Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum - Reply to Topic
Thread: Aftermarkey MAF popping warning lights Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
04-02-2019 07:23 PM
chartmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff K View Post
^^^^ Yup, the "good" old days...... 67 Fairlane GTA 390ci 4 barrel 3 speed auto - 10 mpg city on a good day, 14 highway. 66 Olds Jetstar 430ci 3 speed auto 4 barrel - few MPG worse than the Fairlane GTA, 71 Tbird 429ci 3 speed auto, 4 barrel - MPG around the same as the Olds. Great cars.... they could pass everything but a gas station.
When I was in high school, we had a Mercury as I remember 368ci with high compression and 4 bbl and high test gas. ~300hp ~400 #ft torque. Downside 2 speed auto in auto mode (2-3)and funky push button select. You could get gear 1 with a manual push button but had to shift back to get out of gear 1. Then by ~1970 cars got very heavy for safety. My '72 Colony Park ~5500# by scale weight. My favorite car to drive: 1995 Tbird with 4.6. I think it was a year with independent rear suspension. I drove it about 500 miles of interstate straight through for someone else.
-chart-
04-02-2019 04:36 PM
rsteve56
SILLY BOY!!!
04-02-2019 10:32 AM
Jeff K ^^^^ Yup, the "good" old days...... 67 Fairlane GTA 390ci 4 barrel 3 speed auto - 10 mpg city on a good day, 14 highway. 66 Olds Jetstar 430ci 3 speed auto 4 barrel - few MPG worse than the Fairlane GTA, 71 Tbird 429ci 3 speed auto, 4 barrel - MPG around the same as the Olds. Great cars.... they could pass everything but a gas station.
04-02-2019 07:34 AM
chartmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff K View Post
Airflow into the engine is determined by RPM and volumetric efficiency (VE) at a given RPM, and any restrictions in the intake tract before the air gets to the intake ports on the heads, and any exhaust system restrictions. Modern engines have VERY well designed intake systems (and to a great extent exhaust systems) that provide VERY little restriction in air flow for a stock engine. Leaving the engine 100% stock and "improving" the intake system with aftermarket parts will do identically ZERO to improve performance, MPG or anything else other than possibly increase intake noise.

Throw in a set of high lift longer duration cams, port the heads, bigger valves (probably not possible on a Cyclone), 3" catless exhaust with straight thru mufflers and mandrel bent pipes, and a custom PCM tune, and only then start thinking about improving the intake system.
Oh the good old days. I had 390 =~6.5L with 2 bbl carb had 1.1" venture. So imagine two of those small holes compared to today's 177cubic inch engine. The carb needed those small air holes to meter the gas. Of course one could have a 4bbl but those big second holes were like pouring raw gas down a rabbit hole.
Good old days SUCK!
-chart-
04-02-2019 07:12 AM
Jeff K Airflow into the engine is determined by RPM and volumetric efficiency (VE) at a given RPM, and any restrictions in the intake tract before the air gets to the intake ports on the heads, and any exhaust system restrictions. Modern engines have VERY well designed intake systems (and to a great extent exhaust systems) that provide VERY little restriction in air flow for a stock engine. Leaving the engine 100% stock and "improving" the intake system with aftermarket parts will do identically ZERO to improve performance, MPG or anything else other than possibly increase intake noise.

Throw in a set of high lift longer duration cams, port the heads, bigger valves (probably not possible on a Cyclone), 3" catless exhaust with straight thru mufflers and mandrel bent pipes, and a custom PCM tune, and only then start thinking about improving the intake system.
04-02-2019 07:11 AM
Automender12345 You need to determine the most restrictive point in the engine system and that may not be the throttle body. Also airflow tuning based on intake and exhaust runner length is important. Just like tuning an audio speaker with different port lengths and diameters. Do extensive research before you listen to a source that has dollars to gain from products they sell. Also believe that the OEM has done a lot to make their engines as efficient as they reasonably can. Any reduction in the pinch point of air/exhaust flow reduces the horsepower the engine needs to function and creates better gas mileage.
04-02-2019 06:18 AM
Chieftain Not falling for the literature, I did forget a step though. I probably need a larger throttle body to allow for the extra air flow. No aftermarket cold air intake available, but it hit me the other day that an aftwrmarket MAF won’t do anything if everything else is stock. I think I’ve gotten so twisted up in trying to find anything to do for this car that I have an incomplete list and would need a few more components to make it work...exhaust and larger throttle body would be a start and not sure I’s go back tk Jet for anything else. Having read the previous comment it sounds like their parts are crap. But none-the-less, I’ve got things that would need to be upgraded ahead of the MAF, since there’s no more airflow being inducted currenty
03-26-2019 06:37 PM
Automender12345
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenriddles View Post
I don't think you get it.


The MAF does one thing - Send a 0 to 5 volt signal to an input on the computer.


It does not and can not 'remove restrictions' from anything. It either sends a higher voltage signal sooner, or later, depending on its calibration.

He is falling for the literature from the vendor that states it reduces the restriction of the MAF by 45%. The MAF has a small restriction to begin with.



There is no way that the cars computer will try to protect the drivetrain because the aftermarket MAF creates so much extra torque. Especially at 5 MPH.
03-26-2019 06:35 PM
Automender12345
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenriddles View Post
I don't think you get it.


The MAF does one thing - Send a 0 to 5 volt signal to an input on the computer.


It does not and can not 'remove restrictions' from anything. It either sends a higher voltage signal sooner, or later, depending on its calibration.

He is falling for the literature from the vendor that states it reduces the restriction of the MAF by 45%. The MAF has a small restriction to begin with.



There is no way that the cars computer will try to protect the drivetrain because the aftermarket MAF creates so much extra torque.
03-26-2019 06:01 PM
zenriddles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chieftain View Post
I have a hunch this MAF takes all restrictions off and its too much for the drivetrain.

I don't think you get it.


The MAF does one thing - Send a 0 to 5 volt signal to an input on the computer.


It does not and can not 'remove restrictions' from anything. It either sends a higher voltage signal sooner, or later, depending on its calibration.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome