[Shotimes] MAF connector question
Don McKinnon (AST)
dmckinnon@asttechlabs.com
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:29:15 -0400
I'll bet money that both do increase!!! The MAF may not provide as much peak HP but on my SHO the
80MAF/LPM dyno'd in at +5HP peak but 10 to 4 ft/lbs TQ across the entire RPM band. 20-60mph 2nd
gear runs went from 6.95s to 6.4s. Later when I added the PP Ypipe to the deal (with crank UDP) and
at sea level went from 6.1s to 5.65s.
In all it doesn't matter really. It comes down to the $ one has to decide what goes on first. I
did the MAF/LPM because the MAF at the time could be had at Pepboys for $110 and I go the LPM used
for $100. I went in small steps that way, then decided the suspension was what really needed help,
then the clutch broke the tranny and mr. Quaife was installed and so on! I went the LPM route
because I knew some day I'd install cams and such that would require it. Today if I were starting
over I could do it differently and would most likely do the PF MAF and one of the other tuners
instead of the LPM. But it would have to be in some sort of ATX car and not a SHO to please the
AWA!
Don McKinnon
95 MTX - White/Mocha 92k miles
Stage 1 Power Package with Stage 1cams
Canyon Carver Road/Race Suspension
Quaife & HiRevs Competition Clutch
-----Original Message-----
From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net
[mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Ron Porter
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 2:04 PM
To: 'Midwest SHO Specialists'; shotimes@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
Well, at least we are consistent in our disagreement, Mike!!
IMHO, the last two things to put on a bolt-on mod SHO are a bigger MAF and a
Quaife!!
Mike, I disagree on the MAF. For the money, any perceived increase, if any
(and I'll bet a dyno will hardly show a difference) is not a worthwhile
first step. Greater gains in exhaust and underdrive pulleys that give a
"butt dyno" increase, as well as increase gas mileage. MAF upgrades on a
basically stock motor will show very minimal increases once you are over
about 6K (this was my direct personal experience on my '89).
Ron Porter
-----Original Message-----
From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
On Behalf Of Midwest SHO Specialists
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:03 PM
To: shotimes@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
> All that said, a MAF is probably the LAST thing that anyone should spend
> money on when they are doing bolt-on mods.
I disagree. Being that the SHO/ Mustang MAF was Ford's first, the design is
lacking in many areas. In addition to easily being "maxed out", there is a
significant step in the MAF that has to play games with the air velocity.
All things being equal, a SHO with a 75mm bullet MAF, has a noticably
smoother, slightly higher power band than a SHO with a stock MAF.
Mike Kopstain
Midwest SHO Specialists
827 North Chestnut Avenue
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
www.MidwestSHO.com
Sales@midwestsho.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Porter" <ronporter@prodigy.net>
To: "'Jonathan Zane KC2ENA'" <jonzane@kc2ena.com>; <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
> It is not an issue of size (diameter), it's the quality of the signal (the
> tuning). IIRC, MAFs operate best at 80% or less of the rated airflow, and
> the 55mm can push above that in stouter SHO motors.
>
> Any of the Pro-M calibrated MAFs work well, and it doesn't matter if
someone
> gets a 75mm, a 77mm, or an 80mm.
>
> Remember the TB is only 65mm anyway, and that is more than adequate except
> for the most serious of blower motors.
>
> All that said, a MAF is probably the LAST thing that anyone should spend
> money on when they are doing bolt-on mods.
>
> Ron Porter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Zane KC2ENA
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:58 AM
> To: shotimes@autox.team.net
> Subject: RE: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
>
>
> Thanks for the info Carl, I'll read up on that. I'm still an SHO noob.
I
> wonder though, why an 80mm MAF for a 3.2L or 3.0L 6 cyl? Guys run 9's on
> 80mm MAFs on a 5.0L revving to 7,000 rpm. Is it worth the hassle for
> something that won't yield more performance then a 73mm or 77mm? What's
the
> most horse power someone is making with a SHO? I just can't imagine a
need
> for this application.
>
> Jonathan Zane KC2ENA
> 1988 Mustang LX
> 1995 Taurus SHO
> 1993 Taurus SHO
> 1979 F-150 4x4
> 1989 Ford Festiva
> 2001 Raptor
> www.njfourwheelers.com/jon.html
> www.kc2ena.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Carl Prochilo
> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:39 AM
> > To: Jonathan Zane KC2ENA
> > Cc: shotimes@autox.team.net
> > Subject: RE: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
> >
> >
> > Jon, You are in catch-up mode. Check the SHOShop web site
> > to get a write-up on using an 80mm MAF application for the
> > SHO. That particular MAF has been around for years. (One
> > noteable difference between that MAF and say a Pro-M 77mm MAF
> > is that the sampling tube for the Ford MAF is inline while
> > the Pro-M is off away from the primary airflow path.)
> > Originally the 80mm MAF required an LPM to make up for
> > calibration differences, so that answers another of your
> > questions below. Best I can tell, the MAF connector is NOT an
> > issue for either. I have an 80mm Ford MAF sitting in my
> > garage unused. The throttle body opening is usually smaller
> > than the MAF opening once you upgrade.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Carl Prochilo
> > 92 Ultra Red Crimson
> >
> > > I have had excellent luck with just changing the sensors.
