no honeycomb
Oct 2, 2009, 09:19 AM
#17
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to be rude or sarcastic, particularly not in the EcuFlash forum. We're all adults here, and most of us here are happy to see any kind of testing results as long as we know the parameters of the test (which he was very clear about; on the dyno, low-airflow AFRs were inconsistent).
I'm glad it's worked out for you; folks have been doing this for a long time without seriously adverse effects, so that's not too surprising. But the honeycombs are there for the same reason the OEM airbox plenum is there: provide consistent, repeatable airflow across the sensor. When you change those things, the repeatability of the sensor's readings can go right out the window, which can make your low fuel trim basically useless in extreme cases.
Hence, it's just a small warning that lower-airflow conditions (idle, mid-shift, possibly cruising) may give inconsistent results. Don't take it as a personal affront, and please don't mock people for posting testing results ("HAHAHA ooooook" doesn't constitute a rational critique), or they simply won't post it anymore, and then we're back to people playing secret-squirrel with useful information. Great for your ego, bad for everyone else.
(Personally, I like fixing the problem by removing the MAF entirely, but that's just me.
)
I'm glad it's worked out for you; folks have been doing this for a long time without seriously adverse effects, so that's not too surprising. But the honeycombs are there for the same reason the OEM airbox plenum is there: provide consistent, repeatable airflow across the sensor. When you change those things, the repeatability of the sensor's readings can go right out the window, which can make your low fuel trim basically useless in extreme cases.
Hence, it's just a small warning that lower-airflow conditions (idle, mid-shift, possibly cruising) may give inconsistent results. Don't take it as a personal affront, and please don't mock people for posting testing results ("HAHAHA ooooook" doesn't constitute a rational critique), or they simply won't post it anymore, and then we're back to people playing secret-squirrel with useful information. Great for your ego, bad for everyone else.
(Personally, I like fixing the problem by removing the MAF entirely, but that's just me.
)I was unprofessional. Ill edit my post. It was a last night last night, and it irritates me to no end the constant dyno this dyno that talk....I let my irritation get the best of me at the cost of professionalism
Last edited by denver; Oct 2, 2009 at 09:23 AM.
Oct 4, 2009, 05:17 PM
#20
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Willmar MN
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think it could make things a bit inconsistent. As for hp, I can't imagine the hp could even be measurably different if the tune is the same. I dynoed yesterday, and on the 3rd and final pull I removed my whole intake pipe (little 2 1/4 pipe), air filter, and sensor (I was running speed density). On a 400awhp car it made something like 4hp & 8 torque or something.
Oct 6, 2009, 06:08 AM
#21
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think it could make things a bit inconsistent. As for hp, I can't imagine the hp could even be measurably different if the tune is the same. I dynoed yesterday, and on the 3rd and final pull I removed my whole intake pipe (little 2 1/4 pipe), air filter, and sensor (I was running speed density). On a 400awhp car it made something like 4hp & 8 torque or something.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilratio
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
12
Jun 9, 2010 07:49 PM
SzuChenEvo
Evo How To Requests / Questions / Tips
19
Sep 20, 2003 03:24 PM
alex_alex
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
16
Sep 8, 2003 03:28 PM
