It will buck about the same and it will be more prone to litlle backfires. At least in my experience.

Ok thank you.

So i installed an HTP 4" intake on a 3071 car this weekend and got his base map dialed in last night, and all i can say is the car drives beautifully, it doesnt seem to buck or hesitate during shifts at all.

Changes to the tune include:
Scalaing the MAF (i will do a full MAF cal tomorrow once the car has had a chance to learn some trims)
Upping idle to 1000 rpms

Hardware:
Garrett GT3071r (no surge porting)
HTP 4" intake
Custom intercooler with BPV like 3-4" away from throttle body. Maybe it blows the air off so close to the throttle body / IM it doesnt have time to get turbulent when the throttle closes?
Stock downpipe ... he bought the big turbo on kind of a whim haha

I can try to get some logs for you guys to see but just wanted to check and see what you would like in them / under what conditions.

@Lex; I know this isn't the right thread but im too lazy to search lol

This was my findings between the AEM filter HTP supplies with their intakes and Spectre filter.

The Spectre Flows 9g/s more then the AEM filter there was 2* difference in intake temps. No changes to the tune.

Datalog 12 is with the Spectre filter
Datalog 14 is with the AEM filter

Both 3rd gear logs on the same stretch of road going the same direction.

Even after correcting for the slight AFR difference there seems to be about 7g/s between the 2. Interestingly your throttle also seems to be more open with the AEM filter. Do you have a link to the Spectre filter?

I think I was hitting the load limit with the spectre.

Spectre Performance :: The 400 MPH Company

You can get them at pepboys, autozone, ect.

Do they publish filtering ability? Flow and filtering ability are often inversely proportional.

I have no idea. I'll ask my friend that works at O'Reillys. Maybe he can find out?

JBR WP 3" MAF calibration added to the OP @jbarone;

lex you might want to note the jbr intake as the full aluminum version. I don't know if it will make a difference, but his new 3" wp silicone intakes use a different maf housing with a non honeycomb straightener.

JBR never had a 3" full aluminum. This calibration is for the new 3" WP which uses that MAF housing and a silicone inlet tube.

I have also added instructions on how to apply the MAF cal and what to look for afterwards to the OP.

doh you are right i was thinking of htp lol. i forgot that jbr only made the 3.5" in full aluminum.

@Lex; my friend couldn't find anything out about the spectre filter ether.

Slightly off Topic @Lex; so feel free to move this elsewhere if it seems fit, but I was playing around and my 4" intake stutters when lifting off the throttle have been smoothed a bit increasing my low load WGDC.

I'm sure some people tried this a long time ago but the other day driving in slow moving traffic I would feel my car basically fall on its face every time I lifted and it got VERY annoying. Looking through my map a bit later I figured the abrupt change from some WGDC to no WGDC may have had something to do with that, adjusted values to the following and its much smoother.

@Tomas; not sure if you ever got your 4" settled, but here you will see the difference between a regular map and mine, hope it helps.

I'm going to have to try that. Thank you.

Lex, I noticed that about two weeks ago when I copied the values for the htp 3.5 You mentioned it was a beta . Now the (beta) has been removed. Did you make new revisions that I should re flash or were those values adequate? Thanks

Nope, just saw it on enough cars to feel comfortable with it. Remember that with these big intakes it's always good to do a MAF cal log on your particular car.

Interesting observation. My only $.02 on it is be careful with 100's down there. Having 100's throughout the entire light load and idle range could result in a very hot solenoid, and may lead to premature failure.

It's robust... and can handle 100's for short stints while wot... but i wouldn't want to leave 100's on it for a 20 minute period while you cruise down the highway at light load:

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...00-wgdc-83000/

What about say 50%?

Noted! I am on a grimmspeed but still in no hurry to piss away $100, ill gradually start lowering it and see where the happy median is, thanks for the heads up.

See above ^^ ill either pm you or start a new thread to keep from crapping this thread up. The 4" intake stutter seems to have been moved here so I guess if its "relevant" enough we'll leave it here.

Sounds good. I've learned to live with it so I'm not in a hurry.

New WGDC table, may bump them up to 60% just to see but 50% still seems very effective. Basically to test this what I would do is leave it in first and get to about 2700-3000 rpms, cruise for a second then lift off the throttle to simulate stop and go traffic. Basically doing this there was a slight hesitation as soon as I lifted, but then a smooth gradual deceleration, Seems to have smoothed things out quite a bit.

Thank you. I sit in stop and go traffic almost every day. Lol

My Full3 Aeros ID300 Intake is installed.

MAF cal is done using @Lex Cal.

Long ride tomorow, so i'll update how it goes

I got my maf cal down to -2.34 so I think I am done with my cal thanks to this thread. I used Lex's figures for the HTP 3" intake and tweaked them somewhat. Now to learn how to tune until I can get a stratified tune!

Has anyone else noticed that if your MAF is dialed-in with a 93 tune and you switch to an ethanol tune that your ECU is consistenly needing to add ~5–8% more fuel, everything else being equal? I know it's not a hardware issue. The only variable is the fuel (FSG and injector scalar changed for the proper ratio too, of course).

Any tuners care to speak to this? @rfinkle2? @atvfreek? @Lex? @Bucker? @phate? Any of the numerous other highly competent folks I didn't mention?

I don't know the technical terms, but doesn't ethanol create sort of a vacuum effect in the combustion chamber and therefore mean that at a given MAF voltage, you actually should be seeing more grams/second when properly calibrated? I was thinking of multiplying all of my open-loop ranges (150 grams+) by a conservative 1.02 and seeing what my WOT logs show. The open loop fuel trims which we know exist on Genpus (but don't have access to) means there's a lot of guess work. Ideally, I'd want to be in the center of the ECU's range of O/L fuel trim adjustability, but since I'm tuning blind up there (not seeing those O/L trims) I'm trying to get a good idea where to start.

TLDR version: when running ethanol, should we scale the O/L MAF table ranges (~150 grams+) by a certain amount to account for the additional grams/second we see when running ethanol, everything else being equal?

Ethanol is an oxygenated fuel. That means it carries more oxygen in the fuel itself and this is why you will run "leaner" if you add E85 without scaling anything to add extra fuel volume.

I've always chalked it up to 1 of 2 things: the scalars aren't perfect, or the mix isn't perfect. If I'm close on trims when I switch and I'm hitting OL fueling targets, I don't worry about it. I do MAF cals on my own car when LTFT's are >|10%|.

Would this be the case for the regular St2 PowerPath too? @Lex

No the powerpath is a stock sized maf intake. This applies to the much larger intakes.

Installed the HTP 3.5" last week and used the MAF cal here (also bumped the idle to 850 rpm for good measure). First start had a slight stumble, after that all is good. LTFTs are within +/- 5% after 5 days of driving with one longish trip thrown in (about 1 tank of gas). Sadly the one log I took showed almost no change in g/s at redline :( However, car was holding slightly more boost on the Cobb Stage 2 map (a little over 18 psi) and Vdyno showed about a 10 hp gain. None of that means a whole lot though, just know that the cal works! Now I need an e-tune...

Added the JBR 3.5" WP silicone intake MAF calibration.

Also added MAF cal for 4" HTP Beta.

Installed and calibrated a JBR 3.5" and everything is fine except for some issues during cold start up. When the car is full cold it struggles to find idle and either stalls a few times and needs re started or nearly stalls. Which throws a code, p0300 i think which is random misfire due to the stumbling i assume.

Any advice? Was wondering if an air straightener would help.

You don't have a honeycomb air straightener? Could be your problem.

No. The all aluminum JBR intakes didn't come with one. And i don't think he's stocking them any more so i'll have to look else where. Car runs great other wise. Just stumbles when i start it after sitting all nite.

You don't need a straightener and I doubt it will help with a momentary cold start stumble.

