|
judeisnotobscure
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2011, 08:54:47 PM »
|
|
|
What setup will you be testing this on? I'm pretty sure i've seen you in the b5 s4 section on AZ. supports over 1000hp + software for to give you a maf curve for <$300 now i'm holding my breath until you post results. This looks like a very doable solution for big power applications. i can put this in when i do frankenturbos, and if i ever want to go big,i can with the same maf setup. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have a b5 s4
but i just want to dance.
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2011, 08:22:57 AM »
|
|
|
This will be going onto Tial 770 setup, 2.8 heads and ferrea valvetrain which I plan to allow to rev to 8.5k or so. I reviewed HPX flow sheet and it looks damn amazing. Here is their excel with flows for certain voltages for 3" maf (75-76mm): http://vmptuning.com/forum/attachment.php?s=ff442afa4165911c9ba34af2c769b586&attachmentid=55&d=1218290959Interestingly, it seems to have pretty good resolution down low. It is very similar at idle to my 85mm housing with OEM hitachi sensor. On the other hand, it hits almost 2700 l/h at maximum reading on 75mm maf which means it essentially measures almost 2x as more flow than 85mm housing with our OEM hitachi sensor can read... IF you were wondering why I didn't go with Pro-m MAf.... it is simple. They don't really offer universal MAF element that has consistent characteristics. They really cater to Ford OEM crowd and all their MAFs are custom calibrated to pretend to be OEM MAF. For what reason I don't understand but vague ads like "adds 9HP to your stock engine" seem to paint the picture. Every MAF of theirs comes with its own calibration sheet which means every one is different... but the worst part is they only measure it at 9 points and want $50 extra to measure it at 30points... WTF. I want repeatability and serviceability of MAF element so that when it breaks, I can just drop another sensor in and be done. HPX fits the bill here. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 09:19:58 AM by julex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2011, 01:05:35 PM »
|
|
|
Why not use just use the MAF on one of the turbos and double the transfer function values?
That's a bad idea, b/c no one turbo works with the same efficiency, that's for one - so one would pull more air than he other as it is almost impossible to set wastegates exactly the same. But the real problem is with plumbing in our cars. you'd have to redo the PCV system to not return blow-by gases to accordion/Y-pipe anymore as you'd be metering this air now if you had the MAF on one of the turbos. This assumes it was still on "sucking" side of plumbing. Re-doin the current set up with a MAF th can actually meter more air is the way to go as proven over and over. I think both your points are a non issue. Re the PCV - plenty of people breath to atmosphere and block off the return port so no problem there. No two turbos work with the same efficiency. Agreed. But what does that matter? You still have a single MAF as std so you have know way of knowing which turbo is working harder. Low load is taken care of by bank specific fuel trims and closed loop. WOT you are looking at your EGT and wideband, and tune round this. I haven't tried this yet, but I am going to. The advantage for me is getting rid of a lot of intake piping. RS4 Y pipes give power increases but are very pricey. Without a Y pipe at all, even bigger gains are to be had. Rick |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2011, 07:31:54 PM »
|
|
|
I just wanted to post an update.
I am currently running Pmas HPX maf sensor in a 3.5" maf housing connecting to 3.5" piping and ending with Amsoil dry cone filter. On the other end it connects to run of the mill RS4 accordion hose, fits perfectly.
I am about 90% done massaging the MAF table. This is about the hardest part of install as the ford crowd uses 9 or 30 point maf table and their ECUs/wideband O2s can figure things out in between but our cars need 512 points MAf table so that has to be interpolated. The MAF came with 30 point table and spreadsheet that allows scaling to different housing sizes.
Anyway, the end result is that that sensor can measure up to 3,600 l/h of air @ 5v (over 800whp worth of air), yes that's over 2,000 more than hitachi sensor can accomplish in 90mm housing while the idle is exactly as good as it was on hitachi sensor in 85mm housing I used to have before.
I will post more details on the setup and perhaps share the map file once I finalize tuning.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
 Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2011, 06:15:14 AM »
|
|
|
I just wanted to post an update.
I am currently running Pmas HPX maf sensor in a 3.5" maf housing connecting to 3.5" piping and ending with Amsoil dry cone filter. On the other end it connects to run of the mill RS4 accordion hose, fits perfectly.
I am about 90% done massaging the MAF table. This is about the hardest part of install as the ford crowd uses 9 or 30 point maf table and their ECUs/wideband O2s can figure things out in between but our cars need 512 points MAf table so that has to be interpolated. The MAF came with 30 point table and spreadsheet that allows scaling to different housing sizes.
