Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsZ06
ROTFLMFAO!
RHS - The MAF is not necessarily a bad thing. Dry shot users need/love it. Other than keeping papers from flying off my desk and deep internet forum discussions of how it works, I have no need for it on my time machine.
So is there a way to run MAF-less with the stock OS and use both spark tables...?
Copy high to low. Otherwise, I beleive the PCM reverts to the low table under a failed MAF condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by joecar
i'm just asking because the way MAF gets talked about by it's opponents makes it look so evil like it's something between Jack the Ripper and public transportation...Quote:
Originally Posted by TAQuickness
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhardsupra
I'd say it's more along the lines of public transportation. It's got it's purpose, but it's not for everyone.
Oh, that's what I do now; I meant without throwing DTC's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAQuickness
I think some of the contributors to this thread need to back up and get a more realistic perspective on the subject. From 1986 to 1989, GM used MAF-based systems on Camaros/Firebirds and Corvettes. Then they got into a pissing contest with Bosch (the MAF supplier at the time) and from 1990 through 1993, L98 and LT1 engines employed speed density systems. Beginning in 1994, GM reverted to mass air systems. Although each of these systems have advantages and disadvantages, there are an awful lot of MAF-equipped cars that run extremely well, so I don't think it's correct to categorically classify a MAF sensor as "evil". It compensates for a variety of environmental conditions and also makes up for all types of tuning errors. And, all things being equal, anyone would have a difficult time determining whether an engine was mass air or speed density controlled if the evaluation had to be done from the driver's seat with no data logging equipment at hand.
Now, when you start dealing with heavily modified engines, especially those with a lot of camshaft, a MAF sensor is really out of its element. For these applications, a speed density system is clearly more advantageous because the pulsing and reversion that's typical of a long duration camshaft can give a MAF sensor fits. But without programs like FlashScan that tremendously simplify tuning, running speed density wouldn't be a viable option for most people. Building spark and fuel maps with the rudimentary systems that were the only choice just a few years ago was tremendously time consuming.
The simple fact is mass air is superior for some applications and speed density is superior for others. In the end, the BEST system is the one that the individual tuner or car owner is most comfortable with.
Yes, it's all about choices and making the best one for your particular conditions or applications. There's no one right way or wrong way....just whatever way works best for the individual. Having said that, making the right choice means having a full understanding of the pros and cons of each method in order to truly take advantage of the best means to achieve the desired results.
That's what a forum is intended to do and this forum and all who contribute to it make it the great place that it is.
:thankyou2: Now it's time for a beer! :beer:
You ain't kiddin! I got more out this post then I ever expected! It put it all on the table. It seems to me that there is more then one way to skin a cat with respect to tuning and what works for some may not work for others. It is truly amazing how many things play into adjusting fuel and timing.Quote:
Originally Posted by VetPet
:thankyou2:
Oh my God! Relativist tuners.:Eyecrazy: