Dyno tests of 73mm MAF sensor sample tubes

[RStalveyARFF]

blewbyu:
I was there, it was on the same machine, and one run after another, comparisons. Car never left the bay for all three runs. So there is not a weather differance, or dyno differance. Just real world #'s. I must say that with the #'s produced by Scott's car were quite impressive, especially since he has over a 1/4 million miles onthe old girl. His torque curve was also very impressive, partially due to his correct air/fuel mix. OH Scott has one **** of a nice handling/braking SHO. I just want to see his and Tony's readouts again. (tony had like 355@ the tires)with like 15psi. thumbs_u Thanx to all the great Lone Star guys. Craig

Wait till you ride in a car with Koni/eibachs and a 96 upgrade (or better yet, Wilwoods or Baers)

 

[sdpatt]

Bradman, even the stock 24 lb/hr sample tube on the 73mm MAF should not cause the car to run like "crap." It gave the car a boost of sharper throttle response and greater midrange torque with the "SHO" sample tube. If you look at the sample tube in your MAF, compare it to the 24 lb/hr "SHO" sample tube shown in the picture above. The 19 lb/hr "Mustang" sample tube has a noticeably larger inside diameter of the tube that surrounds the filaments. Your eyes will be able to tell the difference.

 

[bradman]

Scott,
It looks the same. Must be the 24lb/hr tube.
Thanks,
Brad

 

[LI_SHO]

So with these findings, would this be the proper MAF/sample tube setup to purchase:
http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=VEOS&Product_Code=8A101-021&Category_Code=AC

 

[luigisho]

If you put new bearings in (which I think is a really good maintenace idea at this point) I'd like to see what they look like with all that mileage.

 

[sdpatt]

LI_SHO, that would be the one. The 19 lb/hr tube doesn't have a hole quite as large as the one in the picture in that link you gave, but it's close.

luigisho, you know that I would post some sexy bearing photos.

<small>[ December 12, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: sdpatt ]</small>

 

[PROPHET]

I received the 19lb/hr sample tube today.
[WOW]
Really woke up this sleeping beauty ,thanks for the info Scott. thumbs_u

 

[shojuan]

PROPHET:
I received the 19lb/hr sample tube today.
[WOW]
Really woke up this sleeping beauty ,thanks for the info Scott. thumbs_u

Awesome! Nothing like waking up some sleeping ponies. thumbs_u

Rick

 

[sdpatt]

Merry Christmas.

 

[DeaconBlue]

One thing to keep in mind is that the stock '87-93 Mustang 5.0L uses 18.47 lbs/hr @ 2.7 BAR or 39.2 psi static flow rated injectors.

If you do the math; 8 x 18.47 = 147.8 lbs/hr

Now 147.8 lbs/hr / 6 injectors = 24.63 lbs/hr

That is pretty darn close to the 3.0L SHO which uses 23.7 lbs/hr @ 2.7 BAR or 39.2 psi as well as the 3.2L SHO which uses 24.3 lbs/hr @ 2.7 BAR or 39.2 psi static flow rated injectors.

That's why you can directly interchange the '87-93 Mustang 5.0L and '89-95 3.0L/3.2L SHO factory MAF's and well as use the same Pro-M MAF's calibrated for either of the the stock injectors setups on either car. It has long been known that using the Mustang 19 lbs/hr sampling tube in the C&L 73mm MAF works the best for a SHO engine. It's nice to see the info dyno proven once again. I am not sure what they did or how they screwed up the so-called SHO sampling tube.