Do a cold start log & see what's what-
key on, start log, start car

I'll get one tomorrow morning. I've been monitoring things when it happens but all the figures go wonky because of the stumbling.

The maf cal is zero'd at .9v and down. But the voltage is higher than that during warm up so i don't think thats it. I'm puzzled atm.

@Lex:
Could you please explain why you're using the same maf curve for MS3 and MS6 models, which have totally different oem curves (or are the factory differences just because of the different airbox constructions)?
After upgrading from a CS sri to a 3.5" JBR wp I get extremely low maf voltage values (max around 4V) and thus very low load and maf g/s values.
I'm still using a rough maf calibration resulting from a constant, commonly recommended multiplication factor of 1.65 (which is d^2/d_oem^2), but in your suggested maf curve for the JBR 3.5" you are using a varying correction factor up to ~1.75.
Why do you use such a large factor - and doesn't the size of the tip connection (2.25"/4") matter at all?

Generally speaking only the inner diameter of the MAF housing (where the sensor sits) matters for the MAF calibration. The MAF calibration is simply dependent on that piece of pipe and the sensor itself which is the same for the MS3 and MS6. What is in front and behind the MAF housing (TIP, filter, etc.) can skew the MAF curve slightly but generally should not have a large effect. Air straighteners also affect the curve and you will see this in intake that have them (HTP) versus ones that don't.

I'm surprised that the very different sized tip, which should influence/restrict the effective flow, as well as the kind of filter used, practically doesn't affect the maf calibration, but thank's for the clarification!

If it helps, think of it this way-

MAF Diameter means large scale across the entire MAF Curve

Filter, TIP etc means small scale fine tuning commonly referred to simply as MAF Calibration regardless of tweaking LTFT's or making adjustments to bring WOT AFR's to the desired targets.


One is often beyond the scope of the ECU to compensate for and is addressed across the entire MAF curve where the other is typically small chunks that get small tweaks.

Well i've been trying to get a log of the stumbling start but the car hasn't done it. It still doesn't sound right though. Somethings off.

I did get these two logs. This map has over 300 miles on it and is pretty dialed in as far as CL and OL WOT afr's go. At least until this morning when i noticed a +20 in the second breakpoint. I'm using @Lex; breakpoints of 5.70,12,20,30,40

I also noticed a difference in spark advance during this breakpoint between these two logs.

I've made the adjustment to that break point and will flash tomorrow. I'm betting the car is gonna struggle to stay running during cold start after the new map. Just a hunch.

subbed

Just updated the JBR 3" WP MAF cal.

Any chance of a cal for the SURE Full 3.25?
Full3 Aeros ID325 GT | SURE Motorsports

@Lex

I'm looking at your HTP 4" cal and I noticed a weird spike between 3.081v and 3.12v you increase here over 2x as much as preceding and following changes. Then between 3.6 and 3.75 the changes are really small so you end up basically lining back up with the trend from before the earlier spike. Is there some reason for this or is it just because of an irregularity in the stock cal getting emphasized by the formula to go to 4"?

I just added a BETA version of the 3.25" for SURE. Give it a try and post feedback with MAF and WOT logs.

The HTP MAF cal had to be massaged piecewise due to the honeycomb and this is the effect you are seeing. Do you have a MAF and WOT log - any issues?

I hadn't tried yours yet. I was just looking through the numbers and comparing it to what I currently have set on my own. I'm not very happy with how mine has been running at low rpms though so I'm planning to give yours a try.

Any one using the ATP 3" housing? And any one know the AEM/MS CAI inner diameter at the MAF?

Subbing

Lex

I'm running my own custom made 3.75" MAF housing w/ 3.5" ID using scalar 1.78715. Shown here..

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...um-maf-161689/


I have an optional honeycomb that I can add to it, from your experience with HTP larger MAF housings that have the honey comb install. Does the Honey comb make easier isolate lower percentage LFTF's? Or just make it more of a PITA?

The HTP intake definitely needed more piecewise MAF calibration work. The honeycomb does affect the curve such that you probably have to adjust several areas of the curve independently if you are basing your MAF cal on a pipe with no honeycomb.

