Discovery II Talk about the Land Rover Discovery II within.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Turbocharging a 4.6 V8

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #131  
Old 01-03-2016, 06:29 PM
thesoundguru's Avatar
Rock Crawling
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sanford, NC
Posts: 273
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Alex_M
Alright, so I got my truck back together this morning (write up will be up in a bit!) At WOT my MAF readings never went over 168 g/s, which I tested on three seperate 0-65 pulls.
Yeah I also checked out my maf and cleaned it. Now the highest reading I got was 171g/s. Quick question for you, have you ever changed your maf. One thing I have discovered doing all my research on tune companies was that the 03-04 use a different maf which allows more air flow than our truck needs. Per the tornado systems page our ecu has never been adjusted to get the most out of this maf. So the maf should take the extra air but will have to be tuned with the ecu in order for the computer to recognize the extra air.

http://www.tornadosystems.com/produc...er-maf-sensor/
 
  #132  
Old 01-03-2016, 06:53 PM
Alex_M's Avatar
Camel Trophy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southwestern Virginia
Posts: 4,734
Received 971 Likes on 646 Posts
Default

Huh, I totally missed that the first time I read that page. I thought they were saying the 99-02 had a smaller MAF housing than the 03-04, which is also true. I'm surprised to find that they made a third and larger yet size for the P38.

Nope, I've never changed my MAF, and as far as I know it was never changed by any previous owner when I got it at 120k (I'm at 143k now).
 
  #133  
Old 01-04-2016, 04:04 PM
coors's Avatar
Pro Wrench
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,869
Received 44 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Alex_M
Alright, so I got my truck back together this morning (write up will be up in a bit!) At WOT my MAF readings never went over 168 g/s, which I tested on three seperate 0-65 pulls.
You're running a hotter cam and with all that other work done to the motor the max you saw was 168 g/s. I hope your MAF is providing inaccurate data. Swap in the spare MAF from your parts truck, rerun the exercise and compare the data.
 
  #134  
Old 01-04-2016, 04:53 PM
dgi 07's Avatar
Pro Wrench
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: People's Republic of New Jersey.
Posts: 1,570
Received 99 Likes on 92 Posts
Default

Pull the K&N filter off and retest. Bet that changes the result.
 
  #135  
Old 01-04-2016, 05:10 PM
number9's Avatar
Pro Wrench
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Received 189 Likes on 184 Posts
Default Nothing Missed 1st Reading

Huh, I totally missed that the first time I read that page. I thought they were saying the 99-02 had a smaller MAF housing than the 03-04, which is also true. I'm surprised to find that they made a third and larger yet size for the P38.
You're probably dreaming of a larger one & misinterpreted the smoke and mirrors writing while reading. Actually you got it correct the first time, there is not a 3rd larger sensor. D2 & P38 4.6 MAFs are the same. My take is the Brits never saw the 4.6 in the D2.

......
 
  #136  
Old 01-04-2016, 05:10 PM
Alex_M's Avatar
Camel Trophy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southwestern Virginia
Posts: 4,734
Received 971 Likes on 646 Posts
Default

Well, the MAF from the parts truck kinda... Git hit by a lawn mower. Whoops. My exhaust is a huge point if restriction right now, the y-pipe is suuuper cobbled together and has a couple crush bends in it that are causing a lot if restriction. It could be accurate. I have been meaning to replace it, but the truck has needed other things.

I will test again without the k&n as dgi recommends. I'll see if I can pick up some electrical contact cleaner to spray in it too.

Originally Posted by coors
You're running a hotter cam and with all that other work done to the motor the max you saw was 168 g/s. I hope your MAF is providing inaccurate data. Swap in the spare MAF from your parts truck, rerun the exercise and compare the data.
 
  #137  
Old 01-04-2016, 08:03 PM
coors's Avatar
Pro Wrench
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,869
Received 44 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

For comparison sake and the fun of it I'll get some data tomorrow. Stock 4.6 motor with what I can only imagine is the factory MAF. 124k on the motor.
 
  #138  
Old 01-04-2016, 08:09 PM
coors's Avatar
Pro Wrench
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,869
Received 44 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

Uh, What was your lawn mower doing under the hood?! Haha
Trying to free up those damn irreversible clamps?!
 
  #139  
Old 01-05-2016, 08:01 PM
thesoundguru's Avatar
Rock Crawling
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sanford, NC
Posts: 273
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

So I finally got a reply from Bosch today. They state that the original maf in our truck reads from 3g/s to 177g/s. I have asked if they could send me info on a maf that would read higher g/s levels for the truck. It also sounds like the 240 something reading I had was not the actually reading from the maf but the truck defaulting to a higher rating since it thought it was getting more air than the maf could properly read. Also that was what tornado systems was talking about on the link I put in before. That the Thor engine needs a better maf or maf upgrade to properly take advantage of any extra air the truck receives.
 

Last edited by thesoundguru; 01-07-2016 at 10:03 AM.
  #140  
Old 01-05-2016, 09:04 PM
Alex_M's Avatar
Camel Trophy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southwestern Virginia
Posts: 4,734
Received 971 Likes on 646 Posts
Default

Very interesting. I would assume that those limits were for the smaller 4.0 MAF housing and that the larger housing on the 4.6 trucks and the larger yet housings on the Rangies was specifically because of this so the MAF would be able to send the same voltage for a larger amount of air to the ECU.

I remember reading something, probably a couple of years ago, about someone who had retrofitted a different MAF sensor. I cant remember very well, perhaps a Volvo or Volkswagon part? I'm not sure. I'll do some looking and see if I can find it anywhere.
 


Quick Reply: Turbocharging a 4.6 V8



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.