K&N and MAF

[series8217]

Oh check out this article http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...ns/page_5.html

That comparison isn't necessarily valid. They didn't test the stock MAF with the Granatelli ECU calibration. Granatelli might be running more aggressive timing or revised AFRs to gain some power. I'm not saying the MAF doesn't make a difference, but rather that the test does NOT prove any increase given by the increased size of the MAF, since two variables were changed (ECU calibration and the MAF).

[OldSkoolGP]

I asked to see your dyno sheets cause you claim you have a certain amount of hp but I just don't believe it

My dyno sheets have been posted on this site several times now. Anyone who has been around this site for more than a year knows I don't BS people. I have dynoed the car twice with near identical results both times, within 1 WHP of each other. If you're accusing me of making up numbers, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[bszopi]

http://www.60degreev6.com/showthread.php?t=31367&highlight=dyno

[choppester]

the fan

the fan to the mafs is a joke, and who ever said that doesn't know what their doing, your car wants to suck air not stick a fan that spins the air clock wise or counter clock wise, so in that case try using a vacuum and let me know if there is a difference. Also the sensors are placed in certain spots, not all around the maf case. Being the moderator old school gp doesn't make you automatically gm certified cause I would know cause I am. also take a look Ive been here more than a year, the reason I don't participate is cause I'd rather spend more time working on my cars then talking about them, and also I lost my password and this wonderful setup wouldn't allow me to get my old password cause I also got rid of my old email.

[OldSkoolGP]

Apparently puntuaction, capitalization, and grammar are not prerequisites for being GM certified either. I will never claim to be a GM technician, and while I have worked for a GM dealer, it was only as a lube technician. But if you're challenging my knowledge of the LQ1, you are again barking up the wrong tree. I've owned LQ1 powered cars since 2000 and torn down and rebuilt them more times than I care to remember. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the 3.4.

To counter your other point, it is my seniority on the site, my overall knowledge, and my desire to make this an informational and grown-up site that allowed me to become a moderator and eventually an administrator. But let us not forget what this is all about. You think you know how MAFs work and removing the screen increases performance because a couple of aftermarket vendors do the same thing. Some people on this site disagree with you and you don't like it. But there's nothing wrong with differing points of view. That's how ideas take shape and improvements in performance get made. If you're so convinced it works, try it. Please get dyno runs before and after so we can see the results. I'd be very curious to see what your A/F ratios look like before and after.

[choppester]

My mistakes for typing are because I don't have the time to type for hours to get it right, you understood my point. next year I will be running my car on the dyno again but I'll be running it w/ my centrifugal supercharger. I get 5 dyno tries and for two of them I will test it out. but I will have to disconnect my supercharger which I will soon have pictures for if you don't believe me. I claim it gives less resistance w/o it.

[timg]

I've been on a flow bench and measured flow through a variety of screens, tubes, and other volumes. We measured velocity profiles and pressure drops for each type of screen and then analyzed the results. I can say with absolute certainty that the MAF screen is necessary, should not harm performance (if GM did their job correctly when designing it), and should make the sensor calibration MUCH more consistent from car to car.

Tim

[choppester]

I've had enough arguing. finally like old gp said you have your thoughts and I have mine. but one last thing, gm did change their mafs w/o a screen starting for some vehicle's in 97 and most fords didn't have any, a little food for thought

[series8217]

finally like old gp said you have your thoughts and I have mine.

apparently he also has tests to go along with those thoughts

[z34phoenix]

again i restate if you disagree about the screen cleaning up the air flow do the 3" computer fan test.

and air flow is air flow... push or pull the effect is the same you have turbulent air flowing over the screen. the screen is symetrical so doesnt mater if vac or pos pressure.

remember man you asked for our advice and oppinon if you dont like it... remember you asked. if you didnt care about our oppinon why ask in the first place....

I dont care at all about GM certified this or that! GM isnt all knowing. Remember dealers and GM techs only put things back to OEM spec... and OEM specs are there for longevity in mind. not performance. i would trust a backyard mech with track or dyno results more then any shop for performance work. might even get a better deal to!

[OldSkoolGP]

Agreed, but I can see what this post is gonna turn into, so I'm gonna put an end to it now.