Thanks for posting, I cut/pasted the numbers for the 3" JBR silicone intake I installed yesterday. I'll give it a day or so back and forth to work and check the cal.

Here's a first log after the maf cal for the 3' htp. Did the log to soon I think. I'm targeting 12afrs but fluctuating between 12.2-12.4

@Lex; So i used your HTP 3.5" MAF table for my 3.5" intake...
I also scaled my already calibrated MAF table by multiplying it by 1.66.
I tried both maps and am getting some weird results. With both MAF tables i am running very lean at WOT, and also getting some WOT knock retard. Idles at 14.7, it's the WOT that is giving me problems. Boost targets are being hit, so does not seem like a boost leak.

Do you think this is a matter of just taking it easy and not going WOT and letting the LTFT's settle until i can do a MAF cal. Or is my table just way off for some reason?

I have attached a 3rd gear log, and the map that i have scaled using my previous MAF table.

I'd appreciate any help, thanks.

Based on just the one log, and presuming that there are no hardware issues like a post-MAF pre-turbo vac leak sucking in a butt chunk of unmetered air, then you just want to do normal WOT AFR calibration. In this case adding at least 10% then testing for effect. Easy-peasy.

Your scalar is off. My 3.75" MAF has a 3.5" ID. But when you use the HTP 3.5" MAF scalar, you didnt take into account that its ID is less then 3.5" this is why you're running lean.

You have to measure the ID of your MAF housing as specified above. The HTP pipe is 3.37x iirc ID.

@redboat;

So i saw you scaled yours by 1.78. I am going to try that and hopefully that will fix my situation! Thanks guys.

You're doing an open loop MAF Cal too, right?
not just correcting the LTFT's with the closed loop MAF Cal?

Don't expect just the multiplier to bring the entire MAF Curve on target. You were just told the same thing three times in different language- 12%. If you're using 11.6 as your WOT AFR target- then 13/11.6 = m@1.120, or adding 12%, or conservatively 10% then tweak.

Ok so i scaled using 1.78 and flashed it. Of course the LTFT's havent settled, but i am still seeing WOT AFRs of 12-13:1. :( not sure why it's doing this

No i haven't done any MAF cal yet, as i just flashed the map and havent driven 50 miles. So you're saying to get my AFR where it should be i should add 10-12% to the entire curve? (multiply the cells by 1.1)

Basic MAF Cal 101 Hector!
You can set initial fuel trims in as little as 5ish miles by just spending time in each of the ranges. You can look at the STFT's as well, and take them into account if needed. This is the process Cobb talks about in the help file.

30-50 miles just gives more time to let things settle & trims to trend with more stability.

As for the entire curve, I'd grab the MAF Curve from an OTS map, multiply that whole curve by the known multiplier of 1.78 noted above & test for effect, rather than modifying what you were running on your old intake setup. In general tho, bumping your multiplier from the 1.66 you used the first time and then doing it by 1.78 is no different than taking the 1.66 curve result and doing a m@1.12 or conservatively 1.1 (12 or 10%)

If you can make a 10% change to your fueling and not see a resulting change to the monitored results, I'd double check hardware to be sure you're not pulling in unmetered air.

Lol OK @TiGraySpeed6;

I feel ALOT better now...i took my 1.78 scale and multiplied it by 1.1. Now its almost dead on 11.6. Thank you! haha. Now i just have to scale my WGDC down by 15% as i am overboosting and hitting boost cut. (hitting up to 23 psi!).

Did you multiple the scalar to the stock map or an OTS map?

If an OTS Map, what intake set up was it set to?

I made this same mistake, I reverted back to a stock map, and then used my 1.78 scalar.

I was using a calibrated CS SRI/TIP maf table (from my etune).
Multiplied that by 1.78 and was still off AFR by like 12%...too lean. So then i multiplied again by 1.11 and that got me where i was supposed to be. Then i was overboosting because the hose to the wg actuator was split! But now everything is working as it is supposed to.

