Help me pass emissions..

[squidmaster]

The maf is more affected by bends in piping where it isn't already situated toward the end of a straight through pipe than a filter being located 2in more away through another straight extension. I've tuned dozens of cars with that exact MAF and all sorts of intake setups and I'm telling you from first hand experience the difference is almost negligible.

[squidmaster]

Clocking is more commonly used for pipes that have bends. And that are larger or incorrectly sized for the sensor.

[328ijunkie]

Not gonna get into a huge shitstorm with you since you clearly know everything with your vast experience.....

[squidmaster]

You can check your own google if you want to learn more...

[DesertBMW]

As an update I found a way to get my car registered without emissions, so I want be testing the car again for while... The car still smells a bit rich at idle even after adding some space between the filter & MAF, so I suspect something else is still going on.

I just see it now, you got 3.5" maf and who knows what tune. I would put stock stuff back on for emissions testing

[squidmaster]

I modeled and flow-tested both designs for your viewing pleasure. Please refer to my article for more information!

Filter on MAF design






Filter on 2" extension on MAF design




The cut-off for where I took the snapshots isn't exactly the same and should have been better, but with a full intake velocity of 215CFM, the MAF on the shorter pipe saw 211.4CFM whereas the MAF on the extended pipe saw 210.9CFM which is less than a 1% difference.

So let's hope this clears it up once-and-for-all

[328ijunkie]

I (we) appreciate the above and beyond effort to close that discussion but your simulation is still assuming even distribution into/through the airfilter. The only point i was attempting to make is that a cone filter exposed to an e30 engine bay will draw air in cleanly in all directions for about 5 min. As dirt fills it up randomly it will draw from different points on the filter. And to reiterate what i said multiple times, the filter being on the MAF does work just fine for the most part but is not 'ideal'. Look at the airbox design of any OEM airbox. It specifically attempts to channel the air into a clean flow after the filter. (in addition to the fact that BMW hasnt used a cone of any sort that im aware of, always flat air filters).

[squidmaster]

I've tuned cars all day long with filters right on the maf and it makes almost no difference if it's extended or not, the same amount of air passes the sensor

^false.

*sigh*

[squidmaster]

For starters:

https://www.google.com/search?q=MAF+clocking&oq=MAF+clocking&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.6055j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

2ndly The Air entering the filter is going to enter through the path of least resistance. If that is the bottom (say 6:00) position and the maf is at the top (12:00) position, most of the air will completely bypass the maf causing a lean condition or simulating a vac leak.

And this jibberish. Did you even go through your Google link and read? I did and it only further refutes what you've said. If you can prove me wrong, please do, but there has been no evidence at all. You're just trying to derail the conversation and argument at this point.

I mean now you're talking about what BMW uses from the factory? Sure whatever you want, but that's not even remotely close to the original point you attempted to rebut of "adding 2in between the filter and the maf tubing does almost nothing".

Again, does not matter at all what clock the maf sits at because the flux (the sensing part of the sensor) is positioned in the DEAD CENTER of the pipe. Sensor at 20'? Dead center flux. Sensor at 270'? Dead center flux. Sensor at 5.457777173'? Dead center flux. You get the picture.

edit: and wait, "simulating a vac leak" could you please expand on that a little more? I'm curious how flipping the angle of my sensor a couple of degrees would "simulate a vac leak".

[328ijunkie]

I was simply stating that 'almost' bit. Im not saying its going to dramatically change the MAF reading but it does play into the bigger picture again slightly
Your original statement was contradictory and i should have clarified what i was saying false to, my bad. You said 'almost no difference' (correct) but there can be a difference. Your simulations again dont account for the fact that air does not enter the filter evenly (again maybe when new but after a month of getting crud from the motor on it for instance on the engine side of the filter, more air will pass through the ABS pump side).
All in all i apologize if i offended you to get you going on this vendetta.

As far as bringing up the MAF clocking, it obviously doesnt directly play in here as it only can cause issues when a bent pipe is pre-MAF, i was simply trying to link that the air going into the MAF isnt always evenly distributed for whatever reason.

