I got my new Jesters MAF today! Looks good. 1 month until dyno time. Attachment 8755Attachment 8756Attachment 8757
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Printable View
I got my new Jesters MAF today! Looks good. 1 month until dyno time. Attachment 8755Attachment 8756Attachment 8757
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Waiting!!!!
me too. :)
Ok so if I have the Montero 482 should I make any tuning adjustments at all or should I just drop the new Jesters MAF in and dyno?!
It would be interesting to compare this modified stock MAF with the Z06/MAFT combo. I'm interested in one just to get the intake temp/baro reading working on my LCDBC again since the MAFT reports static values for those.
In theory, you shouldn't have to change anything at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawzy44
The new Jester Maf uses the stock settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg E
288.4 for maf size
64 for maf adder
However I do change the ve table as follows.
Attachment 8833
Looks like we will get this dynoed vs a Montero maf this weekend on John's car.
19thl on e85.
Remember the VE table goes with the tune done on a specific car. Anything that alters the intake post-MAF like hard intake pipes, turbos, ported plenum.... If these were tuned before the MAF swap, they shouldn't need to be changed after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesters Deadd
I could see a need for a tweak going from an EVO MAF to the new one simply because it's a 4x2.5" MAF vs a circular 3" but let's say you're going from a stock MAF to the new one, nothing should need to change at all. MAF scaling is the same as stock.
Yup!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesters Deadd
Be awesome to get some numbers for our cars.
Headed to the dyno today. Hopfully all goes well and I can post up results going from a 482 to the Jesters.
You seriously going to make us wait for an update, Shawzy?
Well with everything on this car, we'll have to wait longer. During my benchmark dyno run the car started to misfire at high rims in 3rd or 4th gear (can't remember). They made a few more runs and the problem got worse. They shut the car down and so I didn't get the dyno #'s for the new MAF. The car is back at my mechanic where I suspect he will tell me it skipped 1-2 teeth or something. He's working on the car this weekend.
More to come. In the meantime here is what I got thus far on the dyno with the 482 MAF.http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...f079d4e8a2.jpg
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have been hearing this "skipped teeth" a lot lately. Is this a new issue, or am I just out of the loop? I don't understand how so many are having the issue, other than qualifying an improper install as a skipped tooth.
We need more input on this new MAF, is anyone else running it?
I ran into fuel pump issues at my last dyno outing. So had to call it quits at a much lower boost level than I was even previously running.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unlogic
I have the last piece of what I need coming in this week, so I'll be redoing my fuel setup this weekend hopefully.
I have a Jester MAF on my bench, I need a solid number on my current Montero MAF, then will swap out for the Jester MAF to get a new run. That way we will have back to back runs on the same dyno, same day. Sorry for the delay. :(
-John
My car is back running well and now I am just waiting for dyno time. It's busy as race season has started up here. Hope to get on in early June.
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Jesters maf is on and dyno booked for June 24th.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawzy44
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well,
I am loosing faith in the team working on my car. The dyno run barely got started and the car was waaay lean. I am not certain but sounded like some damage. Car is not running and I am not happy. I think its time to find a new hobby.
some first tings to check when running lean
*check inlets between mas and turbos for leaks. If leak between there then you're pulling unmetered air
*check fuel pressure (hope you have a gauge!)
Any news regarding the Jester MAF?
Well yes and no. My car is waiting at the tuning shop and is currently scheduled for a dyno tune sometime on Weds.
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Here is the Dyno sheet. 407awhp, 403ft lbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawzy44
So this is a solid 48awhp gain from the 359awhp the car did with the 482 maf.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...5ddaa23397.jpg
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
At 17lbs the car did 379awhp with the 482 MAF so this is a solid 48awhp on my setup!
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What snails?
Sorry edited previous posts above... it was 48awhp gain not 28awhp. Using Boostmore 15g turbos with the standard wheel.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2fnloud
Shawzy44
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This gain with all other parts except maf being the same from run to run?