Also don't overlook doing a boost leak test when installing new parts. You don't want to calibrate a MAF around a present leak.

Added the Corksport (CS) 3" MAF calibration to the OP so that we have a common resource on the forums. The CS calibration is straight from the CS website.

Wow the cs flows only 50g's less then the htp 3.5"

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

@Lex; you are awesome! Just helped a local install his HTP 3" and I was able to use your MAF tables to get a temporary tune running for him (he's still waiting for his tuner to get back to him). The tables worked great and brought his AFR's back down to normal. :-)

Thank you so much for creating this thread, @Lex. I just bought the CS Power Series 3" intake and have it right here waiting for me to get some free time to install it. I'm very new to car mods, especially to this degree, but thanks to your videos I just performed my first closed-loop MAF Cal. log this evening...at least I think I did it right (attached). @Agent_Orange and a few other members from a thread I created, here: http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...-steps-169173/ have been super helpful, and brought this thread to my attention earlier today.

Admittedly I've only read through about three pages of this thread so far, but with my genpu do I paste the CS log into the bottom field or the top field of MAF Table A in Access TUNER?

EDIT: I'm hoping this will hold me over until I can get an e-tune.
Also, for those AP users out there, an update just went live today.

Post #100 :D Now, back to reading the rest of this thread. ;)

Copy all the values from the calibration and then select the first cell in the MAF calibration table and paste. All the values in the MAF calibration table should be updated to match what you copied from here.

Remember to save the map and flash it to your car.

Hi,

didn't read all the thread, but, curious - why such BIG g/s difference between different 3" intakes?

Added the JBR Tru-3.0 calibration to the OP. This calibration was dialed in on my car and confirmed on the JBR Gen2. Tru-3.5 coming soon.

Actual inner diameter (ID) for the various 3" MAF housings are not the same. Also, for the most part the OL areas of the MAF calibrations are best guesses since the ECU has the ability to adjust trims there that we can't see. As long as the calibrations are within about +/- 15% the ECU will keep AFRs in check. The only time this isn't true is when you exceed 2.50 load and then these hidden trims appear to no longer be in play.

I was going to ask you guys about this but you beat me to it. Thanks!

Subbed for the 3.5. Mine arrived Monday and needs to be installed before my Stratified tuning experience starts.

We have one that should be close we can use whenever you are ready to get started. Just waiting on Jaime to install one on their gen2 and get me some logs to confirm.

@Lex you have an email. My last mods will be installed 22nd September.

Updated OP with calibration for JBR Tru-3.5 intake.

Just wanted to say thanks alot for this info... Made it much easier to just slap in some predetermined values for the Mafcal than to have to figure out a scalar and multiply it through and hope it's close enough... Plus the fact that the values I used for my HTP 3" that I installed this weekend have me at ~ +- 5% LTFT so that's a very nice starting point if you ask me.

I have run both the 3" SURE FULL AEROS and the HTP 3.5. I am not going to lie, the 3.5" idle is pretty crappy even when well MAF cal'd. Once my MAF sensor gets below 1V it is no mans land. The HTP 3.5" sits around .95v-1v at idle (I think ~850rpm) and I just end up with kind of a crappy idle that is always kind of hunting (STFTs never settle down) and I get a P2188 rich at idle often. I often see MAF g/s bounce around a few g/s as well even though the voltage is holding steady.

Literally as soon as I go off idle, everything straightens out perfect and the intake is perfect from then on.

I originally suspected a part issue; I checked/rechecked everything from filter to downpipe multiple times. I checked/tested purge valve and did a bunch of other tests. It was when I swapped in another maf sensor and let it learn for a while that I realized this issue has to do with the MAF reading. The 2nd sensor learned and LTFTs got around -3 or so at idle even though STFTs were still bouncing around. With the 2nd sensor at idle, the idle stumbled around and AFRs were biasing leaner this time at around the same voltage. I changed the condition just by changing the MAF sensor. Why? My two MAF sensors are having a hard time reading good flow with the 3.5" intake below and around 1V.

