[dsblk93gt]

I was just trying to help him out with what I've seen works, again, I never claimed to know it all. If there is a better way by all means try that, but I kinda feel like I'm getting bashed slightly for trying to help a guy get his car at least running.

Nobody's bashing you personally, at least I don't think they are. But they are bashing your method. The method you are describing is an outdated method of tuning and hinges off the same methods used to get an engine running without a tune...which truly is lying to the EEC about what the actual running conditions of the engine are in an effort to coerce it to do something desirable. I will admit it may be a faster method of tuning to start with because things are likely to run better right off the bat. Ultimately as long as the right amount of fuel and spark advance is applied at the right RPM/Loads, it doesn't really matter how you tune the computer. But it makes things terribly more confusing when others review the tune and datalogs later and find a datalogged Load of 75% is actually 10PSI of boost or some such. Thus why keeping the stock settings for MAF and Injector Slope/BP/Offset is still lying to the EEC about what the actual conditions of the engine.

The other guys here are just trying to show that if you want the EEC to be more informed of the true condition of the engine, then you need the EEC to be aware of actual MAF, Injector characteristics so that when you datalog, you datalog boosted conditions as loads above 100% and thus you can adjust spark accordingly. As well, having the datalog filled with actual running conditions makes it easier to diagnose problems as well as makes it easier for others to review the logs and tune to help.

But it's up to the tuner how he/she wants to tune their engine. The only wrong ways to tune are the ways that don't work and blow the engine up! But of the ways that get the engine running right, there are some methods that are more correct than others to make the datalogs come out with lucid info that describes the true running conditions of the engine. If you ONLY care about the engine, then whatever works, works and nobody will know the difference. But if you want to share your logs with others so others can help you with problems, the datalog needs to make sense and 75% Load for a 10PSI condition is not lucid info and will cause as much confusion as it gives insight.

For your enthusiasm to help though is admirable and one I hope isn't stifled by the differences of opinion in this matter. Stick around. We hope to learn from others just as much as others learn from us...or at least I do.

I agree that is is backwards and thats why I don't ever use an aftermarket meter calibrated for an injector size. I always use a OEM Ford meter. The loadds are always all screwed up, I had tons of issues with my 93 LX when my friend owned it still. I tuned it with the PMS vs 4 and he has a Pro M 75mm MAF and 42lbers. It ran awesome at WOT and idled great but at part throttle the car was a nightmare to get to run correct. Then of course since any changes to part throttle you make with the PMS just get learned by the stock ECU it was pointless.

I was trying to help him get it running correct with what he had to work with and totally understand it is hard to tune a car with a meter like that.

If he had a 90mm LMAF for example he would have been fine doing it the way he was in the 1st place. But with a aftermarket meter that is made to fool the stock ecu into there is no way it will run right since the voltage output has been scaled down so much.

I appreciate the response and I'm always up for learning more, I'm not trying to steer anyone in the wrong direction at all.

[bender460]

I was just trying to help him out with what I've seen works, again, I never claimed to know it all. If there is a better way by all means try that, but I kinda feel like I'm getting bashed slightly for trying to help a guy get his car at least running.

Nobody's bashing you personally, at least I don't think they are. But they are bashing your method. The method you are describing is an outdated method of tuning and hinges off the same methods used to get an engine running without a tune...which truly is lying to the EEC about what the actual running conditions of the engine are in an effort to coerce it to do something desirable. I will admit it may be a faster method of tuning to start with because things are likely to run better right off the bat. Ultimately as long as the right amount of fuel and spark advance is applied at the right RPM/Loads, it doesn't really matter how you tune the computer. But it makes things terribly more confusing when others review the tune and datalogs later and find a datalogged Load of 75% is actually 10PSI of boost or some such. Thus why keeping the stock settings for MAF and Injector Slope/BP/Offset is still lying to the EEC about what the actual conditions of the engine.

The other guys here are just trying to show that if you want the EEC to be more informed of the true condition of the engine, then you need the EEC to be aware of actual MAF, Injector characteristics so that when you datalog, you datalog boosted conditions as loads above 100% and thus you can adjust spark accordingly. As well, having the datalog filled with actual running conditions makes it easier to diagnose problems as well as makes it easier for others to review the logs and tune to help.

But it's up to the tuner how he/she wants to tune their engine. The only wrong ways to tune are the ways that don't work and blow the engine up! But of the ways that get the engine running right, there are some methods that are more correct than others to make the datalogs come out with lucid info that describes the true running conditions of the engine. If you ONLY care about the engine, then whatever works, works and nobody will know the difference. But if you want to share your logs with others so others can help you with problems, the datalog needs to make sense and 75% Load for a 10PSI condition is not lucid info and will cause as much confusion as it gives insight.

For your enthusiasm to help though is admirable and one I hope isn't stifled by the differences of opinion in this matter. Stick around. We hope to learn from others just as much as others learn from us...or at least I do.

I agree that is is backwards and thats why I don't ever use an aftermarket meter calibrated for an injector size. I always use a OEM Ford meter. The loadds are always all screwed up, I had tons of issues with my 93 LX when my friend owned it still. I tuned it with the PMS vs 4 and he has a Pro M 75mm MAF and 42lbers. It ran awesome at WOT and idled great but at part throttle the car was a nightmare to get to run correct. Then of course since any changes to part throttle you make with the PMS just get learned by the stock ECU it was pointless.

I was trying to help him get it running correct with what he had to work with and totally understand it is hard to tune a car with a meter like that.

If he had a 90mm LMAF for example he would have been fine doing it the way he was in the 1st place. But with a aftermarket meter that is made to fool the stock ecu into there is no way it will run right since the voltage output has been scaled down so much.

I appreciate the response and I'm always up for learning more, I'm not trying to steer anyone in the wrong direction at all.

Seriously?? So now your excuse for tuning that way is that it is a calibrated meter?? Now I am bashing you.

[dsblk93gt]

I was just trying to help him out with what I've seen works, again, I never claimed to know it all. If there is a better way by all means try that, but I kinda feel like I'm getting bashed slightly for trying to help a guy get his car at least running.

Nobody's bashing you personally, at least I don't think they are. But they are bashing your method. The method you are describing is an outdated method of tuning and hinges off the same methods used to get an engine running without a tune...which truly is lying to the EEC about what the actual running conditions of the engine are in an effort to coerce it to do something desirable. I will admit it may be a faster method of tuning to start with because things are likely to run better right off the bat. Ultimately as long as the right amount of fuel and spark advance is applied at the right RPM/Loads, it doesn't really matter how you tune the computer. But it makes things terribly more confusing when others review the tune and datalogs later and find a datalogged Load of 75% is actually 10PSI of boost or some such. Thus why keeping the stock settings for MAF and Injector Slope/BP/Offset is still lying to the EEC about what the actual conditions of the engine.

The other guys here are just trying to show that if you want the EEC to be more informed of the true condition of the engine, then you need the EEC to be aware of actual MAF, Injector characteristics so that when you datalog, you datalog boosted conditions as loads above 100% and thus you can adjust spark accordingly. As well, having the datalog filled with actual running conditions makes it easier to diagnose problems as well as makes it easier for others to review the logs and tune to help.

But it's up to the tuner how he/she wants to tune their engine. The only wrong ways to tune are the ways that don't work and blow the engine up! But of the ways that get the engine running right, there are some methods that are more correct than others to make the datalogs come out with lucid info that describes the true running conditions of the engine. If you ONLY care about the engine, then whatever works, works and nobody will know the difference. But if you want to share your logs with others so others can help you with problems, the datalog needs to make sense and 75% Load for a 10PSI condition is not lucid info and will cause as much confusion as it gives insight.

For your enthusiasm to help though is admirable and one I hope isn't stifled by the differences of opinion in this matter. Stick around. We hope to learn from others just as much as others learn from us...or at least I do.

I agree that is is backwards and thats why I don't ever use an aftermarket meter calibrated for an injector size. I always use a OEM Ford meter. The loadds are always all screwed up, I had tons of issues with my 93 LX when my friend owned it still. I tuned it with the PMS vs 4 and he has a Pro M 75mm MAF and 42lbers. It ran awesome at WOT and idled great but at part throttle the car was a nightmare to get to run correct. Then of course since any changes to part throttle you make with the PMS just get learned by the stock ECU it was pointless.

