MAF vs MAP Options

[jason]

Just curious what everyone's opinions on these are (FI application)

for a street driven car (low throttle driving) that also see's its share pf peppy driving (wot pulls) which is "better" and why?

blow off would be recirculated, and leaks not being considered, why would one choose a map system besides tunning capabilities?

[jason]

got this elsewhere. all i know.. is that when i had a maf setup previously the back of my car was clean compared to when i switched to a map setup.

by wild... i presume doubled stock power? (200hp engine now producing 400hp)

It doesn't matter if the vehicle uses MAF or MAP, the ECU still needs to come up with a number representing air mass flow rate. In MAF based systems, this is a direct measurement from a sensor that is compensated for temp, baro, and other conditions. In a MAP based system the ECU must back-calculate the theoretical air mass flow rate based upon reference tables stored in the calibration.

The biggest limitation to a MAF system is the sensor itself. Most OEM MAF sensors are not sized to measure flow rates 100% in excess of stock power levels. With a change to an appropriate meter (and the corresponding ECU reprogramming), one gets the benefits of MAF accuracy with the extended power levels. The MAF sensor itself (and ultimately, the ECU) doesn't care what the boost pressure is. What really matters is actual airflow rate and overall VE.

On the OEM level, going to a strictly MAP based system is usually a cost saving on the hardware. The downside is that any significant change to the engine's hardware will usually require reprogramming of the ECU to properly accommodate the change.

i guess what i take... is if its already map based to keep it such, but what if you take an engine thats maf based? is it "better" worth it to convert to map or as that comment suggests to upgrade the sensor? guess market availability comes into play there