be sure to check page 40 for the newest"horrid" group of quadruple winged wiper arms-all colors. ok im done

formul8!!

Do I detect a little jealousy from Grumpy's words?

You forget: Hunkins works for a magazine. He is a journalist by day-not a mechanic. Advertisers have products, to sell products you need advertising, cheap form of advertising is giving freebies to the magazine to try it out. If the product sucks, then GMHTP is one of the few magazines that will say it sucks (unlike HOT ROD or some others).

So, he isn't the most knowledgable hot rodder on earth. He doesn't have to be, he has access to the best hot rodders on earth. It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Besides, how many car magazines have done a thirdgen buildup that has been this comprehensive? This, so far, has been the only one.

Kudos to Johnny and the staff at GMHTP. Keep up the good work and please GO MONTHLY!!

tpi_roc

Granted its not grumpys responsibility to keep any board "clean" and "Moderated" however "Moderator" does not dictate someones status of contribution. I'm a "moderator" (yippie :lala: )But by no means does that translate into my contributing more than grumpy has to the thirdgen community.

AlexJH

Megasquirt: http://www.bgsoflex.com/megasquirt.html

87_TA

Well im glad to see magnum TPI get rolling with some good power. I am however disapointed that you gave up so quickly
on the original combo - trick flows/base ect,ect.
That was more of a real world combo that your most common reader needs to see , especially for a 3rd gen - this car needs
publicity in a good way so (joe shmo) realizes that these are cars worth modding and that the 350 cu that is has is an air pump
just like any other.
By giving up so quickly and throwing away a pefectly good
(real) combo hurt the uninformed third gen reader.
all opinions aside beautiful car.

ImportsRsloths

Gained 95 HP for swapping out the MAF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I THINK WE KNOW WHY 90-92 SD f bodies run just a tad faster!!!!!!!!

89ProchargedROC

Johnny is going to have to clarify WHY they gained so much horsepower otherwise i think i might go buy a SD ecm and sell it for $500 and claim it will gain you 95rwhp....go look in GMHTP LOL

E

SATURN5

Well congrats that its runnning, tho for the money, not all that impressed. But to each their own. Would have liked to have seen how far the stock ECM would go, but sometimes the easy way out wins due to $$ or time constraints. Guess with time I'll see how far I can push the '749. Best of luck.. Bob

Grumpy

Megasquirt.
Bruce Bowling and Co have designed build and are working on a second batch of DIY EFI ECMs. Open source code, serial cable real time programming, etc. Board and parts about $120 for the next batch. this is a fuel only ecm, but MEGAJOLT is in the works, do that one can do fuel and timing without having to rewrite code or work around GM ecms.

They have a site set up somewhere.

Still in the early stages but there are cars running on them.

tpi_roc

I checked out the link. very interesting.

I only hope their sorce code for that unit looks better than their html

slowTA

iTrader: (1)

Well if Johnny was scared away by grumpy's response I think I shed some light on the 95 rwhp issue. In order for the MAF to be a restriction you need a motor that requires more air than the MAF can flow. Apparently Magnum TPI's new motor needs an extra 95 hp worth of air that the MAF just can't flow. That is the simplest way to look at it. My motor (and most others) doesn't need that much more air, so if I swap to SD then I wont see much of a difference if any at all. Also, when you have more air available you can also add more gas before you go too rich. So more air means more fuel... = much more power.

Grumpy

Only if your reading stuff into them that ain't there.
My car runs just fine that you.

What has he said that I would be jealous off?.

I've realised the MAF problems for years, and if your in doubt try looking at the GNTtype and study up on my relocated MAF article.

I just did a write up on how to properly recal a MAF with it being gutted. A gutted LT/LS1 MAF is about as non restrictive as not even being there.

If anyone had put two and two together about the article I wrote, you would have seen how easy that with the use a of frequency to voltage converter, that you could run a LT/LS1 Maf on you 3rd gen..

SATURN5

Grumpy

If anyone's ever scared by anything I say, they have issues.

Your at least alot closer then what some are knee jerking in response by ignoring the HP level.

Also, folks are totally ignoring that there is basic and rudimentary difference from SD to MAF. The MAP when properly done CAN BE better in transistional stuff, ie exactly what a dyno is looking for.

In oem applications if you look at the way the MAF is set up it's tuning is favored for steady state stuff. But, again I tried to explain that in the recal MAF article I did.

Grumpy

The basics are a given,
I've seen many aftermarket ecms that were poorly tuned.

If you don't understand what makes an engine tick it does matter what system you use.
Being able to make fast changes always you to go write past the best tune, all the easier.

There's more to tuning then WOT. While some of the stuff seems excessive, it's there for a reason. Making code simple can rob a car of good drivibility. If you recall the early Holley stuff was hidious. Apha-N is fine for some race cars, but in day to day useage and with serious weather changes, they force you to contiinually retune.

Grumpy

Ya, they need to get the eye candy right.
Geesh, guys put years into something, and the best you can say is the HTML is lacking. maybe they should chage an extra 500 per unit to take care of that.

Gads, is everyone here, just interesting in spending as much as possible.
What's wrong with rooting for the lil guy?.
What's wrong with endorsing clever?
What wrong with a car not wet with dollar bills?.

