Re: High Flow MAF revisited - (Porsche 928 voltage MAF)

["Thomas Matthews" <tmatthew@stny.lrun.com>]

I figured that it would take a lot of messing around to get it right...
But are they similar in their non linear response?
Now if someone had the table of 89 MAF voltage to GPS, then could compare
the linearity of the two sensors, and fudge the tables in the ECM to
compensate for the difference- I would guess that would leave you pretty
close.
I guess the real answer would be to build a straight F/V converter, and flow
the 2 sensors to build a response curve of each, CFM /vs voltage, but I have
no access to a flow bench...
SLP used to sell the 3.5 Bosch MAF with a translator, FYI... If anyone had a
contact at SLP or one of these translators that they could reverse engineer,
that would be a quick solution, but then we're still stuck with the Bosch
part... but it has been proven to work.
I have a totally virgin NIB Bosch MAF, and I'll purchase a LT1 sensor, if
the rest of us can come up with time on a flow bench, a translator, and the
voltage to GPS table in the 89 165 code...
Any takers?
Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Plecan" <nacelp@bright.net>
To: <gmecm@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: High Flow MAF revisited - (Porsche 928 voltage MAF)


> Either sensor has the common trait, of not being linear.  Look at K
Kelly's
> chart.
> There ain't no way some simple little V/F or F/V or combination there of
is
> going to do what you want, acurately.  One other option, rewrite the code,
> ya right, like that is easy.  Or use a Microprocessor, and do it right..
> If some one who is really good with code had enough info., that would be
> doable (and with a tad more work we could have a MAP to MAF or MAF to MAP)
> converter.  Now, the last option would be clever, IMHO.
>   Grumpy