|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,097
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,097 |
I have heard there are 2 sizes...an 80 and 90. Obviously bigger is more power, but how much? Which ones are you guys running? Also correct me if I am wrong about the size. I imagine the MAF's differ with the years where the horsepower numbers change on the Lightnings. DOes that makes sense?
98 E0 SVT with some stuff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
99/00 Lightnings 360hp - 80mm MAF
01+ Lightnings 380hp - 90mm MAF
Both run 42# injectors IIRC.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860 |
Actually I've squeezed 400+ out of an 80mm and 475 wheels out of a 90.
2001 Lincoln LS8
1994 Lexus GS300
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,190
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,190 |
PLEASE HELP ME GET MY CAR TOGETHER! ITS IN DAYTON OHIO! I need the motor together and in the car so i can DRIVE it! Pleeeeeese!
diamond pistons for 3.0/forsale
#702 of 2150
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978 |
Originally posted by svtProdigy:
475 wheels on a what?
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
01+ Lightnings 380hp - 90mm MAF
Correct me if i'm wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860 |
2001 Lincoln LS8
1994 Lexus GS300
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Keyser:
Actually I've squeezed 400+ out of an 80mm and 475 wheels out of a 90.
hmmm, who's car was that???  Didn't u guys say the 80mm was easier for tuning than the 90 as well???
And I guess one has to take into consideration the size post-MAF. . .it might be good for increased air velocity to have a larger MAF that funnels down into the narrower UIM opening (or in this case, gets routed through the intercooler). . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
And I guess one has to take into consideration the size post-MAF. . .it might be good for increased air velocity to have a larger MAF that funnels down into the narrower UIM opening (or in this case, gets routed through the intercooler). . . .
Less restriction before the turbo is much more important then NA concerns like tapering.
For instance a 75mm bullet MAF has more flow area then the 80mm Lightning MAF.
I can't tell you about the 90mm because I've never had one and measured it's center bar post.
If I had to guess based on the 75mm and 80mm I'd say it was a hair larger then a 75mm.
{Effective area minus sampling tube area)
75mm Ford = ~3200 effective area
80mm Ford = ~3665 effective area
75mm Bullet = ~4350 effective area
90mm Ford = ~4450 effective area {guesstimate}
The benefit of the Ford MAF's is they seem to have more consistent electronics. Though my Pro-M has been outstanding so you "can" get a good unit.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
The stock MAFs with a centerbar are so much more efficient at sampling the airflow in low flow ranges than the longitudinal tubes like the pro-m MAFs use. They also give a very consistent curve shape so the stock pcm can adjust in the AF better.
The 80mm lightning MAFs I have seen only have a half center post in them, meaning it doesn't have any post in the bottom half and more open cross sectional area. I don't know how that affects Demons calculations, but I will say that in my opinion it is no big deal to have one. The MAFs are flow tested to a certain CFM rating with laminar flow, that is No turbulence. As long as your MAF is flowing air within its designed range then there won't be any restriction issues. Cross section is only a small indicator of the flow capability of a MAF since the shape of the post and/or sampling tube, the funnel entrance and the exit of the MAF are all designed to flow their max.
The electronics will max out at 5 volts before the flow goes turbulent and restrictive ANYWAY, so worry more about the sensors voltage range than anything else...i.e. horsepower estimates. An efficient engine will produce more power on the same air and fuel than a non efficient motor, so rating a MAF with HP figures is wrong.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
so rating a MAF with HP figures is wrong.
That's why they are rated by kg/hr 
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