Anyway, the end result is that that sensor can measure up to 3,600 l/h of air @ 5v (over 800whp worth of air), yes that's over 2,000 more than hitachi sensor can accomplish in 90mm housing while the idle is exactly as good as it was on hitachi sensor in 85mm housing I used to have before.
I will post more details on the setup and perhaps share the map file once I finalize tuning.
Cheers.
That is the kind of thing I love to hear.... Amazing. It's stuff like this that actually makes me want to keep ME7 in my car (sometimes  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
judeisnotobscure
|
|
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2011, 08:14:00 AM »
|
|
|
Julex, any updates?
I'm still on the fence for my maf choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have a b5 s4
but i just want to dance.
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2011, 08:33:39 AM »
|
|
|
Julex, any updates?
I'm still on the fence for my maf choice.
It is in the car and works fine. I already tuned my Allroad to 2.95 fats with 22-20psi boost on K04s. RPM fats not MPH fats, my car is 10% heavier than S4 with about 10% shorter effective gearing so these two differences even each other out. It takes allroad with same HP about the same time to climb 4200-6500 but it will be physically moving slower at 6500 than S4 due to gearing. Deriving engine performance from fats runs to compare with s4 fats is possible due to this without conversion factors. Anyway, it is running without a single glitch so it is completely doable. Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2011, 01:48:58 PM »
|
|
|
IF you were wondering why I didn't go with Pro-m MAf.... it is simple. They don't really offer universal MAF element that has consistent characteristics. ... Every MAF of theirs comes with its own calibration sheet which means every one is different...
I want repeatability and serviceability of MAF element so that when it breaks, I can just drop another sensor in and be done.
Where did you read that all of the ProM MAF's are different from each other? Or was that just inferred logic? I don't think I saw that addressed at all anywhere else when I was looking into the ProM, so I was just curious how sure you are that that would be an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2011, 02:23:22 PM »
|
|
|
IF you were wondering why I didn't go with Pro-m MAf.... it is simple. They don't really offer universal MAF element that has consistent characteristics. ... Every MAF of theirs comes with its own calibration sheet which means every one is different...
I want repeatability and serviceability of MAF element so that when it breaks, I can just drop another sensor in and be done.
Where did you read that all of the ProM MAF's are different from each other? Or was that just inferred logic? I don't think I saw that addressed at all anywhere else when I was looking into the ProM, so I was just curious how sure you are that that would be an issue. I've seen couple calibration sheets floating on the net and all had different values for their voltages for certain flow values. We are talking the same exact model of MAF. They manually measure that and fill out calibration sheet... This is also the reason why they give you only 9 point sheet by default which is almost useless and want $50 or something like that for 30 point table... This is also the reason why EPL is only installing this MAF themselves so that they can properly scale maf curve for it. When I chose HPX MAF, one of my criteria was serviceability of component which standard HPX maf sensor provides but Pro-m doesn't. Should maf die, I would like to just drop new one in instead of running around with car and adjusting fueling again since replacement sensor was behaving differently. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 02:25:22 PM by julex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2011, 02:34:44 PM »
|
|
|
I've seen couple calibration sheets floating on the net and all had different values for their voltages for certain flow values. We are talking the same exact model of MAF.
Cool, this is what I was wondering, the pudding. It's a done deal then. I'm ordering alot of stuff this weekend! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nosbeui
Newbie
Karma: +16/-2
Offline
Posts: 19
|
|
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2011, 06:33:34 PM »
|
|
|
I just picked up a HPX MAF. How did you wire it up?
According to the Wiki the stock harness has:
+5V
+12V (ign/bat)
ground
signal
I was doing some reading and apparently Ford sensors don't use 5v input? Is this right?
I wired mine like this:
1 - IAT (left unhooked)
2 - IAT (left unhooked)
3 - Sensor signal
4 - Sensor signal ground
5 - Chassis common ground (grounded to the motor)
6 - +12v
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 06:43:29 PM by Nosbeui »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2013, 01:49:30 PM »
|
|
|
hpx to hitachi harness:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2013, 01:02:24 PM »
|
|
|
Do these work ok?   Besides thanks for revealing the part#, what's are you exactly meaning by what you said? Is that a failed maf? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
terok
Full Member
Karma: +8/-3
Offline
Posts: 134
|
|
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2013, 01:01:36 AM »
|
|
|
I meant what i asked, do these really work?
Pictures are by someone who opened a brand new sensor.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
