intake Flow rate survey!!

[POPOV]

Old thread but figured it is better to post here then creating a new one.

Recently got REVO stage 2+ on my Leon Cupra. After some logging with VCDS i got curious of what the MAF readings are in stock mode and what they should be in Stage 2+ mode?
Assuming that REVO stage 2+ should push the car up to 350hp you should see MAF readings above 280 g/s (350/0,8) ?
I got up to 240 g/s in 4th gear but never pushed above 6000 rpm .
Now after doing some reading it is recommended to run up to redline for better maf readings and use 3th gear, right?

 

[-pseudonymous-]

Correct. Peak airflow should be around 7000rpm.

The highest I have logged is 272g/s from memory. That is with an ITG intake.

 

[sniperftw]

Someone mentioned about....CLEANING MAF!? Seriously? isn't it electrical? how would u clean it?!

 

[robdf2]

Someone mentioned about....CLEANING MAF!? Seriously? isn't it electrical? how would u clean it?!

The maf gets covered in everything the intake sucks in
and yes it is electrical , but this gets sensitised to the debris film which ahdeheres to it.

A can of electrical contact spray will do the job or maybe even ipa.

Have a search on here and the mk1 forum for a guide mate.

 

[ibizacupra]

Right.. apologies for bringing up an old thread via search..

I would like to direct folks to the following if trying to judge the performance gains from an induction kit on tfsi motor.

Firstly... The MAF housing & sensor element. Oval, and with integral screen. Descreened maf's reasd higher, but are also subject to turbulance is giving erratic readings.

I've not seen an induction as yet which is anything other than a round section tube with maf boss welded onto it. (ignoring the std airbox setups completely)

I have measured what I have seen here thus far... forge twintake, and Neuspeed both use 70mm OD tube with boss welded onto them. There was a copy of an ITG one on a K1 last week which had a horrible maf tube arrangement which placed maf sensor element way off centre from the designed position. Whether a coincidence or not, this car did not make great power compared to others from identical map.

The cross sectional area of the oval OE setup, and I am using the Leon Cupra as the gauge here as thats what I have here now... and its oval CSA is some 6% smaller effective area than both the Neuspeed and Forge Twintake.. Logged airflows as a consequence will be different (lower) on the larger tube'd intakes @ MAF position. MAF position within the tube will also effect its reading as can any upstream "joins" where they allow internal turbulance to tumble past the unscreened sensor element.

An exampled from today below:
A std Leon Cupra 2008. I did logs and dyno of bog std..
Fitted Neuspeed intake, redyno and logged.

Which do you think read the highest airflow and which the highest power/torque? std or 70mm Neuspeed intake?

standard intake/std map = airflow 194.72g/s logged, Dyno measured power 246.7bhp/227.7lbft

Neuspeed intake/std map = airflow 185.44g/s logged, Dyno measured power 253.1bhp/240.6lbft

6.4bhp gain 12.9lbft gain on Neuspeed Intake over standard on Standard map, BUT a logged 9.28g/s LESS airflow


Because these intakes do not share the factory sensor positions, and are not the same overall cross sectional internal area, they will read differently... often "lower" whilst flowing more making more power.

Something to consider...
Interesting to me anyhows whilst I work on something of my own.

cheers
bill

 

[POPOV]

Great input Bill!

 

[big eck]

I looking forward to see your intake bill, also interested to see what kind of price you'll want as the currant batch are bloody expensive.

 

[majesty78]

Judging over the power level via mass air flow is terribly inaccurate.
Bill already has shown some examples about deviations in terms of bhp vs. maf.

But there are a lot of other factors taking great influence on the final bhp/torque numbers.

Consider ignition timing, AFR, IAT, condition of fuel pump (injection timing) and many other factors which lead to quite great differences in end result.

Also consider that unfortunately many remaps show de-calibrated MAF readings due to missing knowledge, hence "wrong" mapping.

And at last, MAF readings is not a linear function, especially when modifications are done in hard- or software, so +20% mass air flow does not necessarily mean you have +20% bhp. Could be way more, or even way less.

Take those comparisons with a big grain of salt!

(And especially don't make yourself unhappy because someone else has 5g/sec more airflow. Could easily be that the car with 5g/sec less airflow is way faster on the road *g*)

BR

Alex

 

[ibizacupra]

Judging over the power level via mass air flow is terribly inaccurate.
Bill already has shown some examples about deviations in terms of bhp vs. maf.

But there are a lot of other factors taking great influence on the final bhp/torque numbers.