Gain seems a bit too much. From all I've read evo maf is not a limitation at those hp levels..
Interesting.Quote:
They're literally a combo of a stock 3/S MAF housing with EVO MAF internals. It's been tested to make well over 450hp so far but no one seems to have a car capable of making any more power than that. That's why we haven't really been advertising it. It hasn't been tested on a car making any real power.
I have done a bunch of work understanding how the MAF plays with the AEM EMS http://farnorthracing.com/stealth/AEM_Mitsu_MAF.html and I've been laying the groundwork for conversion to speed/density via locating a combo MAP/AIT sensor on the manifold http://farnorthracing.com/stealth/MAP_sensor2.html
But the MAF is really soooo easy to program.
Has anybody ever dropped one of these things on a flowbench and measured CFM cs MAF freq directly?
We don't have any specific evidence that the new MAF instantly delivered the extra HP. It was not a comparison dyno only session. This was a tuning session with the new Jester MAF installed.
There are likely other factors at play here that contribute to the gains. Not the least of which is the runs (as seen in the dyno sheets) did NOT occur on the same day.
I would suggest that this is comparison has some room for error when looking at just the new MAF. But what the data does tell us is that the MAF is a good choice for standard 15g turbos (vs say a MAF-T and GM MAF setup) and not a limiting factor in HP at this level (which we expected).
I should have one of these MAF's heading my way shortly. I'll compare it with the experiences I've had from running stock MAF, Montero MAF and MAFT + Z06 MAF.
I don't like too wait.. Finaly i have desided to leave the aemv1 after 7years for chrome, Tnx Unlogic.
So fore now im just waiting to se witch maf i should by.
My Jester MAF hasn't arrived yet but hopefully it should arrive this week so I can do some testing before it gets too cold outside.
You can use the OEM style vortex volume sensors very easily on an AEM...
http://farnorthracing.com/stealth/AEM_Mitsu_MAF.html
Got this in the mail the other day. Hopefully I'll have time to try it before it becomes too cold outside.
http://pics.unlogic.se/3000gt/projek...018_192228.jpg
Did some testing today using the Chrome MAF. It was only 3° C outside so this was the last run this season. I'm still discussing the results with Adam as I want to clear a few things with him before I post any more details here.
I did however beat my previous record in Virtual Dyno:
http://pics.unlogic.se/3000gt/chrome...0maf%20run.png
I've tested the following four MAF options on my car now:
- Stock 618 MAF
- Montero 482 MAF
- MAFT with Z06 MAF
- Jester/Chrome MAF
Here are two photos comparing the Montero 482 MAF, MAFT with Z06 MAF and Jester/Chrome MAF.
http://pics.unlogic.se/3000gt/projek...031_212324.jpg
http://pics.unlogic.se/3000gt/projek...031_212344.jpg
The stock MAF works great but has a flow limitation as everyone knows.
The Montero 482 MAF has a different scaling which means that a lot of tables have to be updated in order to avoid hesitation/jerkiness during low load scenarios.
The MAFT with Z06 MAF is pretty much a drop-in replacement for the stock MAF and it works very well but it's a bit less accurate (visible if you log the trim values in different conditions) and you loose the ability to log air temperature via the MAF.
I had great hopes for the Jester/Chrome MAF and the car fired right up when I installed it. I also noticed that it was just as accurate as the 618 and 482 MAF's. The only downside I found was that it gives a lower airflow hz reading compared to the stock 618 MAF which changed the load values which in turn affect a lot of tables in the ECU (like the 482 MAF). The lower hz reading made my car run leaner and gave me some low load hesitation issues although not as bad as with the 482 MAF.
The wether here is too cold now so the car is parked for the winter but if I get the time I'll try to measure the output signal from the various MAF's with an oscilloscope and see if I can test them using a simple hairdrier just to see how much difference there is in airflow hz readings between the them. For now I'm back to the MAFT + Z06 MAF combo.