I installed the Land Rover 82mm MAF housing and had the car dynoed before and after the install. Modified my SAFCII sensor settings to IN 1 and OUT 17.
The throttle response felt greatly improved throughout and there was a definite increase in the sound from the CAI.
I felt very excited driving to the dyno shop. That feeling disappeared after seeing the results.......

 

Interesting results. What other supporting mods do you have? Did you get the DRF's?

 

Just so everyone understands, the red is Pre-LRMAF and green is post LRMAF

 

two people have posted losses with the BBMAF and 1 has posted gains...WTF? was a tailpipe sniffer or a wideband in the y-pipe used?

 

What's interesting is that the two that posted slight losses were the ones that used the 82mm M62 housing. The one that posted a gain used a 76.2mm (3") housing.

 

nmex showed gains and he used an LRMAF. he didnt gain much the first time around, but then with the revised intake tract there was a difference.

 

I still dont see why there would be HP gain in the first place. is using a larger MAF similar to using big injectors and having alot of - a/f corrections? which makes the ECU select different values on the timing table and indirectly advance timing?

 

You'd basically only see gains if the original MAF was a restriction in the system. Unless they have a P/P motor or the MAF is unusually restrictive, I would be skeptical of any signifigant gains being made.

 

It makes HP strictly based on higher airflow through the bigger housing. The stock MAF housing is somewhat of a restriction for the VQ35.

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

His data proves that it can add HP based solely on airflow and not on altered ignition or cam timing.

Even before that thread though, it had been proven to make power by SR20DEN a few years back, but nobody paid any attention until recently.

 

I made an extra 10whp at redline (it might actually be MORE, my pre-MAF dyno was on 76*F weather, the post-MAF dyno was on 101*F weather). I used a 3" PVC pipe for mine (76.5mm).

I think that off the bat, people using the 82mm MAF loose power because 82mm= 3.23". Which basically sets up the normal 3" intake setup with a MAF that is slightly bigger (air slows down here then speeds up after the MAF once it goes into the midpipe).

Me on the other hand, with a 76.5mm (3") ID MAF, i keep a CONSTANT 3" ID from the airfilter, to the mouth of the TB.

That is my theory.

 

Apparently you didn't notice. I dyno higher in 3rd. Take that with 3 grains of 6MT swaps fro turbo95max.

 

so are you saying you didnt gain?

i dont get it


EDIT: another question, what gear did you dyno in?

 

Ahh i see, So with that said, its very likely that I will also notice some good gains from doing the home depot 3" maf, maybe not on a n/a 3.0 but a FI 3.0 this might be just as effective as the 3.5 if not more. I am doing this tomorrow, already cut up the maf. This will make the mixture leaner, correct? Im going to make less correction to make sure it dosnt go uber lean at 10psi

 

http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...11&postcount=4

 

I am doing the 3" pcv MAF on a N/A 3.0 but some of you knew this already...

 

I have a Place Racing CAI, LRMAF, complete Phenolic Spacer kit, Hotshot Headers, Cattman Fastcat, Cattman Catback and UDP. PM me your email address and I will send you the DRFs.

 

The shop used a tailpipe sniffer.

 

that means youre really running closer to 14:1 in a number of places

not you, i meant the OP.

 

The shop dynoed my car in 3rd.

 

I realize that but that post explains the 'gains' of my LRMAF. Also re: AFR, it would depend if the OP has a test pipe or not.

 

Hey NmexMAX, did you get my DRFs?

 

he has a cattman fastcat, but its still going to show more lean than the true afr, or at least what a wbO2 would show. youre right though, its gonna be closer than if he still had a cat there

 

Yes I sure did. Haven't looked at them just yet though. Your car is very strong though. Keep in mind, it IS a 4AT after all

I guess take it for what it may be worth. Better throttle response etc.

Sure makes sense since my old intake set-up has a lot of ID variances, which seem to result in a loss of whp.

Here's a comparison of the curves.







Also, read this as well. Explains the intakes differences.
http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...3&postcount=25

 

My Place Racing midpipe may have to be replaced with something that has a similar ID as the LRMAF.

 

Jose you might have to custom that then. 99% of intakes for us are 3" ID.

 

The bend in the PR CAI downpipe might be hurting his overall top-end power potential and/or the benefit of the larger housing.

 

suggestions on material for a 3'' ID tubing?

 

What about Samco/silicon hoses? Less heat transfer than metal and less ghetto and obtrusive than ABS PVC (yes, I tried it on my old Altima way back)....

I remember some different types of polycarbonate tubing w/3" ID some time back when doing my own research on alternative intake tubing options...


Jeremy

 

Ok, so what are you saying/proposing? Is this a coupler hose suggestion? If so, I don't think it will make much difference.


Aha, bulletproof MAF housing, once again what are you proposing? A MAF housing made of polycarbonate? I highly doubt that would have much to do with power delivery once again. Cost benefits of it vs Al/or LRMAF?

 

....actually, I was referring to it AS replacing the PR intake tubing....

http://www.flexpvc.com/cart/agora.cg...VC_Pipe_3_inch
Specs show it to have an ID of 2.9-3.0"....
Mass quantities aren't cheap but here's a clearance sale on a 4' section for $20....
http://www.flexpvc.com/cart/agora.cg...learance_Items

BTW, with a long enough piece (2' tops?), you could perhaps mount the sensor into the tubing...it's flexible to a degree yet fairly dense/rigid enough I would imagine, having used the smaller diameter tubing in the past


Just an example, that's all


Jeremy