A MAF Sensor Mod

[BikerModder]

You aren't hurt by this it is moot if you don't want. I am getting a substantial improvement already and even as it is significant each reading it is at least AN improvement. The problem this is stupid and I have gone 300 miles with 3 fill ups and am averaging 37 MPG cross city and hwy now. I can't tell the accuracy until I start doing top offs and full drain. They are seemingly fluctuating but I get that you changed yer own @#$%^&*() opinion to them somehow. : |

[baldlobo]

i'll just leave this here

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h34.pdf

[serialk11r]

Completely throwing off your MAF calibration sounds like a really stupid idea. Tricking the engine has to be done at the O2 sensors, and tricking the engine is stupid in the first place. You can increase fuel economy significantly by screwing with AFR but something like that should be done in a precise, controlled way.

[suspectnumber961]

There are a lot of what I'd call...GRUNGE....on this forum who like to dump on any mods that might improve combustion efficiencies and so forth...like fuel additives...air intakes...etc.

Instead of realizing that improving mpg is like an easter egg hunt...where you chase down ALL leads...they DUMP on anything new. Sort of STRANGE for a forum dedicated to eco-modding?

There are some who do like to drop an brightly colored egg here and there to watch the chase begin...for profit or just for fun?

That said...I would caution you to keep careful track of your engine temps...best is by monitoring exhaust temps....you can weld a "bung" into your exhaust to get a decent temp readout.

I did some sensor modding with a 1st gen Nissan engine (early EFI) and was able to lean the engine out to the point that it wouldn't start in colder weather and lost some power when warmed up...but saw no mpg gain. (4x4) It also overheated mildly on a long upgrade on the highway. So I backed off on it some.


The GRUNGE lose sight of one fact...the main issue is an mpg increase...if you honestly have that...stay with it....you just need to be sure you aren't harming the engine in some way.

I recently got a 1-2 mpg (?) by simply installing a cone filter...which might be affecting how the MAF reads air intake....been arguing with the GRUNGE ever since though.

Strangely...the Focus intake is likely restricted from the factory...and I "unrestricted" it....though there is a built-in venturi right before the MAF sensor "wires".

LaPointe info from 06....95 Mazda pickup....

"We fixed the original messed-up inlet system by letting the intake air come from the engine compartment. The gutless condition over 60 MPH was cured by removing the plastic venturi out of the inlet hoses and replacing it with a straight-thru plastic hose. The venturi served no purpose except to slow down the vehicle. Then we removed the plastic air filter container and with a hole saw drilled 10 holes to let air into the filter without the air flow being restricted. The previous hole from the fender well was finally plugged and now WARM radiator air comes into the engine inlet system. The car has picked up about 30-35 HP and can accelerate easily up to 90 without hesitation. An impossibility before. In all respects, the Mazda runs much better and more efficiently. So we wonder (how on Earth) Ford and Mazda engineers allowed these idiotic mistakes that we fixed. The car was a gutless wonder and now runs extremely well. This pickup is the same as a Ford Ranger pickup."

Originally Posted by BikerModder

You aren't hurt by this it is moot if you don't want. I am getting a substantial improvement already and even as it is significant each reading it is at least AN improvement. The problem this is stupid and I have gone 300 miles with 3 fill ups and am averaging 37 MPG cross city and hwy now. I can't tell the accuracy until I start doing top offs and full drain. They are seemingly fluctuating but I get that you changed yer own @#$%^&*() opinion to them somehow. : |

[mwebb]

I can't tell the accuracy until I start doing top offs and full drain. They are seemingly fluctuating but I get that you changed yer own @#$%^&*() opinion to them somehow. :

first of all
restricting MAF FLOW can not change air fuel ratio IF the system does not set a DTC for lean condition

basically
if your check engine light is not on you are not changing AFR
this is a fact
it is true whether or not you can understand it .

