[s-cars] RS2 MAF deliberations

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 4/18/2003 2:45:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
mik at info.fundp.ac.be writes:


>Scott,

>IMHO, if you had just spent a few couple hundreds of dollars on having your
>car tuned right on a dyno by someone who can tune it real-time, then I
>think you won't post such conclusions.

Hi Minhea,
First, let's make it clear that a "couple hundred dollars" on a dyno doesn't
exist in the states.  For dyno tuning, one would need to have that nice bosch
programmer.  Expensive toy.  We're a bit behind you guys across the pond, we
just started getting local awd dynos a couple years ago max.

>I know of no one among the "real"
>tuners (I mean not the vendors that are in the US and I really mean
>**vendors**), especially in Germany who'd recommend to install the RS2 MAF
>in order to have "proper" HP and operation.

I don't see why not - recommended.  That AAN screen appears to be rather
restrictive to airflow, even if you gander at the claims in the archives.
Proper?  I'm not sure I know what that means...  Just about any Bosch MAF
will work, and with dyno "tuning" that bongo SQ MAF is the cats meow.  I
guess I'd defer to departed Rod Haney for "proper" HP definitions.  I know
our 400+ S2 rally car has run the AAN MAF with proper tuning.  So, I guess I
don't disagree with the statement, only accept the obvious with what I get in
my shop.

 Given 2 MAF, one with a fine mesh, one with an open mesh:  ALL else being
equal Minhea, which one would you recommend?  Why did the RS2 with only 80
more ponies than the AAN, use a different MAF?  Your claim is that *** with
proper tuning***  the RS2 didn't need to change MAF application.  I won't
argue the point, only raise a question.

> RS2 injectors don't require RS2
>MAF, period. But they do instead require proper tuning. The "max flow"
>signal doesn't have anything to do with injector size nor does the MAF have
>anything to do with open/closed loop **** when the programming is done
>correctly and accordingly****. I've very recently tuned an AAN Motor to 380
>HP and I can assure you it ran perfectly under either open/closed loop if
>those words do mean something however. Just as a FWIW, the ECU keeps on
>monitoring the mixture at WOT and still uses the O2 output, BUT with a
>different scaling that can be reprogrammed.

Those asterisks are what keep me smiling Minhea.  I'll go back to a point I
made long ago.  That MAF - ANY MAF - in the I5 20vt is not necessary at all.
***  With proper tuning ***  it can be eliminated alltogether, in which case:
 up goes HP, torque, throttle response, preturbo inlet pressures and temps
lower.  Why not "properly tune" that pipe right out of the fuel equation?

>This is just my 0.02 Euro from my "tuner" point of view, but I'm open to
>discussions and different opinions anyway,

I'm open for ***proper tuning***.  The problem I have Minhea, is I'm a
tweekster and an installer, I sold my chip programmer long ago (I take too
long and it doesn't excite me - building race blocks does tho).  So mostly
I'm given the tools with which to work, and it's my job to make them work.  I
do.  I am NOT a tuner, I prefer "tweeker"....   With the "hoppen" stuff here
being the most prolific, I'll let you comment on his ties with MTM pro
grams...

With regard to accepting/needing any MAF at all, I'll freely argue our
definition of ***properly tuned*** will always differ.  I know it can be
deleted, I saw it done on a S4tt.

>HTH,
>Mihnea

Alas, it doesn't, I don't disagree with you.  But thanks for your post.

Scott "improperly tuned" Justusson