Notices
964 Forum 1989-1994
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

MAF install report

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-07-2010, 09:17 PM
  #16  
Wachuko
Professor of Pending Projects
Rennlist Member
 
Wachuko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,891
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

If your cat is fine I suggest leaving it alone... not much to gain from it. Money best spent on a G-Pipe... my .02 anyway... these are not Turbo engined cars were you really need to let that exhaust loose...
Old 04-07-2010, 09:47 PM
  #17  
Racker79
Intermediate
Thread Starter
 
Racker79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

cup and G pipe don't reduce the backpressure they are more for sound and loosing weight.

Removing in restrictions in the cat (cat bypass) will reduce back pressure and hence will allow the engine to get rid of exhaust gases quicker especially if the intake is capable of sucking more air.
It will make a another small difference.

I want to put the car on th dyno after the nods have finished and see what all these small modification add up to.

Stefan
Old 04-09-2010, 04:44 PM
  #18  
anto1150
Pro
 
anto1150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Abruzzo (ITALY)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Racker79
Hello All,

I pulled out the MAF and installed the stock air flow meter to see the difference.

I must say straight away I was missing the low down torque.

1. Sitting in 3rd gear at a speed of 50 - 60 km/h, under 3000rpm and accelerate. With MAF the engine feels eggier to get to work with the stock item you are waiting for it to wake up. It is not neck braking acceleration but so much better that the Stock AFM.

2. Idle. With the Stock AFM the idle is annoying the hell out of me. The constant surging is not cool.

3. Top end Power, under full acceleration you do not feel a difference between the MAF and the stock unit.

4. Acceleration, the engine seems to rev quicker to the redline.


Conclusion:
$1000 is a lot of money but I would buy the MAF again, for me it belongs to the default updates / refinements for a 964.
The car feels fresh and delivers smooth modern car like power.

Future upgrades:
Cat bypass. A logical step, the MAF allows more air in now I need to get more air out.

Best Regards

Stefan

Stefan,

given 100 the torque/power you get with the MAF kit, what's the torque/power with AFM at:

- 2000 rpm?
- 3000 rpm?
- 4000 rpm?

Sorry, just my way to understand the gain...

thanks
Anto

Last edited by anto1150; 04-09-2010 at 05:32 PM.
Old 04-09-2010, 07:08 PM
  #19  
Racker79
Intermediate
Thread Starter
 
Racker79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

ok, 100% for MAF

following values are for the AFM
2000 rpm 85%
3000 rpm 85%
4000 rpm 95%
5000 rpm 100%
6000 rpm 100%

Stefan
Old 04-10-2010, 02:31 AM
  #20  
anto1150
Pro
 
anto1150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Abruzzo (ITALY)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Racker79
ok, 100% for MAF

following values are for the AFM
2000 rpm 85%
3000 rpm 85%
4000 rpm 95%
5000 rpm 100%
6000 rpm 100%

Stefan
Wow, 15% at low revs is a good gain! I think it's worth the investment...!

Thank you Stefan
Old 04-11-2010, 12:00 PM
  #21  
springer3
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
springer3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,576
Received 49 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Racker79
ok, 100% for MAF

following values are for the AFM
2000 rpm 85%
3000 rpm 85%
4000 rpm 95%
5000 rpm 100%
6000 rpm 100%

Stefan
Read the prior posts on the dyno runs and side-by-side acceleration runs involving MAF replacement for the stock AFM. The credible posts imply you might pick up 3-4 HP at peak power if you use a less effective air filter. Even with the better stock filter, the gains off of peak power are too small to measure.

MAF by itself has negligible effect on air flow or power. The primary effect is on cash flow, where the difference is easy to measure.
Old 04-11-2010, 12:10 PM
  #22  
anto1150
Pro
 
anto1150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Abruzzo (ITALY)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by springer3
Read the prior posts on the dyno runs and side-by-side acceleration runs involving MAF replacement for the stock AFM. The credible posts imply you might pick up 3-4 HP at peak power if you use a less effective air filter. Even with the better stock filter, the gains off of peak power are too small to measure.

MAF by itself has negligible effect on air flow or power. The primary effect is on cash flow, where the difference is easy to measure.
I personally do NOT care about peak power gain... I'm after torque and response, not dyno results...
Old 04-11-2010, 01:22 PM
  #23  
Lorenfb
Race Car
 
Lorenfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,045
Likes: 0
Received 61 Likes on 54 Posts
Default

"I'm after torque and response"

And the MAF mod (itself) provides this, right? Read too many marketing testimonials?
Old 04-11-2010, 01:31 PM
  #24  
anto1150
Pro
 
anto1150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Abruzzo (ITALY)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb
"I'm after torque and response"

And the MAF mod (itself) provides this, right? Read too many marketing testimonials?
I simply trust aussie words...!
Old 04-11-2010, 06:42 PM
  #25  
Racker79
Intermediate
Thread Starter
 
Racker79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

MAF by itself has negligible effect on air flow or power. The primary effect is on cash flow, where the difference is easy to measure.
haha I like that.

And it is true peak power you don't feel and difference. and the numbers I provide are a feeling nothing scientific. A shame that you can't test drive my car to see for yourself. I recon the MAF is great others might be disappointed.

Stefan

Last edited by Racker79; 04-11-2010 at 08:29 PM.
Old 04-12-2010, 08:03 AM
  #26  
springer3
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
springer3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,576
Received 49 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Racker79
....and the numbers I provide are a feeling nothing scientific.....
Well said.

I did numerous 2000 RPM to redline acceleration runs beside a 964 C2 with a MAF mod. Then we switched cars and did it again. The MAF car drives very nicely, but so does my well-sorted AFM car.

Seeing my car keep up was probably what prevented me from getting the "feeling" the MAF had any performance benefit. That and Ninemeister's dyno data showing the stock AFM will keep up with a MAF until you pass 300 HP.
Old 04-12-2010, 03:17 PM
  #27  
xeps
Instructor
 
xeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by springer3
Well said.

I did numerous 2000 RPM to redline acceleration runs beside a 964 C2 with a MAF mod. Then we switched cars and did it again. The MAF car drives very nicely, but so does my well-sorted AFM car.

Seeing my car keep up was probably what prevented me from getting the "feeling" the MAF had any performance benefit. That and Ninemeister's dyno data showing the stock AFM will keep up with a MAF until you pass 300 HP.
Weren't there a number of differences between the two cars in this case (weight, other performance mods..) that prevented this from being "scientific" as well? I could be wrong here..

It appears to me that both are providing accounts of driving a vehicle with a MAF installed, and arriving at different conclusions - neither of which has more validity than the other.

I agree with you that it is unclear the performance benefit of a MAF - but neither account here is strictly factual or scientific.
Old 04-12-2010, 10:55 PM
  #28  
springer3
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
springer3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,576
Received 49 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by xeps
Weren't there a number of differences between the two cars in this case (weight, other performance mods..) that prevented this from being "scientific" as well? I could be wrong here..

It appears to me that both are providing accounts of driving a vehicle with a MAF installed, and arriving at different conclusions - neither of which has more validity than the other.

I agree with you that it is unclear the performance benefit of a MAF - but neither account here is strictly factual or scientific.
My driving impressions and objective dyno data are in agreement. Objective dyno data shows the stock AFM will get the job done just fine until you mod the engine to more than 320 HP - a power level where all the experts say the stock 3.6 will grenade unless serious internal reinforcements are done. It would be cheaper to trade up to a turbo if you want that much power. Spend your MAF money on weight reduction. That you will feel and it will be real.

Last edited by springer3; 04-12-2010 at 11:59 PM. Reason: typo
Old 04-13-2010, 08:48 AM
  #29  
-nick
Three Wheelin'
 
-nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge/Boston, MA
Posts: 1,781
Received 106 Likes on 81 Posts
Default

Slight hijack...

Grenade without serious internal strengthening at hp over 320???

Which experts are these? What internal mods are they suggesting? And which parts are self-destructing? This is quite contrary to my understanding.



Quick Reply: MAF install report



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 10:45 AM.