New MAF options coming for Chrome?

[Unlogic]

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.

[jne]

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.

[Unlogic]

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.

[DG]

You can use the OEM style vortex volume sensors very easily on an AEM...

http://farnorthracing.com/stealth/AEM_Mitsu_MAF.html

[Unlogic]

Got this in the mail the other day. Hopefully I'll have time to try it before it becomes too cold outside.

[Unlogic]

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:

[Unlogic]

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.





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.