Rough HP estimate from MAF reading?
Rough HP estimate from MAF reading?
Anyway you can guess at HP estimates (on a properly tuned car) from the amount of air entering the engine?
My AFGS is about 300gm/sec at 6300. No flames intended, just figured it may be possible to calculate.
My AFGS is about 300gm/sec at 6300. No flames intended, just figured it may be possible to calculate.
Wow I have issues if thats the case, lol. I assume we are talking about flywheel hp, since IMO it would be impossible to calculate RWHP from that.
Basically car is full exhuast, CAI, and a cam that is way to big for stock heads. Figure 330FWHP is much less than 300rwhp = cam subtracted hp, lol.
I wonder how much my MAF reads off thinking about it now. I descreened it, ported, polished etc and never changed the tables with tunerCat. That could be much of the problem, lol.
Basically car is full exhuast, CAI, and a cam that is way to big for stock heads. Figure 330FWHP is much less than 300rwhp = cam subtracted hp, lol.
I wonder how much my MAF reads off thinking about it now. I descreened it, ported, polished etc and never changed the tables with tunerCat. That could be much of the problem, lol.
They figure out RWHP by multiplying with 1.1.
It's just an observation/guess, not an exact calculation. (some people take their cars to dynos and notice that the AFGS*1.1 is really close to the RWHP value they get from the dyno)
It doesn't work on supercharged cars and cars that have a ported/aftermarket MAF, but it gives a fairly good estimate if the MAF is stock and the car is NA.
It's just an observation/guess, not an exact calculation. (some people take their cars to dynos and notice that the AFGS*1.1 is really close to the RWHP value they get from the dyno)
It doesn't work on supercharged cars and cars that have a ported/aftermarket MAF, but it gives a fairly good estimate if the MAF is stock and the car is NA.
Hey Jared,
If you ported your sensor, then yes, you should change your MAFS tables in TunerCat. It seems adding 10% (multiply by 1.1) seems to work pretty well. You can also verify it by checking your long term BLMs before/after changing them too.
Last time I checked my MAFS gps, I had ~280 at 5400 RPM. Stock heads, cam, MAFS, with a 4" CAI and 3" cutout.
If you ported your sensor, then yes, you should change your MAFS tables in TunerCat. It seems adding 10% (multiply by 1.1) seems to work pretty well. You can also verify it by checking your long term BLMs before/after changing them too.
Last time I checked my MAFS gps, I had ~280 at 5400 RPM. Stock heads, cam, MAFS, with a 4" CAI and 3" cutout.
I'm going to have to mess with that later on. As of now my BLMs are 140-150s because my fuel pump is giving a nice steady 20psi, lol.
Once the new pump goes in, i will start tuning it a little more. I still need to adjust the throttle stop screw and get some acceptable BLM and IAC counts. Sometimes my IAC will hit 0 at 1500 when trying to idle. I think it may be open a little too far
Then i will mess with the MAF sensor. Adding 10% to the MAF tables should richen things up, correct?
Once the new pump goes in, i will start tuning it a little more. I still need to adjust the throttle stop screw and get some acceptable BLM and IAC counts. Sometimes my IAC will hit 0 at 1500 when trying to idle. I think it may be open a little too far

Then i will mess with the MAF sensor. Adding 10% to the MAF tables should richen things up, correct?
Yep, increasing MAFS table values will richen, as it tells the PCM that their is more air per frequency, so it must add more fuel to compensate.
And yeah, sounds like you better solve your other problems first.
And yeah, sounds like you better solve your other problems first.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bignasty85
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
12
Mar 3, 2015 04:05 PM
z28projects4ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
9
Jul 16, 2002 07:48 PM



