07-01-2013, 09:04 AM
I think Pete ran map because it made it easier to control the VNT properly..?
There's a late C5 in my local scrappy, fingers crossed it's still there next week! If it is i'll get some measurements for the maf.
I see your point about testing every last thing properly, but most people don't have that luxury; to do so effectively - without it being ridiculously labour-intensive - would require a four-post lift and a dyno at the very least, otherwise you're looking at days of work to test alternatives for just one item. We can make educated guesses about what is and what isn't restrictive, and without the tools mentioned it's often cheaper to just replace the part rather than to test exhaustively. For instance, i'd be very surprised if the inlet - turbo pipe turns out to not be restrictive, simply because of it's complex shape with small-radius bends and small cross-section. Testing it and its alternatives properly would take days (and we all know time is money) due to it's inaccessibility and methods for testing, the requirement for readings from several points in the inlet tract means either multiple runs are required for one set of data (more time) or you need several gauges (more money), both of which would introduce more scope for statistical variation, increasing the likelihood of spurious or inconclusive data... In an ideal world i'd be right up there with you, testing every last component to destruction in search of the perfect solution, but this isn't an ideal world. In reality, for the sake of such marginal possible gains, personally i'd be inclined to just risk it and spend the £20 for the replacement pipe.
Tbh i don't completely understand the difference between map and maf, or where this idea has come from that the maf's are nearly maxxed out at stage 2, anyone care to enlighten me?
There's a late C5 in my local scrappy, fingers crossed it's still there next week! If it is i'll get some measurements for the maf.
I see your point about testing every last thing properly, but most people don't have that luxury; to do so effectively - without it being ridiculously labour-intensive - would require a four-post lift and a dyno at the very least, otherwise you're looking at days of work to test alternatives for just one item. We can make educated guesses about what is and what isn't restrictive, and without the tools mentioned it's often cheaper to just replace the part rather than to test exhaustively. For instance, i'd be very surprised if the inlet - turbo pipe turns out to not be restrictive, simply because of it's complex shape with small-radius bends and small cross-section. Testing it and its alternatives properly would take days (and we all know time is money) due to it's inaccessibility and methods for testing, the requirement for readings from several points in the inlet tract means either multiple runs are required for one set of data (more time) or you need several gauges (more money), both of which would introduce more scope for statistical variation, increasing the likelihood of spurious or inconclusive data... In an ideal world i'd be right up there with you, testing every last component to destruction in search of the perfect solution, but this isn't an ideal world. In reality, for the sake of such marginal possible gains, personally i'd be inclined to just risk it and spend the £20 for the replacement pipe.
Tbh i don't completely understand the difference between map and maf, or where this idea has come from that the maf's are nearly maxxed out at stage 2, anyone care to enlighten me?