next
changing MAF FLOW (reducing) does change the LOAD calculation
and that
may / might change the ignition timing map which may or may not have an effect of increasing fuel economy
it will NOT make the engine / system get happy with the use of
87 octane fuel (regular fuel)
if it was designed to use
91 octane fuel (mediocre fuel)

next
lean condition always
reduces
combustion temperature and exhaust gas temperature
when leaner that about 15.5 to 16 to 1 see the NOX curve
but
that is irrelevant as we have already established that you have not changed your AFR by making your system leaner as you have no cEL therefore no lean condition fault or DTC

now then;
advancing ignition timing by screwing with ignition timing map
(reducing LOAD calculation)
causes peak combustion pressure to occur
BEFORE 14 degrees ATDC which causes (ping) engine damage which is
usually attributed to
the alleged (non existent) lean condition

bottom line
measure calculated load and ign timing advance on cyl 1 with your scan tool
before
and after
your TAMPERING
even a POS scan tool like SCAN GAUGE can do that -

use a co pilot when graphing OR logging with any scan tool

do not tamper with things you do not understand
UNTIL
after
you have learned enough to understand the possible damage you can cause
with your TAMPERING
when you can make a rational decision about the benefits as opposed to detrimental effects
of your choices

[suspectnumber961]

LaPointe sez....

Why do persons criticize good products they have not tried out?

"One BIG reason is that such persons see us as competition. So they want to discredit our products to sell more of their own inferior stuff. We know from psychology that many guys are insecure and feel threatened when they hear about something new that sits beyond their experience or level of expertise. Rather than ask how it works, they find it easier to condemn what they do not understand in an effort to dismiss the object that threatens them. Often they like to appear “smarter” or more “cynical” in order to seem “cool.” An intelligent person usually asks how it works and collects more information about something before forming a logical and informed decision."

LaPointe is likely no longer with us...can't even see his old site on the wayback machine.....though you could before. Looks like the ethanol producers/Texas all people/war mongers etc.....got together and deleted him?

[BikerModder]

@ suspectnumber961 I did not come to criticize and you may be right about grunge
@mwebb you make some pretty valid complaints but it is not "first of all"? tho I am not getting any errors E85 throws a warning light in my car. also were all here... still you have all day it sounds.
@serialk11r lake the name a$$ hole but already had issues with it not being balanced and I guess you are agreeing. I have 02 extensors in my closet
and baldlobo I was leaving the results we may be interested in here. If you want to suggest a reference I can see and read but I already am cautiously opportunistically sharing. I'll get to it.

And to all I could suggest a bigger plate along with the mileage reading I saw without sacrificing power. Maybe a K&N along with would improve the power response along with significant results.

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by BikerModder

And to all I could suggest a bigger plate along with the mileage reading I saw without sacrificing power. Maybe a K&N along with would improve the power response along with significant results.

I'm doubting a bigger plate would help, but who knows. Usually those sensors are on the sides or periphery of the intake tube/AFM....so maybe it is the increased flow rate that makes the diff?

I'm thinking a hemispheric shape...half of a ball or egg would help smooth the flow out some...unless it is the disturbed flow that helps to cause an mpg gain.

Adding a cone filter right before the AFM might help some by not restricting the flow until it hits the plate or hemisphere?

Like to hear how it works out....

My advice...if you see an mpg gain...stay with it and improve things if possible.

Would help if you would document your results some...but you'll never satisfy some people on this forum.

REMEMBER......The mpg gain is the HORSE...how and why you see the mpg gain is the CART. Most reasonably intelligent people try to keep the HORSE in front of the CART...works better that way.

Some try to beat the crap out of the horse with the cart...go figure.

[mwebb]

"... @mwebb you make some pretty valid complaints but it is not "first of all"?
DO NO HARM .
tho I am not getting any errors E85 throws a warning light in my car. also were all here... still you have all day it sounds. ..."

actually no-
you may indeed be inflicting damage to your engine and you appear to be blissfully UN aware of how to test for it or that there is even a reason or need to test for it.

until it bites you right in the butt .
modifying to the point of catastrophic failure or possible and likely catastrophic failure is to be avoided .

so
i just wanted future readers of this
blarney thread
to be aware
that you have absolutely no idea what you are doing - so that they do not blindly follow in your footsteps and install
UNimprovements into their systems without first learning about the
REAL and effective
methods of improving things like Fuel Economy and power output

that will NOT cause surprises

-----------------------------------------

REDUCEING MAF flow can never improve power output
installing K&N garbage filters can never improve fuel economy as per two tests by EPA and one much better test by IATN
REDUCEING MAF flow can never enable a change from 91 octane to 87 octane fuel

you are speaking dingbat
thank me very much for my patience if not my diplomacy.

[Frank Lee]

suspect: lapointe? seriously?