Consider ignition timing, AFR, IAT, condition of fuel pump (injection timing) and many other factors which lead to quite great differences in end result.

Also consider that unfortunately many remaps show de-calibrated MAF readings due to missing knowledge, hence "wrong" mapping.

And at last, MAF readings is not a linear function, especially when modifications are done in hard- or software, so +20% mass air flow does not necessarily mean you have +20% bhp. Could be way more, or even way less.

Take those comparisons with a big grain of salt!

(And especially don't make yourself unhappy because someone else has 5g/sec more airflow. Could easily be that the car with 5g/sec less airflow is way faster on the road *g*)

BR

Alex

When things are std......... the airflow divide 0.8 correlation matches very closely to the dyno... when you see a divergance, you know there's either inefficiencies at play or non std maf housings.

Its not magic to expect to see a TFSi MAF when without its standard flow screen to read an "apparent" higher airflow.. If it was a genuine higher airflow because of the removal of the screen, you would expect to see it gain power on the dyno... In my experience, quite the opposite can occur.

The intakes which use tubes, and none of them I have yet seen attempt to restore a screen before the sensor, will all read "differently" to stock, for the same power output.. Larger tubed will read lower from the larger CSA of that tube but offset to a small point by the likely over reading from being unscreened, BUT this overread is going to very much be influenced by whats occuring upstream of the sensor pipe wise.

My leon's airflow correlates to a 300bhp level of airflow, where its producing 347bhp on the dyno. Twinake in this example.
non std maf housing at play.

 

[WeeG]

Logged the new apr version 3.31 file with a few tweaks on the car today. With revo intake with standard size MAF housing.

The car made (logs to prove) 289.11 g/s at 6880 rpm. Zero timing pull across rev range, boost request vs boost actual achieved

 

[WeeG]

Logged the new apr version 3.31 file with a few tweaks on the car today. With revo intake with standard size MAF housing.

The car made (logs to prove) 289.11 g/s at 6880 rpm. Zero timing pull across rev range, boost request vs boost actual achieved

Fuel trim at idle -0.3 %
Fuel trim (on the move) 6.8%

 

[AndrewJB]

Logged mine this morning using torque app for Android

Stage 2± APR V3.1

NeUspeed P-Flo 244 g/s

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

 

[ibizacupra]

the trims on the forge twintake on mine are 2.3%,9.4%
The MAF housing is some 6% larger than std however, so MAF is not reading calibrated actual airflows... so additive lambda correction is going to occur.

 

[WHOZBOSS]

Does anyone know the trims/readings for the mtc induction kit with an itg 89mm OD neck filter fitted

 

[gunnergibson]

Does anyone know the trims/readings for the mtc induction kit with an itg 89mm OD neck filter fitted

Taken from another forum:

Yesterday i measured the air intake flow rate and got 267g/s with it (stage 2 Shark, 16deg outside). So its up there with the 'big boys', which is good.

Did some more logging on the intake today.

The Long Term Fuel Trims.

+4.7%, Again very good.



Some more values (pinched from VWVortex) that need to be added to...

Stock Intake: Fuel Trims from +0 to +5% - Safe
APR Carbonio: +0 to +8% - Safe
Forge WINtake: +10 to +25% - CEL Possible
Forge TWINtake: +5 to +15% - CEL Unlikely
EVOMs Intake: +0 to +~5% - Safe
CTS Turbo Intake: +0 to +~5% - Safe
Neuspeed P-Flo Intake: +0 to +~8% - Safe
VWR Intake: +5 to +20% - CEL Possible
VWR Intake (Post-Warranty Modification): +0 to ~8% - CEL Unlikely
Volant Intake: +0 to +~5% - Safe
Injen Intake: +5 to +20% - CEL Possible
BSH Intake: +0 to ~10% - CEL Unlikely

 

[AndrewJB]

I looked at my long term fuel trim this morning


Measured the g/s at 244 the other day Neuspeed P-Flo with APR Stage2+ V3.1

So this morning i scanned the car on start up at it was reading 3.4%, drove 6 miles home and it was reading 2.5%

 

[WHOZBOSS]

Is the neuspeed better than the MTC I have as I have both kits..?

 

[WeeG]

Logged the car in 5th gear and at redline made 305 g/s last night

 

[ibizacupra]

Logged the car in 5th gear and at redline made 305 g/s last night

305g/s?
382bhp worth of airflow

does that sound right?

whats on yours fella?

 

[WeeG]

It's the Revo intake bud ill fire up the logs. The car made 379 bhp on APR Scotland's rollers and 391 lbs ft torque. 20 bhp more than the rollers have ever done before