maf translator (not maft-pro or gen2)

[foreverpsycotic]

has anyone used the maf translator that was designed for the MKIII supra?
i like all the features that the maft-pro has, but know that i wont be using them all, i just want to go to a GM LS1 maf and run it in blow through and do a little tuning, which the maf translator is said to do on the maftpro website. it also happens to cost alot less, which is something else i like.

TYIA

 

[drjonez]

yup. what would you like to know?

 

[foreverpsycotic]

pretty much, how tough is the install?
is it worth the price?
how hard is it to use to tune?
can i plug a laptop into it and tune with that?

 

[drjonez]

pretty much, how tough is the install?

no more difficult than any other piggyback.

is it worth the price?

depends on what you're looking for. value is pretty high....

how hard is it to use to tune?

that's the sticking point. the MAFT's interface is dated- it's a matter of turning knobs and DIP switches to change settings. no flashy interface, no pretty graphix.

can i plug a laptop into it and tune with that?

no. you'll need to upgrade to the MAFT pro for that. the MAFT gen. II might do it in the future....

 

[foreverpsycotic]

it doesnt matter if i turn a knob or hit a button, as long as in the long run it works for what i bought it for. 200 seems to be a fair price for something that gets rid of the stock restrictive equiptment and allows me to tune. oh, and with electronics, im more concerned if it works than if its pretty and has flashy graphics.

 

[drjonez]

sounds like you're a fine candidate for the orginal MAFT then. drop me a line if you want to order....

 

[rot 90na-t]

i also have considered this.. i just wonder, what else do i need to compliment maft for tuning..? i have considered goin the lex 550 route, but if i can bypass the lex afm, i would be much more happy.. does this unit allow me to totally get rid of the afm, allowing for open vent of the bov, turbo upgrade, etc??

 

[drjonez]

i also have considered this.. i just wonder, what else do i need to compliment maft for tuning..?

a wideband is HIGHLY recommended for any tuning device.

i have considered goin the lex 550 route, but if i can bypass the lex afm, i would be much more happy.. does this unit allow me to totally get rid of the afm, allowing for open vent of the bov, turbo upgrade, etc??

nope, the MAFT or MAFT gen 2 DO NOT allow you to get rid of the AFM....they are MAF translators which allow you to swap the KV AFM for a GM hotwire MAF.

the MAFT pro allows you to remove the AFM (using the speed/density form of airflow metering, same as the VPC and MAP ECU).

 

[rot 90na-t]

a wideband is HIGHLY recommended for any tuning device.



nope, the MAFT or MAFT gen 2 DO NOT allow you to get rid of the AFM....they are MAF translators which allow you to swap the KV AFM for a GM hotwire MAF.

So what diameters do these gm mafs come in?

 

[drjonez]

a variety. 2-5" depending on application...there's a variety of aftermarket ones as well.

 

[rot 90na-t]

a variety. 2-5" depending on application...there's a variety of aftermarket ones as well.

so this would allow one to run either 440 or 550 cc injectors by simply tuning with wideband and a safc??

 

[drjonez]

ummmmmmmmmm.

you can run whatever injectors you like....just tune for them.

no need for a SAFC, any of the MAFT series can accomplish the same thing....

 

[supraguy@aol]

I had a question about injector sizing:

1. If the stock fuel pressure is say, 38 psi at idle, and I up it with my AFPR to 48, that's an increase of ~25%. Does this mean, that I can safely switch my MAFT to the 550cc injector setting(a 25% increase), even though I'm using the 440 injectors?
By safe I mean, is upping the fuel pressure an efficient and/or consistent-across-the-rpm-range method? I figure that the MAFT is there to "fool" the ECU into thinking that the engine is getting a different amount of air at any given moment...why not "fool" the MAFT into thinking I gave it bigger injectors?
I ask all this because It seems that the switch to the 550cc setting would give more headroom from fuel cut.
I assume that 48psi is safe for the fuel system, as I know that many OEM systems are ~45psi stock.

2. Is this a valid route to take, or is this just my gay-ass way of trying to get around coughing up the money for 550 injectors, and someone should bitch-slap me and send me to RC's website?( I think I already know the answer to this one...):naughty:

 

[drjonez]

yikes.

just a note, press vs. flow increase is NOT linear. there's a formula out there, i've forgotten it....

while you could do that, you're going to end up with some pretty serious AFM corrections (i.e. high percentage). the problem is that you're ignoring the other part of the equation- timing. pull AFM signal means MORE timing. while we don't have any hard data on what X% of signal removed = Y% of timing advance, i personally like to keep corrections under 25%.

why do you need 550s?

 

[supraguy@aol]

Oh, I don't think I need 550's as far as my power goals are concerned, at least not yet. I would like to get about 350rwhp. I'm just trying to figure out a safe way to keep my max boost around 15psi without hitting fuel cut. I currently hit FC around 13psi.

 

[drjonez]

if you only need another 2 psi, a good tune should get you there as you'll probably end up w/~10-15% taken out across the board...

 

[supraguy@aol]

agreed