Actually, most MAF-based systems use a MAP sensor, because at the lower rpm/throttle settings (or major changes in throttle settings) that give a MAF sensor fits, they use the MAP sensor and TPS (plus the usual other sensor inputs like ambient air temp, coolant temp, etc.) to handle the fueling chores.

In the end however, I'd like to see someone adapt a MAF-based system to the FD. And then see how much money and time they spent to do it.

 

If a MAF system has a MAP sensor then whats the difference, why do they call it an MAF system, and whats the point of changing? Not arguing, just curious, but I've never heard of a MAF car having a MAP sensor.

 

Because the majority of the fuel delivery determination chores are handled by the MAF sensor, since it is more accurate. The MAP sensor is there to deal with situations where the hot film sensor is at a disadvantage, such as has been discussed before to much mudslinging and chest-pounding. Not all MAF-based systems have a MAP sensor, but most of the better ones do.

All sportbikes (well, virtually all, since there are still a few that use...gasp!...carburetors) use MAP-based systems. While cost is surely a concern, it's mostly because of the problems associated with the location of the intake tract in relation to the engine and overall bike package (size and additional obstruction in the intake tract), as well as the intake fluctuations that occur due to the increasingly abundant cam overlap needed for the current performance of today's sportbikes. Nonetheless, they perform just fine with the MAP-based EFI systems. They handle performance mods like full exhausts easily because the stock exhaust systems flow excellent to start with.

 

So? Where's my apology?

 

Jim, you're really something... :shaking his head: lol

 

For what?

 

For all your bullshit about speed density systems being quicker to react when you didn't even know that the majority of MAF-based systems also have a MAP sensor.

 

For one thing he even said the MAP sensor is used at low rpm's which is insignificant in performance. But more importantly I didn't know that MAF systems had MAP sensors and still don't. I'm not saying he's lying or even that he's wrong. It's quite possible that he's right, but I'm not apologizing for anything. I just said what I knew about the subject and you had to be a smartass. Maybe because you didn't know or didn't think about it. So you wouldn't accept it. You needed proof, but as soon Kento something that you think you can use against me you don't need proof you just jump on it. Convenient huh? So who deserves the apology? Who was the smart *** first?

 

Not to blow up your spot or anything...BUT...This is from the very FIRST page of this thread...

 

Must have missed that. I admit I didn't read all 13 pages of the thread. Still doesn't change who deserves an apology. He was being a dick.

 

Because you made an inaccurate statement with no proof to back it up, but still wanted to argue about it because "you knew what you were talking about".

Not once did you use a phrase like "I think" or "correct me if I'm wrong". No, you came into this thread with 30-something posts and made a pronouncement, and then wanted to argue about what you'd said without ever once stopping to wonder if maybe you were wrong. Did you ever stop to think why someone with 7,000+ posts would question what you posted? Did you ever stop to think that maybe someone who has been on the Earth TWICE as long as you have might actually know something you don't? Nope. You knew what you were talking about.

Who was the smart *** first? Do you remember this post?

This is precisely why newbies should not be allowed to post in Advance Tech.

 

Actually, at idle and part throttle, both systems rely on the O2 sensor(s) in closed loop mode to approximate fuel delivery for best economy and emissions. The MAP sensor in a MAF-based system is used at WOT just like in a speed density system. Even Kento isn't right 100% of the time.

 

Heh, neither are you, Jim (of course, I'll also state that yes, I don't claim to be correct 100% of the time). Very few of the sportbike EFI MAP-based systems use a closed loop configuration, yet pass current and future emissions standards easily.

 

At what point did this become a conversation about sport bikes? I think you're on the wrong forum.

 

....heh...

 

Who sais my original statement was innacurate and what was innacurate about it? Where's YOUR proof? I admit I did not know that some MAF systems had MAP sensors but I didn't say anything about that in my original post. The truth is I don't care how old and decrepid you are or how young I am. Age doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I respect people who I believe have earned it regardless of age. And I don't care how many times you've opened your mouth ( or posted ). It doesn't change what you know or don't know. That changes by listening not talking.

 

I said that your original statement was inaccurate and it's already been explained why it was inaccurate.

Posted above. Read it.

Obviously. How could you if you didn't know?

Great, so you're wrong and snotty about not admitting it. Do yourself a favor and don't post again.

 

I was under the impression that this was one of the main reasons an MAF-based system still used a TPS sensor...?? (for low rpms) Or am I totally off?

 

Part of the reason. It uses info from a wide array of sensors, including the aforementioned 02 sensor, MAP, TPS, coolant temp, ambient air temp and pressure, etc. etc. etc. You need to do some research on fuel injection systems and how they work. And don't limit yourself to the internet; you can't expect to be spoon fed everything, you'll have to do some legwork yourself at a bookstore or library.

 

Yeah. Find a good book on Physics or Fluid Dynamics.

 

Jim, you're a riot lol. Like I said earlier...def. something else haha

Ok, so "How Stuff Works" isn't enough, eh? hehe. I'm serious...any titles you'd recommend? Cuz I want something I'll understand (so isn't overly complicated) plus I can actually apply to the FD

 

I haven't read anything that showed my initial statement as innacurate. And your proof is you say so therefore its true? Thats not proof thats arrogance.

Also I see your reply for "The truth is I don't care how old and decrepid you are or how young I am. Age doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I respect people who I believe have earned it regardless of age. And I don't care how many times you've opened your mouth ( or posted ). It doesn't change what you know or don't know. That changes by listening not talking. " had nothing to do with what I said. Probly cause you can't dispute it. So why bother quoting it in the first place if your not talking about it.

Oh and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong and have no problem admitting it but please tell me what's inaccurate about my initial statement.

 

Oh newbie I read "How to build intake and exhaust systems". Can't remember the author. Not even real sure that was the title. It had a chapter on fuel injection systems. Pretty good information, but its not as in depth as a whole book on the subject would be.

 

Instant replay...

Your ASSUMPTION that a speed-density system reacts quicker was based on its sensor array and the INCORRECT belief that a MAF-based system relies ONLY on the feedback of the MAF sensor. However, the majority of MAF-based systems HAVE THE SAME SENSOR ARRAY as a speed-density system, IN ADDITION TO the MAF sensor. Therefore, your assumption was WRONG.

NOW DO YOU GET IT???

 

It seems to me there should be a back room for the arguments, you know the phrase "want to step out side" that way the discussion at hand can be furthered. I like a little sparing but when it stifles the thread it's a bummer.