And by simulate a vac leak i meant some air can under certain circumstances pass through the MAF tube 'unmetered' just like a vac leak causes unmetered air to enter the engine.

On top of all of this never did i tell the OP to put a spacer PreMAF to fix his issues. :P

[squidmaster]

I was simply stating that 'almost' bit. Im not saying its going to dramatically change the MAF reading but it does play into the bigger picture again slightly
Your original statement was contradictory and i should have clarified what i was saying false to, my bad. You said 'almost no difference' (correct) but there can be a difference. Your simulations again dont account for the fact that air does not enter the filter evenly (again maybe when new but after a month of getting crud from the motor on it for instance on the engine side of the filter, more air will pass through the ABS pump side).
All in all i apologize if i offended you to get you going on this vendetta.

As far as bringing up the MAF clocking, it obviously doesnt directly play in here as it only can cause issues when a bent pipe is pre-MAF, i was simply trying to link that the air going into the MAF isnt always evenly distributed for whatever reason.

And by simulate a vac leak i meant some air can under certain circumstances pass through the MAF tube 'unmetered' just like a vac leak causes unmetered air to enter the engine.

On top of all of this never did i tell the OP to put a spacer PreMAF to fix his issues. :P

My original statement of "it makes almost no difference" was contradictory? How? It seems like your statement of "You said 'almost no difference' (correct) but there can be a difference" is actually quite literally contradictory, while I only offered one statement and nothing to contradict.... I'm really curious what about my statement was contradictory?

Contradictory - mutually opposed or inconsistent.

I haven't changed my stance on the only thing I have been arguing.

Vendetta - a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone.

I already had been doing intake flow modeling for my own designs, I only needed to change a few things and isolate the MAF section for this. Not a problem and took me almost no time. Apparently proving a point with simulation and research that is beneficial to the OP is having a vendetta. Now I do feel like I need to do extra because of your poor attitude about this whole thing, and your constant contradictions while trying to discredit me. I'm only trying to help the OP because I have dealt with this exact situation and exact tune problem before, and every single time it has been the tune. I have gotten hold of this specific tune from other disgruntled members and it is wrong to say the least.

And, as you said, "to reiterate what i said multiple times," no one is arguing that the cone filter to intake is any better than an OEM system. Why do you keep arguing this point as if anyone is trying to refute that? Not once have I argued against that. I almost always recommend people to stick with the OEM intake housing specifically because it is a pretty good system. So no idea why you KEEP bringing that up when no one else has mentioned it.

[DesertBMW]

Apparently proving a point with simulation and research that is beneficial to the OP is having a vendetta..

Good article here: http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp...e_air_intakes/

The Verdict:
While the amount of air flowing into a carbureted or MAP-sensor-equipped engine may be the only point to mind when selecting its aftermarket intake, how that air flows is every bit as important to a MAFS-governed engine. While we're still not sure if it was air vortices or air separation that tricked our 350Z into miscalculating mass air flow (or both), we do know two things: It was happening, and switching from our previous short-ram intake to AEM's long-tube Cold Air unit increased peak output by nearly 12whp, and gained power and torque from idle to redline. They say the proof is in the pudding; we say it's in the testing.

[squidmaster]

Again, I am not talking about the advantages of one STYLE of intake over another. My point, and what I said in my first post was

I've tuned cars all day long with filters right on the maf and it makes almost no difference if it's extended or not, the same amount of air passes the sensor

to which 328ijunkie replies

^false.

and then I refuted.

What I said has been tested both in computer simulation and through the OP, who did the whole 2" extension and it did not improve his situation.

[MyE30]

ok from post 57 though 73, i only see one instance in which someone attempts to actually help the OP with his dilemma and that is post 65.

[MyE30]

squidmaster and 328ijunkie, would you both agree that post 65 adds value to the original topic of discussion?

Whether the clocking of the MAF makes no difference or a sight difference, is the OP any closer to figuring out his problem after reading through your exchanges?