I was trying to help him get it running correct with what he had to work with and totally understand it is hard to tune a car with a meter like that.

If he had a 90mm LMAF for example he would have been fine doing it the way he was in the 1st place. But with a aftermarket meter that is made to fool the stock ecu into there is no way it will run right since the voltage output has been scaled down so much.

I appreciate the response and I'm always up for learning more, I'm not trying to steer anyone in the wrong direction at all.

Seriously?? So now your excuse for tuning that way is that it is a calibrated meter?? Now I am bashing you.

Go stick a calibrated maf on your car, say for 42lbers, and use all the setting for 42lb injectors, and see how it runs. I completely grasp the concept of aftermarket calibrated MAFs but you must not. There is NO way it is going to run like that!!! The airflow entering the engine is being rescaled by the MAF to trick the computer into changing the injector pulsewidth. Then the curve is changed by the ratio of the original injector to the new injector size. The methods I posted above reverse it so it should show correct load.

If he had a stock meter, SCT BA, etc. he could have just used the transfer function for that meter then 60lb injector settings, and had no issues. But he is using a backwards engineered calibrated MAF.

[turboffr]

In your tune I see that the barametric pressure sensor is not present??

I enabled that and it didn't make a difference. I believe it just commands which tables to use based on elevation (sealevel or altitude?)

Well, the plugs are fouled and I need to change the oil to get all the gas out of the engine. I'll try leaning the MAF some more to see if that will clear it up, but I've already tried 15% leaner and nothing changed.

[bender460]

Go stick a calibrated maf on your car, say for 42lbers, and use all the setting for 42lb injectors, and see how it runs. I completely grasp the concept of aftermarket calibrated MAFs but you must not. There is NO way it is going to run like that!!! The airflow entering the engine is being rescaled by the MAF to trick the computer into changing the injector pulsewidth. Then the curve is changed by the ratio of the original injector to the new injector size. The methods I posted above reverse it so it should show correct load.

If he had a stock meter, SCT BA, etc. he could have just used the transfer function for that meter then 60lb injector settings, and had no issues. But he is using a backwards engineered calibrated MAF.

You forget that OP and I can tune the eec. All that is necessary is to input the proper maf transfer curve. I will tell you the same thing as the original poster WE CAN TUNE the word calibrated is no longer used. Hell if I still owned my 03 cobra I could in fact put a stock 92 maf on it AND change the cobra's MAF transfer function to match the 92 maf and guess what would happen????? Really tell me what would happen??

[Cougar5.0]

I was just trying to help him out with what I've seen works, again, I never claimed to know it all. If there is a better way by all means try that, but I kinda feel like I'm getting bashed slightly for trying to help a guy get his car at least running.

Nobody's bashing you personally, at least I don't think they are. But they are bashing your method. The method you are describing is an outdated method of tuning and hinges off the same methods used to get an engine running without a tune...which truly is lying to the EEC about what the actual running conditions of the engine are in an effort to coerce it to do something desirable. I will admit it may be a faster method of tuning to start with because things are likely to run better right off the bat. Ultimately as long as the right amount of fuel and spark advance is applied at the right RPM/Loads, it doesn't really matter how you tune the computer. But it makes things terribly more confusing when others review the tune and datalogs later and find a datalogged Load of 75% is actually 10PSI of boost or some such. Thus why keeping the stock settings for MAF and Injector Slope/BP/Offset is still lying to the EEC about what the actual conditions of the engine.

The other guys here are just trying to show that if you want the EEC to be more informed of the true condition of the engine, then you need the EEC to be aware of actual MAF, Injector characteristics so that when you datalog, you datalog boosted conditions as loads above 100% and thus you can adjust spark accordingly. As well, having the datalog filled with actual running conditions makes it easier to diagnose problems as well as makes it easier for others to review the logs and tune to help.

