Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="makaveli200369, post: 1257894, member: 16335"] Footlong70 I agree with what you're saying. The rescaling of the table allows correct calibration of the sensor output vs air flow. If the stock diameter of the intake pipe is 4" and you put that sensor in a intake pipe that is (we'll go on the extreme) 36" in diameter. If you flow 100CFM of air through the 4" pipe you could say there would be a measurable amount of velocity. 100CFM through that same huge 36" pipe you would barely feel a breeze. The sensor would barely register any frequency and think there is no air flowing into the engine. Now if you rescale the MAF accordingly it would know that the small amount of frequency is now equivalent to correct amount X grams/s. These engines can be run or tuned without a MAF because it has a MAP sensor on the intake and air flow can be calculated from that just like speed density. Whenever I see a vehicle that uses a MAF and Speed density system at the same time usually the MAF is used for low speed/part throttle readings because it reacts faster and is more granular then switches to MAP during boosted situations. When tuning the Nissan GTR it uses both systems you can eliminate the MAF and run off speed density or you can rescale the MAF if you change to larger diameter higher flowing MAF tubes. For a race car all out situation sure the speed density and elimination of the MAF offers slightly more airflow. But on the street application where you spend lots of time low speed/economy the MAF offers an edge. Whether the 6.4 does this or how much of an importance the engineers placed on that scaling I couldn't say. But I can say for a piece of mind I'd rather have my MAF correctly scaled if its placed in a larger diameter MAF tube. [/QUOTE]