Sorry, I thought hot rodding was about doing the best with what you had, this trend of MONEY ruling everything sure takes the talent and enjoyment out of things for lots of folks. If you want to get to where only the rich boys can play the game fine. Just remember thou there are alot more budget minded folks than those with deep pockets, if a co can generate big profits with a min of product they will do it. ie the little guys will get left out.

You might look a little closer at what's going on.

talk a long a close look at the aftermarket stuff right now. More specifically, Rice vs say 3rd Geners (BTW I don't use Rice in a demeaning way, just to be clear so someone doesn't misread me more then they do already).

They have huge packaged kits, and charge ridiculous prices (at least in my mind), $5K for a 4 cyl turbo kit, gads, now that's a rip.

Find me at a car show, and I'm the guy being impressed by talent, not check writting or eye candy.

Beast5spdGTA

He didn't just say put a piece of pipe in place of the MAF to gain 95 hp. I believe it was an open-ended 3" pipe going straight into the TB. Note the bit about not being able to close the hood with the "intake" in place. Don't blow that 95 hp out of proportion. If you had a clogged cat and replaced with a high flow one to gain 50 hp wouldn't you write something about it if you wrote mag. articles. I know I would post it to tell everyone to check their cats.

hectorsn

Here's the deal with the MAF. The factory 3rd gen maf can only report 255 grams per second (about 450 cfm) to the ecm <B>but</B> it can flow about 600 cfm without being a restriction, in other words, no pressure drop. Now properly tuned, 600 cfm can support 450 HP. You make the call on why they made the extra 95 HP. I'm not saying it's a <B>conspiracy</B>, but it also hasn't been clearly stated by the original thread starter.

quickL98

iTrader: (2)

my car does the same thing !!! i was told about the wells SU145 replacement MAF that flows more air but how much more????
i noticeed a post about a translator LS-1 maf's i'll check that out i guess.

slowTA

iTrader: (1)

Grumpy, where did you write the articles about the MAFs, I can't find them here. Also 'scaring away' Johnny may have been a bit strong, more like making him feel unappreciated for giving us the first look at an editorial. Notice he hasn’t posted since!!!

Grumpy

Most recently at the DIY PROM board.
A look at the relocated MAF at the GNTtyoe site had some clues.

From time to time there have been any number of magazine guys lurk here and at the DIY-EFI lists, and to date the best they've done is just used the lists for advertising.

BTW, I've just boxed up a bunch of MAFs for some flow bench testing, and just can't wait to see the results. Oh, and by a none magazine advertiser. So the results will be none biased.

There is a difference in my mind between article writting, and publishing information. So far all the article is about is spending money and having someone else do the tuning. Lets hear about the actual tuning, running a dyno prgram and having people give you freebies, to assemble requires little talent.

As things stand right now, the Import mags while packed with advertising, but do happen to have some excellent tuning info and evaluation stuff.

Case in point, GMHP does a GNX rear suspension install and then waits 6 months (+-) for the back to back compo.. in track times.
Guess they couldn't find a second GN to baseline against?. Ooops that would have taken more then a sponsors donation.

Sorry, I read for accuracy, in testing and results.

Rant Off.

Scott 88 GTA

OK, let me clarify a little bit on my first post. I realize that the MAF becomes a larger and larger restriction as the rest of the engine becomes capable of producing more power.

However, what I was trying to get at, is that I think Johnny may have not stated clearly what happened on the dyno.

To me, the way it reads is that they dynoed the car with the MAF on, then removed/replaced it and dynoed again immediately, and gained 95 hp. I find this very hard to believe.

What I'm guessing probably happened is that the dyno with the MAF was the very first baseline (untuned) run, and then they removed it and tuned it afterwards. This I could believe resulting in a 95 hp increase (a little easier anyway). But I don't see how the MAF could be cause THAT much of a restriction on its own.

Also, if it really does restrict power that much, that means that unless I convert to SD I will never gain any more power? So theoretically if I put a Superram on my car like they had I wouldn't gain any hp? I don't think so. I can't have the most HP out there of a MAF equipped car. That would be pathetic.

Johnny Hunkins

10-4.

Matt87GTA

Grumpy, godspeed on the MAF flow testing (hurry up in other words... I would like to see more info on the performance of stock and gutted OE ones). And I agree that a translator for freek-to-volts would be mucho good for us 165 guys..... But the 808 code is even more promising if you ask me.... specially if 8192 and lean cruise make it into the mix . Talk about better than a DFI (IMHO of course)!

For those of you still caught on the '255' limit, go to the PROM board and read the two recent threads on 're-calibrating' MAFs. Grumpy did it one way and another guy from the diy-efi site did it another way. Both methods seem very fruitful, but Grumpy's way allows the use of a larger (different, as in LT1/LS1) MAF sensor. His method includes a translator for using a larger MAF, but it is on a turbo Buick and already has a freek based MAF so the translating is much easier..... This is where a freek-to-volts translator would help 165 folk. The method I posted to the board is the perfect thing for those of us that may be just over the threshold of the stock cal, but don't have the ability (whatever it may be) to go SD or whatever...... It uses flowbench data from a stock MAF and a fully gutted/ported stock MAF.

I understand you see where we are coming from Johnny, but I just want to get on record in doubting that you reached the full abilities of the 165 before you made the swap if you gained that much power....... Seen too many fast (relatively) MAF cars to believe that figure.....

But I still love the mag! Pretty much cover to cover the day it gets here . (Go monthly!!!!)