But it's up to the tuner how he/she wants to tune their engine. The only wrong ways to tune are the ways that don't work and blow the engine up! But of the ways that get the engine running right, there are some methods that are more correct than others to make the datalogs come out with lucid info that describes the true running conditions of the engine. If you ONLY care about the engine, then whatever works, works and nobody will know the difference. But if you want to share your logs with others so others can help you with problems, the datalog needs to make sense and 75% Load for a 10PSI condition is not lucid info and will cause as much confusion as it gives insight.

For your enthusiasm to help though is admirable and one I hope isn't stifled by the differences of opinion in this matter. Stick around. We hope to learn from others just as much as others learn from us...or at least I do.

Thanks Chris - you said it well.

Since the O/P was none-the-wiser, I though that he should know that there is a more mainstream method of tuning that doesn't involve tricking the computer and making it difficult for others to help him. Of course "whatever works" is a fine philosophy, but several of us felt obligated to chime in and say "yes, but there is a correct way". Tuning the way Ford intended really is the correct way - even if other approaches can achieve similar results.

dsblk93gt - if you posted on the Corral then we've probably talked in the past as I have a KB and have posted there for years. Nobody is bashing you, it's your methods that are considered outdated at this point in time. If you had been here for the past several years you'd understand that it's not personal. Some of us are just tuning addicts. Aftermarket meters are fine BTW - they have improved tremendously and if the tuner has a decent intake tubing setup, will work as good as OEM Ford. All aftermarket meters put out a lower voltage for a given airflow - so long as you have the appropriate transfer function & set the slopes and offsets appropriately, you are good to go. I tune with the dreaded C&L MAF (as do several others here), with thier new Tuner Tube, the signal is quite clean and accurate. Mine runs as smooth as stock with the S/C, 42's & aftermarket cam. Have a beer and relax - nobody is judging you - we're all here to try to help the tuner get the best results. It's difficult enough to solve other people's tuning issues without adding the stock/stock/displacement tuning scheme into the mix.

[turboffr]

Guys - I appreciate all the feedback. This isn't my first power adder car and I've tuned a few with a PMS. I figured I would give this combo a shot with the TwEECer with the expectation I could fine tune it a bit more than a PMS. I know the learning curve is steep and I'm trying to absorb as much as possibe. Actually, I had a Vortech on this same car w/ 42's and PMS, 12psi and made 537rwhp.

What I still don't understand is that when I load the MAF curve that came with the meter and change the inj slope values and offsets to match the injectors, the car just won't run. If the computer sees the 60's and knows the curve, is it that the curve is that far off. I gotta think there are plenty of folks out there using the TwEECer with an aftermarket meter. Am I the only one that has had this issue? Does anyone have a proven tune with 60's and Pro-M blow thru that I can test out?

[Cougar5.0]

Tell us about your intake plumbing...

Is it blow through?
You are using the ProM MAF tube that is specifically for blow-through - correct?
Are there any bends in the tubing directly before and after the MAF?

Perhaps the MAF is effed or it's not really calibrated for 60's. Maybe it's oil fouled. Did you buy it new? The TwEECer will ultimately give you beter control as I"ve heard others complain that the PMS didn't give good enough control with PD blowers like mine - turbo is more like a PD than a centrifugal. I've read several accounts of good tuners having issues with turbos, so you will have to be patient I think.

[turboffr]

I figured the turbo would be a bit challenging to tune but I never thought I would have this much trouble just getting it to run.

The meter is a brand new 3" blow thru from Pro-M. After the intercooler there is a 45 degree bend and then 8-10" of straight pipe before the meter. after the meter it's straight and then a slight s to the TB. I talked to Pro-M and they said my piping shouldn't impact the meter readings. They also said the clocking wouldn't matter. here's a picture

[bender460]

15.999 3188.583
5.000 3188.583
4.800 2857.051
4.600 2550.613
4.400 2267.746
4.200 2008.199
4.100 1886.536
3.900 1658.925
3.700 1451.591
3.500 1263.013
3.300 1092.939
3.200 1013.858
3.000 868.369
2.800 738.595
2.600 622.762
2.500 569.788
2.300 474.232
2.100 390.082
1.900 317.338
1.700 254.478
1.600 226.597
1.400 177.425
1.200 136.617
1.000 102.653
.800 75.025
.700 63.620
.500 44.356
.300 29.402
.100 18.503
.000 13.941


This is a 60lb MAF curve out of EA. Give it a shot see what happens. Thats an awsome car by the way.

