Hi and sorry for the mix up, my way of presenting this informations was misleading and I should have posted one self explenatory post to begin with instead of this mix and migle type writing.

"Yesterday at this time you showed me in this post: http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/bb/performance/index.html?bID=92870 , using your graph, that the frequency goes extremely non-linear above 9000 Hz."

I guess I assumed to much there and failed to write that this was a log from the car not a hz vs. g/s table. Though the x-axis would lead the reader to what it was.


"Using your projected MAF response curve, that you posted here: http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/bb/performance/index.html?bID=92875 YOUR work indicates that at 10000 Hz, MAF flow is around 240 g/s, which agrees with the LS1 chart you've just posted. BUT your graph stops there, coinciding with the non-linear area of the MAF response from the other graph. If you felt that the MAF was in fact capable of measuring much higher flows accurately, than why stop your curve at only 240 g/s?"

I made that graph originally for my personal use, so I can convert the raw signal logged from MAF to g/s, since it is not given out in WIS that far. In my case with the original turbo there is no need to contenue the graph higher, because I wont ever see that big of hz numbers on my scope.

"So I know what has happened: When looking at the first post the assumption is that it was a curve of the MAF response. In fact it's not, it's a curve of your vehicle's response. Then, reinforcing that, you posted the second curve with your prediction stopping at 240 g/s, again, ending where your car stopped, not where the MAF stopped. So okay, all the data you've presented indicated that the system isn't capable past 240 g/s or about, when in fact it just happens that your model and emperical evidense wasn't capable of demonstrating more than that 240 g/s or so, shown by the vehicles response roll-off, not the sensor's. And that was my mistake for allowing/taking those assumptions."

I never realised until now that this was the case. Good we got this solved now. I will keep this in mind in the future.



posted by 81.197.215...

• Drew, about airmass, Vigge, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:31:49
  • Estimating CFM, Drew in Houston, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:08:11
  • From below, you type too fast :), Drew in Houston, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:45:32
    • Maximum MAF range, Vigge, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:53:50
      • Re: Maximum MAF range (little long), Drew in Houston, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:16:34
        • One more reference for the GM MAF, Vigge, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:53:06
        • Here is results for one 70mm MAF, Vigge, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:19:04
        • Short comment, more will follow, Vigge, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:59:56
          • Re: Short comment, more will follow, Drwe in Houston, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:47:50
            • Re: Short comment, more will follow, vigge, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:46:37 <-- Viewing This Message

No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.

• Prev by Date: and don't forget this, dip, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:35:35
• Next by Date: MBC+A, Ben, Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:47:00
• Main Performance Bulletin Board

StateOfNine.com

SaabClub.com

Jak Stoll Performance

M Car Covers

Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]

Random Saabnet.com Member Gallery Photos (Click Image)