sdpatt has left the building

[sdpatt]

This will be my last post and contact with the SHO Forum until Sunday, June 8, 2003. I, my family and my SHO will be on vacation to South Padre Island, Texas for some fun and sun (and windsurfing).

The SHO was dyno'ed today with a Dallas area turnout of the LSSHOC and produced the highest measured output so far in its 274,500 miles. This was accomplished by restoring the stock MAF sensor body. A comparison of the output with the stock MAF (red curves) and the 73mm C&L with 19 lb/hr sample tube (blue curves) is shown below.

Without a chip, there is no question which one is better at controlling the engine's air/fuel mixture and power output. My engine is now stock except for the cone and forward bulkhead removal from the outer fender box, the K&N panel filter, the Performance Plus Y-pipe and the Borla cat-back exhaust system.

She still likes to run. I'll see you when I get back. Drive safely.

 

[rendyx]

Have fun, and be careful yourself Scott! It's great to see that our cars with almost 300k on them can still perform so well. I'm interested in this MAF issue too. Is it possible that the 73mm was simply a little dirty?

 

[Tommy's SHO]

Drive safely and have fun on your vacation. thumb

 

[shojuan]

Have fun windsurfing!! thumb

 

[luigisho]

One for when you get back.

Did you reset the pcm when you did the MAF swap?

Enjoy yourselves!

 

[KentuckySHOoff]

so much for me getting the c&l maf.

 

[Marccus]

For what it's worth ...

My background is somewhat involved in instrumentation as I have worked as a chemical/process engineer in the refining and petrochemical industry for over 20 years.

Mass flow meters based on the same principle as heat loss from a small element in the gas flow are used extensively in the process industry.

The 73 mm C&L mass flow meter is a HUGE increase in flow capacity over the stock mass flow meter.

The problem with installing an oversized meter in a flow line that is designed to handle pretty much the same flow as the stock engine (unless you are talking about going to stage IV sho shop engines - supercharged, 3.2 liter SHO putting out 500 wheel horsepower) is the turndown accuracy.

If you don't have the specs on the instrument you may have LOWER accuracy with the C&L meter at the same flow point of the stock meter.

That means the EEC IV system is not getting the correct fuel/air ratio and that ratio may vary over different times at the same air flow rate.

Thus the computer may be getting a varying signal at "normal" or slightly above "normal" SHO horsepowers.

Then you have the issue of the repetability of the instrument and the precision of the measuring element.

Without the data on the C&L meter, you have no idea how well it is designed.

This is one of the problems with using "overdesigned" upgrades from stock - your good intentions to beef things up are for not.

Knowing Ford from their SVT (now Chrysler, etc. are implementing these special design teams), they design components to work together synergistically.

Their special editions of the Ford Mustang and Lightning Truck have shown this to be true.

The Mustang has wiped out the competition - Trans Am, Camaro, etc., and, you have to admit, is the most successful "muscle" car that has withstood the test of time.

Some people know how to work the upgrade path. When McLaren, Steeda and others get through with a Ford Mustang, you can bet the farm that they know the component upgrades inside and out and know what will work.

But we all don't have a multimillion dollar R&D budget, so trial and error is cheaper (!) and gives you pretty much the same result i.e. - what works and doesn't.

And that brings me to a final comment ...

Kudos to sdpatt, because his trial and error method with experimental results pretty much told you not to upgrade the mass flow meter (!), unless you are attempting to go to BIG horsepowers where the HUGE increase in air flow capacity MAY be in the accurate range of the C&L meter - still need those specs!

My two cents anyways.

 

[shojuan]

The C&L meter reuses the stock MAF electronics. Seems like a big reason to not go with one right there. Like you're suggesting, stock electronics were designed to work with stock MAF. Good as the C&L might look as far as the physical housing goes it doesn't have electronics that were designed to be used with it.

 

[Groo]

The 80mm Pro M Maf is dyno and track proven.

 

[shojuan]

Groo:
The 80mm Pro M Maf is dyno and track proven.

thumb The 80mm Pro M is definately the best MAF out there for our cars. Everybody who has one has noticed a big difference even before they got to the dynos.

 

[Yamaha V6]

One question Scott:

Was the C&L dyno run done the same day as the stock 55mm housing? If not, remember you've done service to your SHO in the meantime (bearings, etc.), and also could be the difference due to humidity, etc.

Just trying to clarify, thanks.

 

[Dave Kegel]

The 73mm MAF has been known to be junk for years now, regardless of the sample tube you use. I've refrained from saying it on this forum, believe it or not, because I knew SDPATT had one and he's well respected here. I ALMOST said something last week because I saw someone was looking to buy one. Hopefully they'll think twice now. Scott is not the first person to find out their car actually makes less power with one.