[BobCat]

I don't run a boosted combo so maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. IMO I would really rethink this way of tuning. Just seems totally wrong to me.

It's nothing to do with boosted or na, it's the calibrated meter that causes the issues he is having to start with. Both the methods for dealing with the aftermarket meters is what I learned via my CMR and SCT Advantage manuals. He should be able to dial it in once the maf is setup correctly and he uses the EA to fine tune everything. I am just trying to help him get started, I'm sure there are more people in here that can help him out with using the EA to dial it in since I have no personal experience with it.he

It's not a huge deal with an NA car with the load calcs not being accurate but with a boosted car it's alot more important.

Maybe someone else has a better idea of how it should be set up as far as the calibrated maf....?

I applaud your effort but the manuals you are referencing were published back in 03/04 and ALOT has changed since then. Not only that but when tuning with SCT and Diablo on the older EEC-IV stuff thre is no way to datalog so the method you described above was about as technical as you could get.

I highly recommend entering all of the data correctly IE inj values, displacement, MAF transfer ect and tuning from there.

If you need further assistance give me a shout and I'll be glad to help get you started.

Bob
573 747-6523

[Cougar5.0]

I figured the turbo would be a bit challenging to tune but I never thought I would have this much trouble just getting it to run.

The meter is a brand new 3" blow thru from Pro-M. After the intercooler there is a 45 degree bend and then 8-10" of straight pipe before the meter. after the meter it's straight and then a slight s to the TB. I talked to Pro-M and they said my piping shouldn't impact the meter readings. They also said the clocking wouldn't matter. here's a picture

That setup looks sweet - you really shouldn't be having these issues. Let me think about this some more. Have you verified the MAF signal at idle to see if it's in a "normal" range? Can you post a log? (sorry if you have, this thread has gotten confusing). You could have a bad ground or something stupid like that.

[turboffr]

15.999 3188.583
5.000 3188.583
4.800 2857.051
4.600 2550.613
4.400 2267.746
4.200 2008.199
4.100 1886.536
3.900 1658.925
3.700 1451.591
3.500 1263.013
3.300 1092.939
3.200 1013.858
3.000 868.369
2.800 738.595
2.600 622.762
2.500 569.788
2.300 474.232
2.100 390.082
1.900 317.338
1.700 254.478
1.600 226.597
1.400 177.425
1.200 136.617
1.000 102.653
.800 75.025
.700 63.620
.500 44.356
.300 29.402
.100 18.503
.000 13.941


This is a 60lb MAF curve out of EA. Give it a shot see what happens. Thats an awsome car by the way.

That's Very close to the curve I came up with using EA. This is what's in the car now. anything look out of place?

15.9998 2984.861
4.99 2984.861
4.8501 2984.861
4.6499 2672.466
4.45 2374.328
4.25 2094.25
4.05 1834.449
3.8501 1596.826
3.6499 1382.015
3.45 1189.699
3.25 1019.244
3.05 869.383
2.8501 738.849
2.6499 625.107
2.45 526.256
2.25 440.394
2.05 364.989
1.8501 298.771
1.6499 240.158
1.45 187.564
1.25 140.99
1.05 100.118
0.8501 66.534
0.6499 42.138
0.45 29.465
0.3 25.03
0.1001 18.376
0.0999 10.455
0 10.455
0 10.455

[tremec77]

First: I want to say to the OP you my friend have a VERY nice car!! It is possible that the MAF curve could be off a great deal and that woul explain the issues. Personally I would forget the MAF curve for now (if you can actually get it to run) and concentrate on the injector settings by running several logs through EA. Once you get those set, then move to the MAF and do the same thing. But to answer your question, yes your MAF could be off enough even with leaning it out 15%. I have seen this before on a few cars.



