Whelp i installed a MAF housing from a 03 range rover Saturday morning. And to be honest my "Butt dyno" Says that its slower. I have my S-afcII set at 1in 17out, and i left the screens in, and i haven't dyno-tuned yet. There almost feels as if its a flat spot in the upper rpms. My air/fuel guage [non-wideband] says im still rich. Has anyone else experienced this?

 

If you're richer than 14.7, than your non WB monitor will always say that(rich). Again, proving their uselessness(non wb monitors). Being leaner than that @ WOT seems like a bad idea anyhow though. That flat spot might be your SAFCII being and losing signal after 6k. Happens to mine more often than I would like. Is you MAF sensor doing ok, i.e. not on its way out?


Only thing I can think of is use different IN/OUT settings. And there's always the 'tune' manually using the SAFCII option.

 

did you notice any pinging to accompany said power loss?

 

Also, using those settings, the AFR shouldn't change if at all, vs the way it was before. That's what those settings are for. Like I've styated before, my idle AFR was lean, but after few points of +% correction, it was all better.

Why would there be pinging?

 

little lean with extra timing? it doesnt really matter why for no, just if it is...

 

In my timing logs, I haven't noticed a huge difference, (though they haven't been analyzed with any real depth) But just from glancing @ the part throttle and full load logs I have while driving, nothing extravagant (change) can really be seen. That and it's been brought to our attention lately by those that have experience with mucho timing advance, that these engines don't seem to be spark knock limited.

Now, with that said, I am anxious to do some timing logs and post the graphs up later today(OEM vs LRMAF housings)

This might help begin to settle, or start a debate whether or not the gains seen with this mod are from timing or added volume...or both. Or is it all in my head and this mod isn't as cool as we all thought it was/is.
Of course it matters, that's why were here in this forum discussing it.

 

http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=528554

 

I think it's volume because even before Matt told me what SAFCII settings to use, I was 'raw tuning' Brief description: Huge MAF housing + no correction curve (IN/OUT settings were for stock MAF/ECU) = Lean, and not by 95% of org standards, but by actual definition (17+). This led to a very rough running vehicle. After adding say about 27% or so, the car actually rode better/smoother and feels just like it does now. So...

 

not JUST spark, i meant a combo of advance and lean which even a non-spark limited engine could knock with.

i was meaning it doesnt matter unless he says it may have been knocking

 

Refer back to post # 6. Also, to add to that, I've had my AFR to 14:1 @ WOT, and still have not had any audible spark knock @ low 30º timing advance @ >6KRPM.

 

How bad of idle was it??? This is something I have been curious about, also is there another way to fix said idle other then a WB02??? I understand everything else but I really just don't want my car to idle like crap...

 

http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...2&postcount=64

Point: Add corr% until the idle smooths out.

 

Oh alright...thanks.

 

its not the WBO2 that smooths the idle, just the AFC you set.

 

What should i do about the screen. I tried the free search but didnt find anything

 

I left mine in.

 

Well i finally dynoed, and i guess my butt dyno was working just fine. It was hot as hell out today [100+ degrees] But here are the results.
Mods are:
Intake, hotshot headers, Greddy catback, hiflo cat + resonator, UDP, Phenbolic spacers from Nissan works.
I dynoed with the BBMAF first: 238.53whp/ 239.47wtq after tune.
Then i dynoed with the stock Maf: 241.85whp/ 241.54 after tune.

All runs were done back to back. I did a total of 5 pulls with the BBMAF, and 3 with the stock Maf. I'll post the dyno sheets in the morning.
My best dyno to date was 253whp/ 250wtq Last year.

 

I thought you made 256/251 last time. Does this mean you've lost that much even when using the stock MAF again? What else has changed?

http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...3&postcount=58

That's about what I made in my auto. I guess it works for some and not others.


**EDIT here are the images from the bottom link.











So, do you have the actual runfiles?

 

 

Well... i blew my motor right before christmas last year, so this is a newer motor with less mileage, and i added phenbolic spacers. Thats about it. Heres my other dyno chart. I do have the runfiles for this, but not for the most recent runs.

Only real difference i can see is its about 30 degrees cooler. The Temperature guage at the shop was reading 104 last i checked it.

 

Do you have pics of your set-up

 

Not currently, but this is what I dyno'd with when I had those #'s.

 

Ahh yes, Just what i thought. I think my mid-pipe between the MAF and the throttle body is causing the problem. It's only 3inch ID

 

ID or OD? i wouldnt think 3" ID would make much of a difference, but it probly doesnt help going from 82 to 76.2...then to 72.

 

I dyno'd similar #'s with this set-up, but this midpipe is 2.75" ID, so, I'm guessing that was not your problem.

Set-up #1

Cripes, what was I thinking.


Set-up #2








Key: S1=Set-up #1, S2=Set-up #2.

This is how the curves compared. Blue = S1 Red = S2


Current set-up.


Yet to be dyno'd.

 

Well, guess i got some experimenting to do

 

What did/do you have in mind?

 

but he has a 6mt, so his numbers being the same as yours means he is low while you are right or possibly even high. however, this "experimenting" sounds quite nice

 

I never mentioned anything about his numbers when I stated 'similar numbers'.

Point:
I dyno'd similar numbers to MY new numbers, i.e. there wasn't much difference in my numbers with the different intake set-ups.

 

I let a buddy of mine use the BBMAF and he had the same set up as your second set-up, and he notice a difference, So i'm going to try that!

 

so you meant similar to your own PB...i see *scratches chin*

 

Aside from the occasional filter clunking on the strut tower, it worked fine.

I never said that either. But, the curves speak for themselves.

 

haha, i just have mine zip tied over there so it doesnt clunk/annoy the crap outa me

 

If you take a really close look at that short set-up I have, you will see that the filter/MAF assembly are essentially connected to the TB by just an Si coupler. So, the end of the filter is an extension of the engine, i.e. if the engine moves, it moves, zip tied or not it’s going to move, no other choice.