By far the best bang for the buck right now is the 75mm Pro-M MAF for $165. Guaranteed to make more power, several have dyno results to prove it.

Dave Kegel

 

[DHMag]

Yamaha V6:
One question Scott:

Was the C&L dyno run done the same day as the stock 55mm housing? If not, remember you've done service to your SHO in the meantime (bearings, etc.), and also could be the difference due to humidity, etc.

Just trying to clarify, thanks.

as a witness, Yes, boths pulls were on the same day. within 10 minutes of each other to be exact. first pull was with the C&L, switched MAFs out, ran 2nd pull, sat for 5 minutes, then 3rd pull.

 

[Yamaha V6]

Ok, thank you, now next question: was the computer wiped between runs?

 

[DHMag]

Yamaha V6:
Ok, thank you, now next question: was the computer wiped between runs?

honestly, i dont recall. after the first pull and before the second pull, i had left the building momentarily.

 

[GreenBird]

Marccus' and shojuan's first post are the only posts in this thread that show any knowledge of facts.

Marccus is right, but his explaination isn't the reason the the c&L MAF being worse. shojuan's first post is dead on. C&L meters are basically just stock MAFs "gutted". C&L gives no flowchart, while Pro-M and Ford do. For this reason Ford and Pro-M are MUCH easier to tune.

If you want an 80mm MAF, get an 02GT unit, it supports upto ~300bhp, and has a known transfer function (unlike c&L units)

www.fordchip.com can sell you a MAF and a chip (or LPM, whatever you guys want to call it ).

 

[Markus]

A question for those of you who have upgraded your MAF: how old was the factory MAF when you replaced it with your aftermarket MAF? I ask this because my factory MAF was 7 years old when I replaced it (with a new factory MAF). I had a noticable increase in power and in the ever subjective drivability. It stands to reason, therefore, that the power gained with your new aftermarket MAF may just as easily have be gained from a new factory MAF. I really think that the only way to accurately determine the gains of an aftermarket MAF is to do a side-by-side comparison of it with a new factory MAF.

Any thoughts?

<small>[ June 02, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Markus ]</small>

 

[Markus]

Bump

 

[SHOYourYama]

Have a great time sdpatt!

Ok, say sdpatt was correct in his findings. As an owner of the C&L unit, saying I could feel a harder pull from 5-7k rpms might very well be irrelevant (or in my head). More proof and farther analisis and testing must be done( or sdpatt to clearify his findings once he returns). Lawsuites? C&L made some hefty claims on their unit. C & L SHO Dyno That link is even showing the the 19lb samplertube data.

Instead of buying something else, what can Ted B program for the C&L? and dyno charts?

headbang I hate throwing around money, this car shure attracts moneyloss! headbang

<small>[ June 03, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: SHOYourYama ]</small>

 

[Yamaha V6]

Now, I'm an advocate of the C&L MAF, and I'll say this:

On the 89 SHO, the MAF made a noticeable difference - to the tune of 5hp. I took the same airbox cover, MAF, & electronics & dropped it onto my 95 ATX, and it ran like crap, caused the car to stall, etc.

Took the Superchip out, the 73mm MAF off, ran stock w/ K&N Panel (with heavier 96 brakes too), and pulled a 177hp on the dyno this spring. So comparing to their "SHO" vs. "19 lb" sample tube graphs, and their claim of 11hp with a K&N, and golly gee, their MAF cost me ponies.

I've told this to people left & right: You MUST TRY THIS ON YOUR OWN CAR, YOU MUST TUNE ON THE DYNO w/ AIR/FUEL, AND YOU MUST TUNE PRODUCTS TO YOUR CAR. What has worked for one guy with a 95 MTX (LPM & 80mm MAF, X2J computer) DIDN'T work for another guy with the SAME setup (other guy ran lean & had to have his chip adjusted for his car).

Oh, and all of you Pro-M 80mm guys, I agree - on certain cars, it produces great gains. On my 91, coupled with a PP Y-Pipe, I gained TWO HP on the dyno.

More applicable here than most other places:

"YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY". thumb

Oh, and Greenbird, I'm so glad you know everything there is to know about this stuff. How about EdJuKatin' the rest of us 1st graders about stuff we've already worked with for years? Oh wait, let me guess, you got one of those eBay transistors inline on your air charge temp senders for "Maximum Power".

Give us a break & lose the condescending attitude. It's been oozing out of your fingertips on way too many threads lately.