how fast on stock maf ?

[RCHUNN]

i trin to find out the point i need to change my oem mass air meter or leave it alone

te45a
ported heads (stock)
stretch ic
218/218 cam 1.6

thanks
Ranndy

 

[86 TR]

I heard of guys running into the tens on a stock MAF. Ive done the best of 11.30's @ 119 mph on my old setup, with a stock MAF and throttle body. I would think it would become a restriction eventually though.

 

[Blazer406]

I think Brett Rudbeck went maybe 10.19 on a stock MAF..... with either a 45A or maybe a 70?......

IMHO.... once in the high 10's.... there is something to be gained......how much....is anybody's guess.....

 

[Underboost]

I ran 10.12@134mph 28psi No screens with a reducer 4'' down to the MAF to help speed up the air. TT Chip

 

[Turbo1dr]

I have run a 6.53 at 107mph in the 8th mile through a MAF.

 

[turboc87gn]

I ran 10.12@134mph 28psi No screens with a reducer 4'' down to the MAF to help speed up the air. TT Chip

If you dont mind my askin whats ur combination? Ur goin faster than i plan on goin with my gn if 10.12 was ur best what was ur average pass? slicks or dr?

 

[Dennis Kirban]

kirban 2 cents worth

Referring to the engine shot above....I may be wrong as its hard to tell but actually the maf sensor you got is a camaro 6 cylinder version that has been calibrated to work on our Buicks.


If the plug connector is pointing towards the passenger side rather than down towards the ground I am correct.

My point being, the first time you have some sort of idle or running issue, this is what you want to look at first as being the problem.

We are fortunate enough to have original cores that we get rebuilt so we get originals back not a modified 6 cylinder camaro one. What you got is a popular one but it has proven to be problmatic over a period of time....usually they rivet to tabs on it so you can secure your factory air box bracket to it.

again its hard to tell in your photo but I may be correct from the small view I can see.

kirbanperformance.com

denniskirban@yahoo.com

PS The correct ones are hard to find as they only appeared on the 1986-1987 turbo regals (maybe Turbo TAs also not sure).

I have also heard stock ones can support cars into the 10s.

 

[Underboost]

kirban 2 cents worth

Referring to the engine shot above....I may be wrong as its hard to tell but actually the maf sensor you got is a camaro 6 cylinder version that has been calibrated to work on our Buicks.


If the plug connector is pointing towards the passenger side rather than down towards the ground I am correct.

My point being, the first time you have some sort of idle or running issue, this is what you want to look at first as being the problem.

We are fortunate enough to have original cores that we get rebuilt so we get originals back not a modified 6 cylinder camaro one. What you got is a popular one but it has proven to be problmatic over a period of time....usually they rivet to tabs on it so you can secure your factory air box bracket to it.

again its hard to tell in your photo but I may be correct from the small view I can see.

kirbanperformance.com

denniskirban@yahoo.com

PS The correct ones are hard to find as they only appeared on the 1986-1987 turbo regals (maybe Turbo TAs also not sure).

I have also heard stock ones can support cars into the 10s.

I think you may be right Dennis. But does it really matter? Its the same size.

 

[Underboost]

This is actually the motor I ran 10.12@134MPH
The above pic is a new combo that hasn't been ran yet but had the stock MAF on at the time of the pic.
Bellow is the motor I ran TSM with in 07

 

[novaderrik]

if the stock MAF is good up to these times, then why are there so many 13 second cars with LT1 or LS1 mafs and $250 translators?

 

[Underboost]

if the stock MAF is good up to these times, then why are there so many 13 second cars with LT1 or LS1 mafs and $250 translators?

Bigger is always better! Right?

 

[Just One 87]

if the stock MAF is good up to these times, then why are there so many 13 second cars with LT1 or LS1 mafs and $250 translators?

Because they can be more problematic than anything. If your stock one is running fine and you aren't in the 10's do you need to upgrade? No. Just like a lot of people spent thousands of dollars not to break 13's.

 

[GSX-PKV]

I run consistent solid 10's with my original stock MAF & ECM. I removed one screen 22 years ago. Paul

 

[Blazer406]

if the stock MAF is good up to these times, then why are there so many 13 second cars with LT1 or LS1 mafs and $250 translators?

As said above... if they give trouble.... they get replaced..... and you can't get any more GM one's......and it is a known fact that the aftermarket re-manned ones are crap...... the newer LT1/LS1 style (even genuine GM one) is relatively cheap..... less problematic.... and does provide less restriction.

IMHO it is deceiving to see the fast times and blindly assume these cars "don't need" an bigger MAF sensor. If the same attention to detail was taken with the bigger MAF meter..... it is likely each of these cars above under identical conditions would have gone faster IMHO..... but alas... it is just speculation at this point.

IMHO... I would like to minimize ANY parts on my car that I can't go to most parts house's and get within a day or so. The fact that new GM stock MAF's are nearly non-existant...... is reason enough to convert to the newer MAF meters and a translator so that you can gat a new GM MAF meter quickly.....

HTH

 

[NCTURBOS]

The stock MAF has been well into the 9-sec. zone on quite a few cars. Is it a restriction at that point...? Most would say yes. In the mid-high 10-sec zone the stock MAF is just fine.


K.

 

[Mike Licht]

In my testing I can say that any car going faster than about 11.50 will see a gain with a bigger maf. Usually spoolup is the first thing people notice. This is not to say that you cannot go 9's with a stock maf, it had been done, many times. The question is how fast would same the car go with something better? There are other benefits as well, easy to get a replacment that works at any parts store in the country, better idle, faster spool up, and the tuning advantage that comes with the translator and extender chips. I have seen faster cars pick up 3 to 7 PSI boost with the SAME waste gate setting just from changing the maf sensor out. So the restriction is evident there. Is this a must have item, nope, is this an item that will make the car run better, easier to tune and give some benefit, yes.
hope this helps,
Mike

 

[Dennis Kirban]

I think you may be right Dennis. But does it really matter? Its the same size.

kirban 2 cents worth

I agree the opening is the same as the turbo regal my point is, should a idle or running problem happen, you would be wise to suspect the maf since it was originally designed for a 6 cylinder camaro. You may never have an issue but should you that is when you may want to go with the 100% correct unit.

I merely wanted to point out that if the plug is pointing toward the passenger side rather than downward toward the ground it is not the 1986-1987 turbo regal unit....

kirbanperformance.com

denniskirban@yahoo.com

 

[Blazer406]

When I switched from the stock setup to a 3-1/2" MAF pipe and Big Mouth Cold Air Kit.... along with a stock LS1 MAF meter I got from full throttle..... and a translator box........I picked up 2-3 psi boost with the same wastegate setting on a STOCK turbo.....and a stock location stock length dutt neck intercooler.

IMHO.... you can't ignore that....... and that was on a mid 12 second car..... freeing up the inlet of the turbo yields results.

 

[Welby]

if the stock MAF is good up to these times, then why are there so many 13 second cars with LT1 or LS1 mafs and $250 translators?

As one of "those guys", I upgraded because my stocker crapped out on me and I didn't want to buy a rebuilt stocker, as I'd heard bad things about them. If it wouldn't have broken, I wouldn't have messed with it at all

 

[LOLGN]

I gained 5-6psi and quicker spool by going from a stock maf/intake to a 4" intake and screenless z06 maf on my stock motored car, so take that for what it's worth.