4.0 MAF mod "tuning" information -- new stuff - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz

And Dave, you do get personal a lot. Your lack of ability to perceive it is perhaps your greatest weakness in that regard, if in fact you don't see it.
If you can stop attacking me for a moment, I would love to have you point out the personal attacks I have made against individuals on this board.

You just don't like what I have to say, and that's fine. There is no reason for you to be excited by it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-03-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba
There HAS to be a downside to this mod.. And w/o evidence of a substantial upside, I really don't think it's for me. And I personally would suggest that there are better ways of improving the performance of the vehicle than hacking up the MAF sensor!
The downside to the MAF mod is that it exposes the hot wire element directly to contamination in the main air stream. In the stock configuration, it is deliberately shielded by a labyrinth to keep it clean and to better protect it from damage during handling. This mod removes the protective labyrinth that is also a flow restriction for the intake as a whole.

A manufacturer is interested in a component that will, at the lowest cost, provide acceptable service life with little or no attention. This makes the average owner happy and keeps down the warranty numbers. People who like to tamper with things (myself included) may be willing to put up with more frequent maintenance or replacements just for the fun of messing with things.

I'm not against the mod myself as long as people know what they are getting into: possible fueling errors and easier contamination of the hot wire element. It looks like John's recent experimentation has brought us closer to a mod that the 4.0L will tolerate. I might even do mine.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-03-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
The MAF mod does not change the exposure to the elements, Bob. The labyrinth is nothing more than an "averaging" element which helps to reduce the response of the MAF to impulses at low flow rates in a recip engine at low RPM. The mod in no way changes what the elements see, they are just as open to contamination. The labyrinth is AFTER the elements.

The technical term for this MAF design is "internal bypass MAF". The other design (external bypass) diverts a sample through a tube OUTSIDE the body of the MAF, picking it up at one spot, and returning the flow downstream.

However, this costs more to manufacture. The internal bypass design puts the bypass tube INSIDE the MAF. Cheap and easy to make, still minimizes inpulse response. The DOWNSIDE (there's always a downside, remember? ) is that it reduces the cross section of the MAF and reduces air flow.

This can actually serve to limit maximum fuel flow and may be attractive to a manufacturer to limit full throttle air flow and slightly increase economy. If you look hard enough, you'll find automotive engineering boards discussing the design of MAF's and the how's and why's of the current design evolution.

The restrictions are hurting now though, because HP is becoming more and more a selling point. Finding more accurate, and less restrictive MAF designs is a goal now.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-03-2005
LILBLUE04FX4L2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Exit 105 New Jersey
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
Finding more accurate, and less restrictive MAF designs is a goal now.
as in the flush mounted. open design, all metal MAF now installed in the 4.0 SOHC.....
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-03-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave and Julie
If you can stop attacking me for a moment, I would love to have you point out the personal attacks I have made against individuals on this board.

You just don't like what I have to say, and that's fine. There is no reason for you to be excited by it.
Oh, snide comments about people only being interested in appearances, etc. I think people know what I'm talking about -- and if they don't agree, that's okay too. Nice try, though. I think that would be a new topic in and of itself, but one not worth starting.


And, Dave, can we talk here? You are anything but EXCITING!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
John. I've been through you're 'how-to' several times. I've probably read every page of your cardomain at least 2 or 3 times now. So yeah, I've read what you have to say! As you know, I also tried to participate in GE.com and later this site and I don't recall seeing before/after data ONCE on any of those sites. Now maybe it was all posted well before I got 'in' on the game here and became an adtive member. Because of the nature of these sites posts easily get burried, regardless of how important they are. Maybe it's time to repost this information! What I would suggest is that maybe it is time to post these statistics WITH the mod information so that people can make an intelligent decision. I legitamately have not seen any 0-60 times, HP calculations, or what have you. Maybe I should. Maybe seeing them would make me a 'beliver' (for whatever the hell that's worth!).

The problem is that far too many people on these boards take what you have to say at face value w/o doing any testing themselves. I'm not saying that's always a horrible thing, as I believe you legitimately strive (and often succeed) in doing a good job. But your priorities and concerns are not the same as everyone elses. For you needing to replace the MAF every x years may be worth 10 HP. But for the next guy it may not be. Every once and a while it's good to have some conflicting opinion to keep everything in check. Bad-mouthing the individual as a belittler and a 'talking head' isn't helpful in my opinion. That's why I called you a polarizer!

And for that matter I don't even think that Dave is that much of a 'talking head'. Me, perhaps, but that's another issue. He's got some additional information and resources at his disposal that the rest of us don't. Is his info/experience definitive? Nope! Is yours? Probably not. Do both angles deserve mention? I think so..

And take it easy. No one (at least not I) is attacking you personally. We all aprecheate you sharing your expereince w/ these experiments w/ us.

At this point I'm sorry I opened my mouth/keyboard to express an opinion at all! So you win, this 'talking head' will shut up now..

Now if you could improve my gas mileage w/o effecting the reliability of the truck, I'd be interested!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
Oh, snide comments about people only being interested in appearances, etc. I think people know what I'm talking about -- and if they don't agree, that's okay too. Nice try, though. I think that would be a new topic in and of itself, but one not worth starting.


And, Dave, can we talk here? You are anything but EXCITING!
That isn't against an individual but a general group. You must see it as yourself when I say it, that's up to you to decide. You always attack me by name.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba

And for that matter I don't even think that Dave is that much of a 'talking head'. Me, perhaps, but that's another issue. He's got some additional information and resources at his disposal that the rest of us don't. Is his info/experience definitive? Nope! Is yours? Probably not. Do both angles deserve mention? I think so..
I'm glad someone else sees it that way. That was my original intent, but seems some people tend to jump on the defense every time I say something. I'd be the first to admit that I don't know a lot of things about Ford vehicles, but I do know some things and I'm not going to sit by when someone does something that I think may damage their equipment without trying to help them by discussing things. Then again, maybe I will next time.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Dave, that being said, the whole you're-an-engineer-and-I-expected-better bit was just a bit of a cheap shot. I beleive you were out to press buttons, for whatever reason. You could try some tact every now and again..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-03-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
The MAF mod does not change the exposure to the elements, Bob. The labyrinth is nothing more than an "averaging" element which helps to reduce the response of the MAF to impulses at low flow rates in a recip engine at low RPM. The mod in no way changes what the elements see, they are just as open to contamination. The labyrinth is AFTER the elements.
I understand what you're saying, John, although I think it's debatable as to whether the sensor element is exposed to more contamination after the mod - there is clearly more airflow over the sensor element after the mod at high intake volume flow. Not to mention the exposure to intake backfire without the damper tube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
The DOWNSIDE (there's always a downside, remember? ) is that it reduces the cross section of the MAF and reduces air flow.

This can actually serve to limit maximum fuel flow and may be attractive to a manufacturer to limit full throttle air flow and slightly increase economy.
Assuming that a manufacturer has even the slightest interest in restricting airflow to improve WOT fuel economy (doubtful), I find it hard to understand why a MAF restriction would be used to limit full throttle airflow when the throttle body itself is there and can be sized to accomplish the same thing. I see the restriction more as an undesirable side effect of adding the damper tube rather than as a design feature.

Last edited by V8 Level II; 02-03-2005 at 06:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba
Dave, that being said, the whole you're-an-engineer-and-I-expected-better bit was just a bit of a cheap shot. I beleive you were out to press buttons, for whatever reason. You could try some tact every now and again..
I did that on purpose after he had already attacked me several times on this and the other MAF thread.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
That's no excuse in my mind.. but I understand.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-03-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
Some of us take it better than others.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-03-2005
doc's Avatar
doc doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Media, PA
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave and Julie
I did that on purpose after he had already attacked me several times on this and the other MAF thread.
SO basically you acted like a little kid to intentionally cause a conflict... I used to do that when I was 5. Real cute, acting like a grown ups now aren't we.....

As far as the TOPIC!
I have been one of the more recent MAF modder's (if that is a word). I had a code thrown in the begining (prob due to the K&N). It nwas quickly fixed and my truck has ssen a great increase in responce. I personally know how m uch John investigates any mod before attempting it. AND it is always on his truck first to ensure it wil work. I do not have PCM data or Dyno tests.... I have my right foot. When I hit the gas and get up to speed 2x faster than yesterday.... That is a real word test in my book. I do not like seeing numbers.. They are relative, my foot is not! This thread is not asking for what people think about the mod. It is for those who want to do it or have done it. Like it or not you have missed trying to prove the mod wrong by like maybe.... 1 or 2 years maybe (can not remember when it showed up on GE) exactly). SO many people have done it... many have had no probs.. This tells me, again, that it can not be to bad of a mod.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-04-2005
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
John said :

"And why is it unsupportable? Because measured results have proved that it does make a difference. If you read some of the posts you'll see that track times prove it, and we've done before/after 0-60 runs with trucks before that bear it out as well. I'd LOVE it if someone would dyno it, but no one has and there is plenty of substantive evidence (measurements, not "butt dyno" stuff which has bit me also) to support this. "

They put a factory MAF on my truck ( yes its back and running 'factory' ) which is coming off Saturday morning ( new headunit and other items going on ) for a new Pro-M. Cutting it and putting in another run shouldn't be much of a problem , BUT, I dont think Bob will let *me* put my hands on the dyno controls or the program consol to actually see how much of an improvement *could* actually come of it... readings of just cutting the thing shouldn't be a problem.

Back to your folly peeps.
D.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-04-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Hmmmm....Dave NEVER starts the insults, huh? Don't think you can support that. The post I cited above was clearly a cheap shot, and generally he insults by class and not by individual, and acts like it's a virtue.

I'm done. Believe what you want. My how-to stands and I'm not running a whole battery of tests AGAIN to prove my point. Do it if you want or don't do it. If boards don't keep my posts that's not my problem -- thats why I have the Cardomain site now and backups so I don't have to rely on a board somewhere to keep information.

I call Dave a talking head because he mainly SAYS and doesn't DO anything. What have you designed, Dave, since you challenge people's engineering savvy?

Well, Bob, we'll have to agree to disagree. With MAYBE a 5 to 10 percent gain in top end air flow total (because of other restrictions) the increase in air flow through the sensor is relatively small, and I can't see it being enough to damage it. (I know what's coming from someone: "if it's small then why do it?") If it was very large, you'd run out of range at the top of the MAF's voltage and start to run lean at the top end -- but that's not happening. You'd run lean because the airflow signal says less air is flowing than actually is, and the fuel trim might not be able to compensate.

I don't know about the backfire issue. I've never heard of this or an aftermarket MAF being damaged by backfire, or even it happening much in a well maintained EFI vehicle.

And, FWIW also, my MAF has been cut for 2 years now. No problems and still running within tolerance and passing emissions testing here.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-04-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
John, you are an informational pedophile. You get off on coming up with little "mods" for the kids on this site, some of which could cause coslty damage if done improperly or could create an unsafe vehicle condition. You even call yourself "daddy". You shun any contrary ideas or information about how you've decided things work cause it spoils your group of little kids worshiping you. Trying to help you is no longer worth my effort.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-04-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
all being said, i value johns opinion....just by viewing his cardomain and seeing all the mods and etc, i think he knows what he's doing. hes done all the mods to his truck, and his truck is still running fine....he cant help it if some idiot hacks up a crucial part of the truck and it wont run right....buyer beware....

but i value everyones comments on this site. theres 2 sides to every story, i know this, and actually, a correct negative comment is needed to put things into retrospect.

i would probably just ditch this MAF idea andbuy a bigger throttle body...that seems to be the best route...i think leo bought a bigger one....
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-04-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave and Julie
John, you are an informational pedophile. You get off on coming up with little "mods" for the kids on this site, some of which could cause coslty damage if done improperly or could create an unsafe vehicle condition. You even call yourself "daddy". You shun any contrary ideas or information about how you've decided things work cause it spoils your group of little kids worshiping you. Trying to help you is no longer worth my effort.
Good, because you haven't been much help generally. In fact, in past matters, when you had talked about all the engineers you have access to, and I asked you for help, you talked about how you couldn't get an answer then and never did get me any substantive information.

I don't call myself "daddy" -- that was a name given to me back in my Gen-Edge days. Since I am a father it cracks me up. For a long time I was the oldest guy on the site by quite a bit.

I see you demean the mods I've done without answering what YOU have done, which is what I expected. The "little mods" have been quite useful to a large number of people, and not just on this site, as the emails I get all the time attest. The EATC mod is far from little.

There is not change without risk, and that's just life. You get off on glorifying the risk so YOU can pontificate about the dangers, and demean the people who do it.

Which, by the way, you have just done. I suppose you're going to say referring to the members of this site as "little kids" is not demeaning? It's just more of the same, Dave, and that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

I will give you credit though: "informational pedophile" IS one of the most creative insults I've ever heard -- of course, you do PRACTICE a lot!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-04-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Uh, yeah, okay dave..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-04-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664


Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-04-2005
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
Doc, can u post up some milage specs for before and after the "MAF mod"?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-04-2005
LILBLUE04FX4L2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Exit 105 New Jersey
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by optikal illushun
Doc, can u post up some milage specs for before and after the "MAF mod"?
Kiel, your ladies 2004 4.0 SOHC MAF can not be modified.
It is of a totally different design which I hope addressed many of the short comings of the OEM module that John's MAF MOD looks to correct.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-04-2005
IN2 FX4's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 855
I am new to the this site and do not know many of the people on it yet. However, I do know John from another site and know how he approaches mods or almost any project for that matter. He seems to be very thorough and is quick to admit when he is wrong. John and I have been on opposite ends of a discussion before and it was done with respect of each other. I don't remember the subject but I do know the discussion was at length and it ended on a good note.

John has, as many of us do, buttons that can be pushed to rile him and I have seen this happen on this thread. Certainly opposing opinions are welcome to show another side of a discussion but there is nothing to be gained by personal attacks.

I have never done the MAF mod because I did not feel comfortable that I could do it without damaging it. Also, the gains for a 4.0 engine seemed the be negligible compared to the gains for a 3.0 engine. It seems John has gotten more gains for the 4.0 and I would consider it now.

BTW, I don't call John daddy but I do remember when he got that nick name. He may not be aware but I am older than he is.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-04-2005
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
i know it cant be modified and i wasnt planning on it. im just curious to see.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blown MAF hotwire, "slow return to idle" Andre DOHC - 2.3L Duratec / Mazda L Engines 2 05-07-2013 09:39 AM
Redline Tuning HoodShocks Mishaps "Help" 2001fordranger General Ford Ranger Discussion 5 08-12-2010 12:47 PM
For Sale: Tons and tons of stuff (Ranger, F150,Explorer) Lots of parts LOOK! NEW stuff OHIO Police Interceptor Interior, Exterior, Electrical, & Misc. 23 04-28-2010 05:54 PM
New to site, need some information! onecleanride Member Introductions 17 09-11-2008 02:02 PM
6x9 Mod - Need some information for a proper Non-Sub Amp WowMike2001 Audio & Video Tech 16 08-13-2008 05:08 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.