Now to dsblack93gt I personally wasn't bashing you in any way and if I came across that way then sorry. We are all here for one reason and that is a love for tuning. We all share and learn. I personally don't have as much to offer as some of the others on here but I always try to help when I can.

[Cougar5.0]

That's Very close to the curve I came up with using EA. This is what's in the car now. anything look out of place?

15.9998 2984.861
4.99 2984.861
4.8501 2984.861
4.6499 2672.466
4.45 2374.328
4.25 2094.25
4.05 1834.449
3.8501 1596.826
3.6499 1382.015
3.45 1189.699
3.25 1019.244
3.05 869.383
2.8501 738.849
2.6499 625.107
2.45 526.256
2.25 440.394
2.05 364.989
1.8501 298.771
1.6499 240.158
1.45 187.564
1.25 140.99
1.05 100.118
0.8501 66.534
0.6499 42.138
0.45 29.465
0.3 25.03
0.1001 18.376
0.0999 10.455
0 10.455
0 10.455

Looking at your tune in BE, below is what I see for your MAF curve. Even though you have VMAMIN set to 0.2 volts, you can't get below 0.3 unless what you posted earlier is old as you have 25 kg/hr for "0" volts!!!

Also, 0.2 volts may not be low enough for VMAMIN.

15.9998 2984.861
4.9900 2984.861
4.8501 2984.861
4.6499 2672.466
4.4500 2374.328
4.2500 2094.250
4.0500 1834.449
3.8501 1596.826
3.6499 1382.015
3.4500 1189.699
3.2500 1019.244
3.0500 869.383
2.8501 738.849
2.6499 625.107
2.4500 526.256
2.2500 440.394
2.0500 364.989
1.8501 298.771
1.6499 240.158
1.4500 187.564
1.2500 140.990
1.0500 100.118
0.8501 66.534
0.6499 42.138
0.4500 29.465
0.3000 25.030
0.0000 25.030

[BobCat]

From the 30 or so sets of 60's that I've used the commonly available injector settings for the 60lb inj are usually within 2-3%. There is either a wiring/hardware/mechanical issue or the MAF transfer is WAY off. I've seen those meters be off by over 100%.......

[turboffr]

I figured the turbo would be a bit challenging to tune but I never thought I would have this much trouble just getting it to run.

The meter is a brand new 3" blow thru from Pro-M. After the intercooler there is a 45 degree bend and then 8-10" of straight pipe before the meter. after the meter it's straight and then a slight s to the TB. I talked to Pro-M and they said my piping shouldn't impact the meter readings. They also said the clocking wouldn't matter. here's a picture

That setup looks sweet - you really shouldn't be having these issues. Let me think about this some more. Have you verified the MAF signal at idle to see if it's in a "normal" range? Can you post a log? (sorry if you have, this thread has gotten confusing). You could have a bad ground or something stupid like that.

What is the "normal" voltage I should be seeing? looking at it seem low to me, but check it out. I attached a log of it idling when using the A9L tune and ProM MAF curve.

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=21cf ... f6e8ebb871

[turboffr]

From the 30 or so sets of 60's that I've used the commonly available injector settings for the 60lb inj are usually within 2-3%. There is either a wiring/hardware/mechanical issue or the MAF transfer is WAY off. I've seen those meters be off by over 100%.......

Thanks Bob. I'll check the wiring to the meter for starters. I will say after taking the blower off and before putting on the turbo I drove around with 30's and a new Pro-M bullet and it ran fine so the wiring should be good, but you never know.

[Cougar5.0]

Dude! Read my above post - your MAF is bottoming out at 25 kg/hr!

You need to enter the MAF as you posted it as you are 25 kg/hr from 0.3V to 0V!!

Problem found! Your log confirms that the MAF is input incorrectly.

Just plot your data and marvel at how the MAF just hits a wall at 25 kg/hr.

Oh, and lower VMAMIN - 0.2V is going to be too high and will cause problems.

[bender460]

Is that log forced open loop?