> > If the MAF
> > > you have came with a sensor attached and it wasn't
> > originally set up
> > > for your SHO you might find that using your stock sensor
> > will correct
> > > the problem. This is of course if the problem is due to
> > calibration.
> > > Then again, some housings do the calibration based on the
> > size of the
> > > sample tube. There are too many variables here to say for
> > sure what's
> > > going on. What concerns me most is the connector problem you
> > > mentioned. Are you sure this MAF is for a
> > > Ford application? I'm not sure Ford put a 80mm MAF on
> > anything so it
> > > might
> > > be a motorsport item which could mean it was ordered for
> > some specific
> > > calibration. Please provide more information. Maybe some
> > pictures would
> > > be helpful. Why do you need an 80mm MAF on a SHO anyway?
> > Don't they flow
> > > like 1000 CFM or something. My Mustang runs 12's on a 73mm
> > which if I
> > > recall correctly flows 850 CFM. There's no way a 3.2 or
> > 3.0 needs a MAF
> > > that large. How big is your throttle body?
> > >
> > > Here's 2 examples of my MAF findings:
> > >
> > > Tried to put a 93 cobra MAF (housing and sensor) on my 88
> > Mustang. It
> > > would not run correctly. I swapped the sensor out with my
> > stock one.
> > > Everything
> > > was fine after that.
> > >
> > > Got a new 73mm MAF housing for the Mustang. Wouldn't want
> > that cobra
> > > housing to go to waste so I installed it on my 93 SHO with
> > the stock
> > > sensor. Runs great and there's a noticeable increase in performance.
> > >
> > > Is it safe to say that all stock ford housings have the same
> > > characteristics? I'm thinking this is correct, at least in the
> > > Mustang world. I was told once that the stock housings and sensors
> > > are all the same and all differences are compensated in the
> > computer.
> > > Makes sense but this doesn't explain why the cobra sensor
> > didn't work
> > > in my car but who knows if
> > > it was any good to start with. Remember, the reason that there are
> > > calibrated housings and sensors made by aftermarket
> > companies are for
> > > people
> > > running non stock injectors with stock computers. This is
> > not how Ford
> > > does
> > > it! Look at your MAF sensor (black plastic) and see if
> > there is a sticker
> > > or if someone engraved anything into it. This is a sure sign of an
> > > aftermarket cal. I'd be willing to bet if you ordered a
> > MAF for a mustang
> > > with stock injectors it would work fine on your SHO. I've
> > seen people
> > > selling SHO specific MAF's on eBay but I think they are
> > full of crap.
> > > Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. I am an
> > electronic/RF tech by
> > > trade
> > > and I would love to learn more about this. The entire Ford
> > electronics
> > > system is something I have taken an interest in lately.
> > Any references or
> > > links would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Jonathan Zane KC2ENA
> > > 1988 Mustang LX
> > > 1995 Taurus SHO
> > > 1993 Taurus SHO
> > > 1979 F-150 4x4
> > > 1989 Ford Festiva
> > > 2001 Raptor
> > > www.njfourwheelers.com/jon.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net
> > >> [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Midwest SHO
> > >> Specialists
> > >> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:11 AM
> > >> To: shotimes@autox.team.net
> > >> Subject: Re: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Joseph,
> > >>
> > >> I've never personally run across that problem.
> > >>
> > >> You could just crimp one piece of the plastic to form a press fit
> > >> over the male portion of the plug. That should be enough
> > to hold it.
> > >>
> > >> Do you have an A/F chart with that MAF installed? I have
> > yet to see
> > >> a Ford 80mm MAF/ LPM combo that worked out of the box. The best
> > >> gains come when you send Ted your chip and a chart.
> > >>
> > >> Mike Kopstain
> > >> Midwest SHO Specialists
> > >> 827 North Chestnut Avenue
> > >> Arlington Heights, IL 60004
> > >> www.MidwestSHO.com
> > >> Sales@midwestsho.com
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "van Oss" <vanOss@centurytel.net>
> > >> To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:26 PM
> > >> Subject: [Shotimes] MAF connector question
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > My 92 wears a Ford 80mm MAF (housing and sensor
> > >> electronics). I recently
> > >> > had an intermittent CE light with bucking at anywhere
> > above minimal
> > >> > throttle.
> > >> >
> > >> > Turns out, the "car" side of the MAF connector was
> > slipping off the
> > >> > MAF. The physical dimensions of connectors seem to be a problem,
> > >> > because the connector will not latch.
> > >> >
> > >> > Has anyone else had this problem? Should I just remove
> > the prongs
> > >> > from
> > >> the
> > >> > connector?
> > >> >
> > >> > Joseph van Oss _______________________________________________
> > >> > Shotimes mailing list
> > >> > Shotimes@autox.team.net
> > >> > http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Shotimes mailing list
> > >> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> > http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > This message was sent with an unlicensed evaluation version of Novell
> > > NetMail. Please see http://www.netmail.com/ for details.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Shotimes mailing list
> > > Shotimes@autox.team.net
> > http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Shotimes mailing list
> > Shotimes@autox.team.net http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> >
>
> --
> This message was sent with an unlicensed evaluation version of
> Novell NetMail. Please see http://www.netmail.com/ for details.
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
_______________________________________________
Shotimes mailing list
Shotimes@autox.team.net
http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
_______________________________________________
Shotimes mailing list
Shotimes@autox.team.net
http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes