Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > The Unicorn Corral
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-22-2012, 01:45 AM   #51 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 513

no nickname , it's just a car - '04 volkswagen golf tdi
Thanks: 2
Thanked 101 Times in 74 Posts
wrong again thats 3 strikes

...."By blocking the air to the MAF you are changing the calculation for load so it will read lower and increase timing that will help in mid-low load situations but if your timing map was close to the point of knocking in the high load area it can cause problems. ".....

no
now
pay attention

if you "block" airflow to the MAF sensor then the MAF sensor will
correctly report the reduced amount of air that is does
receive

nothing will change
timing will remain correct load will be correct for the amount of air measured which will be the amount of air that the engine actually receives.

see my previous posts in this very thread for more text on the topic

stop this
it makes all of you look very silly


Last edited by mwebb; 09-22-2012 at 01:45 AM.. Reason: you are out
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 09-22-2012, 06:39 PM   #52 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Independence, KY
Posts: 606

Blue Meanie - '02 Volkswagon Golf TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 48.52 mpg (US)

Wife's car - '05 WV Passat TDI

Rudy - '94 Chevy C2500
Thanks: 90
Thanked 46 Times in 43 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwebb View Post
if you "block" airflow to the MAF sensor then the MAF sensor will
correctly report the reduced amount of air that is does
receive

nothing will change
timing will remain correct load will be correct for the amount of air measured which will be the amount of air that the engine actually receives.

see my previous posts in this very thread for more text on the topic

stop this
it makes all of you look very silly
I agree with what you said but only if the block is far enough before the MAF that it will see the total air flow being pulled through the intake. BUT if the block is placed to where the MAF sensor is in a space of dead air it will not read the total air being consumed by the engine.
__________________
I move at the speed of awesome.


"It's not rocket surgery!" -MetroMPG
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2012, 11:10 PM   #53 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: winterpeg, manisnowba
Posts: 211

clank - '99 jeep tj sport
90 day: 17.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
I agree with what you said but only if the block is far enough before the MAF that it will see the total air flow being pulled through the intake. BUT if the block is placed to where the MAF sensor is in a space of dead air it will not read the total air being consumed by the engine.
you do know the pic of his MAF showes air straighteners(1/2"x1/2" square that's 1/4-1/2" in depth) the maf is sitting some where aft of those; probably by the same distance, all that plate is doing is creating a vacuum in the intake behind it causing any blockage of the MAF to be none.

BTW. some people think removing the MAF air straightener to give them a performance increase(i'm talking hp)
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 12:04 AM   #54 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 513

no nickname , it's just a car - '04 volkswagen golf tdi
Thanks: 2
Thanked 101 Times in 74 Posts
turbulence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
I agree with what you said but only if the block is far enough before the MAF that it will see the total air flow being pulled through the intake. BUT if the block is placed to where the MAF sensor is in a space of dead air it will not read the total air being consumed by the engine.
the effects of turbulence that may or may not be induced by whatever in the air stream prior to the MAF sensor
will
be
Unpredictable and will vary depending on the amount of air flowing in the duct at the the time ...
i have already covered this in an early er post in this thread .
in any event the OP's system has not set a fault for fuel trim either way so the effects of turbulence in his system
(if turbulence is actually present )
have not exceeded the fuel trim correction limits which are designed to keep the system at
stoich or 14.64 to 1 , so his system is at
stoich or 14.64 to 1


but
i have not yet brought up the fact that blocking air flow to the intake will
NOT improve losses related to
suction throttling losses
and the effects will be increased as flow increases

so while the effects of turbulence are UN predicable
the increase in suction throttling losses will always
decrease
fuel economy .

no matter how you add this up
it
is
not
ever
going
to improve fuel economy or increase power output
===================================
you can however
reduce MAF signal and Calculated load simply by placing a resistor in the signal line or
on the 5v reference IF the MAF sensor is analog and not digital
and that will not be dependent on the unpredictability of turbulence and there will be no suction throttling losses induced by it

having said that
do not do it -
you have no clue as to the additional possible side effect you will cause
which have been partially addressed in this thread


Last edited by mwebb; 09-23-2012 at 12:21 AM.. Reason: no check money light
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 08:43 AM   #55 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
As a TEST...I installed this block in my Focus intake. Weather won't permit testing a full tank...this was just a test to see how it runs. Runs about the same...anyone not knowing it was in there...wouldn't likely be able to tell the difference.

