97FormulaWS-6

I was probably the one to post them... that looks like my spreadsheet...

I got the tables back in early '01 from my buddies brand new ZO6 at the time... and made the table from that. I also have been running that table since then with perfect results.

atljar

Thanks again for that, made all the semi hard math work into entering numbers

1-bad-z28

So what's the point of even changing it. If the values only matter in the upper levels or if a blower is pushing alot of air through there at part throttle, but at WOT it goes to a preprogrammed fuel curve, then why would you change it. I can understand going to speed density and cutting the air restriction out of the picture altogether. I just don't understand going to an extended table if it won't even be used.

atljar

OK first off the MAF output only matters at lower values, not upper. Just making sure you are on the same page.

The only reason to change to it is to get a bigger MAF on there and get any possible air restriction that the stock MAF has out of the way. So you get to keep a working MAF setup, without going to speed density. Kinda comes down to something like, do you want a 3 inch KN or a 4 inch, assumming they both work? Or a 48mm TB or a 52? Same thing here.

The tables extending themselves is just how it works out, which is a good thing IMO since you get a little more precise cruising values but that isnt the reason to switch.

Solomon- Sending you mail

96capricemgr

I had professional help with the tuning and tried the tables 97formula shared.

I know of no tuners who recommend this thing and when they first came out Ed Wright reportedly tested a hanful of them and found readings to vary 10%.
IMO the only people who support this mod are the ones who already did it and are unwilling to admit it was anything other than the best idea.
As for restrictions a vacuum gauge or MAP readings will tell you if there is one.

97FormulaWS-6

"IMO the only people who support this mod are the ones who already did it and are unwilling to admit it was anything other than the best idea."

Uhm, ok....

I ONLY have recommended this as a replacement to the factory unit; not as an "upgrade".

And just because U had "professional" assistance with this and still couldn't get it to work right doesn't mean that others, including myself can't as well.

I've had it for 3 years with absolutly no problems, issues, or any other "bad" things to say about it. You on the other hand who couldn't get it to work bashes it every time it's brought up.

U say that E.W. saw a variation of up to 10%, hell, what do you want from a typical airflow meter; most are about that accurate anyways, not to mention not being calibrated every 6-12 months like a "certified" airflow meter.

And if this MAF is so bad and so out of calibration than why was it and similar designs used by GM for over 7 years and is still in use on new vehicles today?

I will also add this as an additional note to things...

The ZO6 MAF was designed for use without a screen due to the "straight-shot" style of intakes used on the Corvettes. This screenless design is fine for usage on these style systems, similar to the WS6 intake setup and LS1 style intakes. As for the "typical" LT1 setup, I can see possible issues if the unit was used W/O a screen due to unbalanced airflow through the sensor, similar to the issues with the stock MAF without a screen.

But...

This does NOT explain why you had such issues even with "professional" assistance. I am far from a professional (Although I do carry a BS in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering), and mine works flawlessly. I took the PCM data from LS1 edit from a friends '01 ZO6 Vette, used a 9th order best-fit curve and interpolated the data points from there for use in the LT1 PCM. That is the data that is posted, and that is the data that has been in my PCM since '01 with absolutly no problems.

slverbullet

...just when i'm starting to get the whole talking about cars and motors jargon down, you gotta go and bust me down again.

96capricemgr

Mine was an early one with a screen and I also tried it with a straight shot intake. The first set of tables I tried came from LS1 Edit and a ZO6. Several respected tuners say the ZO6 MAF is too much hassle I have heard this from madz28, pcmforless diectly and third party from Ed Wright. If you know more than those three you are in the wrong line of work and need to be tuning instead.

97FormulaWS-6

Sorry, got into Engineering/Math/Programming talk again...

Basically what I said was I took the MAF curve from the ZO6 computer, and figured out the points that the LT1 PCM reads. The 9th order is just the level of fitting of the mathmatical formula of the curve; the higher the number the closer the fitment of the curve to the formula.

*Shrugs* maybe I am in the wrong business, but I haven't looked into programming car PCMs yet, I'm still learning to program Microcontrollers for my own amusement first, I'm only dabbling into programming with LT1 edit eith my car; haven't had the drive yet....

If I ever got the motivation to do it, it may not be a bad thing, but I don't honestly know enough about engine controls yet to say that I even partially know what I doing when it comes to programming PCMs.