[bender460]

15.999 3188.583
5.000 3188.583
4.800 2857.051
4.600 2550.613
4.400 2267.746
4.200 2008.199
4.100 1886.536
3.900 1658.925
3.700 1451.591
3.500 1263.013
3.300 1092.939
3.200 1013.858
3.000 868.369
2.800 738.595
2.600 622.762
2.500 569.788
2.300 474.232
2.100 390.082
1.900 317.338
1.700 254.478
1.600 226.597
1.400 177.425
1.200 136.617
1.000 102.653
.800 75.025
.700 63.620
.500 44.356
.300 29.402
.100 18.503
.000 13.941


This is a 60lb MAF curve out of EA. Give it a shot see what happens. Thats an awsome car by the way.

That's Very close to the curve I came up with using EA. This is what's in the car now. anything look out of place?

15.9998 2984.861
4.99 2984.861
4.8501 2984.861
4.6499 2672.466
4.45 2374.328
4.25 2094.25
4.05 1834.449
3.8501 1596.826
3.6499 1382.015
3.45 1189.699
3.25 1019.244
3.05 869.383
2.8501 738.849
2.6499 625.107
2.45 526.256
2.25 440.394
2.05 364.989
1.8501 298.771
1.6499 240.158
1.45 187.564
1.25 140.99
1.05 100.118
0.8501 66.534
0.6499 42.138
0.45 29.465
0.3 25.03
0.1001 18.376
0.0999 10.455
0 10.455
0 10.455

It looks out of place because your data log dosn't jive with that curve.

[BobCat]

Something is either wrong in the wiring or meter, .3v at idle and .5 at 3500 RPM signifies a problem.

Are you positive it is installed in the correct direction??

[dsblk93gt]

Thats a SICK car man!!! I can't imagine keeping it straight, lol. You have plenty of straight pipe before the meter, that was alot of my issues with the ProCharger and Pro M. It had a sharp *90 before the meter.

Looks like they found out your issue! The newer Pro M has a direct plug and no adapter like the PMAS right? I've heard of issues with the adapter harness on the PMAS.

[turboffr]

Thats a SICK car man!!! I can't imagine keeping it straight, lol. You have plenty of straight pipe before the meter, that was alot of my issues with the ProCharger and Pro M. It had a sharp *90 before the meter.

Looks like they found out your issue! The newer Pro M has a direct plug and no adapter like the PMAS right? I've heard of issues with the adapter harness on the PMAS.

It's definitely a handful. 500+ at the tire and 2300 lbs. Just kills the 315 drag radials w/ 3.55's. I may need to change them out to 3.08's with the turbo.

Yes the meter has a direct plug, no adapter harness like the PMAS. What's the issue you've heard of. What's a simple way to test the MAF signal wire to rule out a wiring issue?

[Cougar5.0]

I've heard of issues with the adapter harness on the PMAS.

Let me straighten this out before another rumor gets going on the internet...

Originally Posted by flyin_hawaiin
that doesnt happen with the adapter plugs that i sell.. they are all sealed up!

Reply by awdgst (PMAS)
We fixed that problem a while ago, and replaced any mafs that had problems...

You posted in that thread but must've missed the second to last post where the PMAS dude told Bob they had fixed the problem.

[bender460]

Something is either wrong in the wiring or meter, .3v at idle and .5 at 3500 RPM signifies a problem.

Are you positive it is installed in the correct direction??

If I am decifering your photo correctly it is backwards. Is the TB to the left in the photo? The meter should have an airflow arrow on it.

[dsblk93gt]

Something is either wrong in the wiring or meter, .3v at idle and .5 at 3500 RPM signifies a problem.

Are you positive it is installed in the correct direction??

If I am decifering your photo correctly it is backwards. Is the TB to the left in the photo? The meter should have an airflow arrow on it.

I just noticed that....the tb is to the left because thats the radiator to the right...here is the maf he has...



So going off that pic it looks like it is mounted backwards....the plug should be at the top not facing down..

[turboffr]

I must say I'm a bit embarassed at this, but I just checked the meter and it was backwards

I'll try the tune again

[BobCat]

[Cougar5.0]

Well, you got issues to fix - lol. I'd still fix the below 25 kg/hr limit as it's posible to have idle flows below that as well. I think the 0.2 limit might be OK though.

Everyone on the team give yourself a pat on the back.