Made of a heavy plastic funnel...just forced it into the corrugated part of the intake tube after the MAF.





Opening in cone is around 1 1/4"...which is approx the same as a half throttle opening (45*) at the throttle body...so in most situations it just acts like a dirty filter ABOVE a certain throttle opening? Used around .61 square " per L from above posts as a guide.

Scangauge shows high mpg for first mile on highway after leaving town...but it settles down after that.

Will reinstall and test next summer.
__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 03:30 PM   #56 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,747

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,579
Thanked 3,518 Times in 2,202 Posts
The suspense will kill me first.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 02:21 AM   #57 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 513

no nickname , it's just a car - '04 volkswagen golf tdi
Thanks: 2
Thanked 101 Times in 74 Posts
shake your head NO- up wake

do you really think that this will improve Volumetric Efficiency or reduce suction throttling loss

shake your head no

do your really suppose that there is there any way that your tampering can improve anything ?

shake your head no

why do you persist with what you have been shown can not function As you desire it to ....
you can not "hope" for an improvement , you must operate in
reality , unlike our current government

up wake


Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 View Post
As a TEST...I installed this block in my Focus intake. Weather won't permit testing a full tank...this was just a test to see how it runs. Runs about the same...anyone not knowing it was in there...wouldn't likely be able to tell the difference.

Made of a heavy plastic funnel...just forced it into the corrugated part of the intake tube after the MAF.


Opening in cone is around 1 1/4"...which is approx the same as a half throttle opening (45*) at the throttle body...so in most situations it just acts like a dirty filter ABOVE a certain throttle opening? Used around .61 square " per L from above posts as a guide.

Scangauge shows high mpg for first mile on highway after leaving town...but it settles down after that.

Will reinstall and test next summer.

Last edited by mwebb; 09-28-2012 at 02:24 AM.. Reason: as spelling
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 05:05 AM   #58 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
First...I have no idea WHETHER this block will improve mpg...but I have reasons to believe it MIGHT.

The mod is easy to install and easy to reverse.

IF I do see an mpg gain...I MIGHT..........then........try to explain it.

Or better yet....I will let certain parties explain why it doesn't work after it does...as with the recent cone filter mod I tested.

PLEASE...remain as you are until testing is completed. Thank you....

.......
__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 09:59 PM   #59 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 513

no nickname , it's just a car - '04 volkswagen golf tdi
Thanks: 2
Thanked 101 Times in 74 Posts
your theory is not accurate

Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 View Post
First...I have no idea WHETHER this block will improve mpg...but I have reasons to believe it MIGHT.

The mod is easy to install and easy to reverse.

IF I do see an mpg gain...I MIGHT..........then........try to explain it.

Or better yet....I will let certain parties explain why it doesn't work after it does...as with the recent cone filter mod I tested.

PLEASE...remain as you are until testing is completed. Thank you....

.......
i would be interested to see how you expect increasing suction throttling losses and decreasing volumetric efficiency are
supposed
to
improve
anything
especially,
fuel economy
specifically
BSFC at any load or rpm

here on the planet Earth in any car powered by an internal combustion engine .

ready
begin

Last edited by mwebb; 10-26-2012 at 10:01 PM.. Reason: your test will show you what most already know
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 01:41 PM   #60 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwebb View Post
your theory is not accurate
Your post could stop here to be honest.

__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com