MAF relocation?
- Thread starter TeeTeeSpeed
- Start date
just take it off for track use, etc..TeeTeeSpeed
Member
- :
- 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Blue
ok so if i were to shorten it..get a small pipe and connect it to the turbo, then connect the maf to that, then a filter? is that right?
TeeTeeSpeed said:
You can do that, but you also have to think about the heat issues of the msp and consider your intake placement. It is maybe better to have a slightly cooler air source than right behind the fan. I started out with a CAI, and shortened down about half way. I think that the spot where it sits is probably the best, because it is not in the direct path of the cooling fan, and it is also a pretty straight shot to the turbo.
This is what I made for my new turbo a couple weeks ago:
TeeTeeSpeed
Member
- :
- 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Blue
im gonna play around with it for fun tomorrow and see if i can come up with anything.
insanoman2005
Banned
- :
- 2004 Mazda 3s
so has anyone done this or not? what if heat wasn't an issue. (not that it is anyway). Temperature is measured by the IAT not the MAF. Does anyone know if blowing through the MAF will cause irregular readings?? I don't see how it could.
a turbo is going to suck the air through it just as fast as it blows it through. I don't see how relocating it can cause any noticeable difference in what the MAF sees. Maybe someone with a turbo-pro will pull of their filter and put their hand in front of their MAF to test this for us under a load.
a turbo is going to suck the air through it just as fast as it blows it through. I don't see how relocating it can cause any noticeable difference in what the MAF sees. Maybe someone with a turbo-pro will pull of their filter and put their hand in front of their MAF to test this for us under a load.
TeeTeeSpeed
Member
- :
- 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Blue
well the iat is connected to the maf anyways...so wherever the maf goes...the iat goes
insanoman2005
Banned
- :
- 2004 Mazda 3s
uh....they aren't connected but they are CLOSE to each other. I don't think you know how little they have to move to switch piping.
Look at where the MAF's are on traditonal turbo set-ups...now turn it 90* and move it over 4" to the left. That's the middle of the charge piping. I'm not talking about relocating it to Guam.
Look at where the MAF's are on traditonal turbo set-ups...now turn it 90* and move it over 4" to the left. That's the middle of the charge piping. I'm not talking about relocating it to Guam.
TeeTeeSpeed
Member
- :
- 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Blue
the iat sensor is attached to the same wire that goes into the maf...hence the word connected
jersey_emt
Member
- :
- 04 MSM #1089
The wires are wrapped together yes.
insanoman2005
Banned
- :
- 2004 Mazda 3s
yes but you make it sound like the MAF cant be moved 4"s.
I made a custom 2.5" aluminized steel CAI for my MSP based on the Injen design. Currently, it runs all the way into the front left fender. However, I have been having a difficult time with fuel cut since I installed the CAI so I was contemplating shortening it down into a SRI like what you have shown. I wasn't sure how much piping I needed on the intake side of the MAF to ensure that the MAF would work. I also considered designing a new CAI where the return port from the BPV enters the CAI pipe at an angle of around 30 degrees in order to streamline the entry of the air minimizing turbulence, since our stock port, and my own, both enter the CAI at a 90 degree angle. A 90 degree entry angle is bound to cause turbulence to a somewhat laminar air flow since it enters perpendicular to the direction of the existing flow. This would cause turbulent air to be presented to the turbo inlet, and possibly backflow (since the BPV exhaust is pressurized and the CAI airflow is only atmospheric) which would screw up the MAF reading.
I have also been considering installing a bigger, higher flow MAF from a compatible (?) vehicle. However, my research to-date suggests that we will have issues with fuel cut regardless of what MAF we use although this doesn't make sense to me.
I also noted your (I think it was you 505zoom) comments in another thread where someone wanted to put a filter on the line that normally returns excess pressure from the valve cover to the intake piping. I think that there was some concern about the issue of vacuum leak which again would screw up our precious MSP MAF. I have a Joe P MBC which I haven't installed because I decided to save up for an EBC instead. I was thinking that you could put the Joe P MBC on that line from the valve cover and then put a filter on the other end of the MBC. Since the MBC is adjustable you could turn it to the lowest setting (since the air from the valve cover is not under significant pressure) so that escaping gas/air could push up the enclosed ball allowing air to be released through the MBC-filter construct. When the pressure dropped to that of a vacuum, the ball enclosed in the MBC would snap shut the incoming side of the MBC and voila.....no vacuum leak. Then you can eliminate the oil-contaminated airstream fouling the turbo blades, etc.
This may be way off, but in theory it seems plausible. Your thoughts?
R
I have also been considering installing a bigger, higher flow MAF from a compatible (?) vehicle. However, my research to-date suggests that we will have issues with fuel cut regardless of what MAF we use although this doesn't make sense to me.
I also noted your (I think it was you 505zoom) comments in another thread where someone wanted to put a filter on the line that normally returns excess pressure from the valve cover to the intake piping. I think that there was some concern about the issue of vacuum leak which again would screw up our precious MSP MAF. I have a Joe P MBC which I haven't installed because I decided to save up for an EBC instead. I was thinking that you could put the Joe P MBC on that line from the valve cover and then put a filter on the other end of the MBC. Since the MBC is adjustable you could turn it to the lowest setting (since the air from the valve cover is not under significant pressure) so that escaping gas/air could push up the enclosed ball allowing air to be released through the MBC-filter construct. When the pressure dropped to that of a vacuum, the ball enclosed in the MBC would snap shut the incoming side of the MBC and voila.....no vacuum leak. Then you can eliminate the oil-contaminated airstream fouling the turbo blades, etc.
This may be way off, but in theory it seems plausible. Your thoughts?
R
505zoom said:You can do that, but you also have to think about the heat issues of the msp and consider your intake placement. It is maybe better to have a slightly cooler air source than right behind the fan. I started out with a CAI, and shortened down about half way. I think that the spot where it sits is probably the best, because it is not in the direct path of the cooling fan, and it is also a pretty straight shot to the turbo.
This is what I made for my new turbo a couple weeks ago:
