[Shotimes] MAF connector question
Midwest SHO Specialists
SHOtimes@midwestsho.com
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:08:55 -0500
Hey, at least you're not calling me an ignorant asshole this time around!
:-)
I guess we'll agree to disagree, but hp numbers aren't everything. That
peak hp may only go up 4 -5 hp, but the power is much more usable with a
smoother power band.
IIRC, I don't even think I sell a MAF. So that is my personal ever so
humble opinion and observation.
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: "'Midwest SHO Specialists'" <SHOtimes@midwestsho.com>;
<shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:04 PM
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