engine management systems

Ask your general questions about KTuner
Post Reply
capri_50
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:20 pm

engine management systems

Post by capri_50 »

I find it odd the different directions car manufacturers went in - as far as management systems.

Ford - who started with the Speed density/MAP sensor in our foxbodies eventually changed to a mass air flow meter system in 1989 (1988 in california). However, they did not do this for performance. It was for emissions reasons.

It just worked out for us mustang guys - that this helped us since air/fuel curve tables were now not based on ONY manifold vacuum. It was based on temperature, speed of air, etc, entering the two "hot" wires going into the mass air meter. We could then change cams (to a certain extent/spec) and cold air intakes, and exhausts without much tuning involved, since the computer could at least compensate a lot more. Of course more could be had by tuning, but at least the computer could compensate a lot more from simple modifications.

Of course - if we went to far, we would have to buy bigger mass air meters or re-calibrate them if we moved to bigger injectors, etc., but it was a step in the right direction compared to the speed density/MAP system - at least as far as the stang was concerned.

I was always curious why cars of today (RSX - even though I know it is 10 years old) - didn't adapt a mass-air system that could actually benefit from simple modifications without as MUCH initial tuning. One could probably add exhaust and some cold air intake and have the computer somewhat compensate better than having to look up tables in the MAP sensor like my older 86-88 stangs did ------ If I am assuming it is doing the same basic "loop-ups" like the archaic 86-88 mustang did ?

thanks for your time,
Jason
KTuner
Site Admin
Posts: 3745
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:13 pm

Re: engine management systems

Post by KTuner »

They did, actually. The same year Accord (05-06) has both MAP and MAF. Almost all of the newer Honda/Acura vehicles are MAF.

And to the contrary on the newer MAF platforms we've seen poorly designed intake systems where the MAF housing is not matched to the factory sizing throw off fueling quite a bit. It's not like older Ford vehicles where the MAF is built into a housing where intake tubing can be coupled to both ends. With Honda/Acura the MAF is fitted into a hole in the piping, so the piping size may differ depending on who made the intake.
capri_50
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:20 pm

Re: engine management systems

Post by capri_50 »

thanks again for you quick response and I apologize for what is probably considered basic comments and questions on a forum like this. I am feeling my age and trying to learn more on these newer systems.

I understand your point on the Honda mass air systems compared to the ford ones. I didn't have a chance to examine any. in this case - yes - I see where the MAP may be more consistent with tuning and or factory specs out of the box.

In the ford MAP days, we could have done a lot more with the speed density systems, but since it was only around for a couple years before the switch to mass-air, much of the development shifted toward the mass-air meter systems side of the house.

again - thanks you for your time....

Jason
KTuner
Site Admin
Posts: 3745
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:13 pm

Re: engine management systems

Post by KTuner »

I understand. It's more difficult with these MAFs that aren't built into a housing, but there are still people out there who have mastered MAF tuning, even in this market. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses for sure.
Post Reply

Return to “General Questions”