I hypothesize that the MAF sensor curve is probably not linear below 1v and it's kind of a crap shoot down there. So, it's either up the idle to get the MAF reading out of the weeds or go back to the 3" intake.

You're not the only one to experience these symptoms with the larger intakes. I have seen people complain about the 4" intakes quite a bit in coasting and idle conditions. Intake design does also play a factor in how the sensor reads at very low airflow levels.

Raise the idle rpm and you shouldn't have a problem. i DD on a 4" HTP (also have tuned a bunch of these intake now) have now for 8 months. My idle rpm is 950.

I have a htp 3.5" intake and my car idles great. I just have freeks base map. No maf cal yet. Idle is stock 700rpm.

What turbo do you have cheapspeed. Also, I think the vcts delete didn't help me.

Still k04 with a 3076 waiting to go in.

subbed

It's threads like this that remind me why I donated. Thank you, @Lex;.

I just used the HTP 4" data on mine and it works great. I'm running a stock k04 and idle and driveability is good so far. Stft is all over the place, but it got me very close all things considered.

Glad it helped out!

I've since had some issue dialing in the maf cal. Idle is a bit choppy initially then smoothes out. STFT at idle likes to start our somewhere deep into the negative, then slowly work its way up to +24.8. I cleaned up a bunch of boost leaks and I'm looking at a bad pcv as another potential culprit. I'll post up some logs once I get that sorted.

The 4" intakes at low airflow values like idle and coasting can be tricky to dial in. Try raising your idle to 900 or 950 RPM.

I was working with @sleeveless; who was attempting to copy and paste Lex's values into ATR so he can get a base MAF curve for his new 3" intake. He was doing everything correctly as far as I could tell (I even saw a video he took of him doing it), but for some reason it just wouldn't work for him. The only thing I could think of is that I have ATR installed on Windows XP and Windows 7, and he has Windows 8.1.

Even when I was trying to copy and paste them into Openoffice just now (that's all I have installed on my laptop), for some reason they wouldn't paste correctly and I had to paste them into ATR, then copy them into the spreadsheet. Really odd.

Therefore, I have copied all of the curves from the OP into spreadsheets which I have attached in .ods and .xls format for your convenience.

edit: The ods wouldn't upload. I zipped it and it's in the .zip file.

I ended up doing it by hand but yea it was extremely weird .

This is a formatting issues - from the web browser to ATR and or excel. If it doesn't work I always attempt going through another software or medium first. Notepad is sometimes an option.

Posting as a reminder to update the OP's Corksport's section to include their '3.5" Mazdaspeed 3 Power Series Intake System'. I'm going to measure the MAF ID with calipers before install to double check, but according the CS's site:

"True 3.5" MAF: The Power Series 3.5" system is a true 3.5" inner diameter for maximum flow to get the most out of you performance mods"


Also, for the MS3 they list a few different SRI/MAF housing or SRI to stock TIP. Here's what they are selling as of today:

-CORKSPORT Stage I Power Series Short Ram Intake/stock TIP for Mazdaspeed 3 (after checking all reviews, I eventually found the ID @ 68mm [2.68"] for the MAF housing, but it runs fine without MAF adjustments/tune)

-CORKSPORT Stage II Power Series Short Ram Intake for Mazdaspeed 3 (same results as the Stage I for actual MAF ID size [68mm/2.68"], just an added TIP @ the same time)

-CORKSPORT 3" Power Series 2007-2013 Mazdaspeed 3 Intake (true ID of 3" for MAF, Cobb AP MAF re-calibration needed)


Okay, so those are just CS's offerings in terms of SRI or SRI/TIP kits at this point in time for MS3, both gens. There are some CS CAI systems that use the same CNCed MAF housings as the SRI kits as far as I can tell.


No rush on any of this, just thought it would be good to fill in any blanks. :)

Well, after a nightmarish Corksport 3.5" SRI/TIP install with a basic craftsman socket/ratchet set (the one I carry in my trunk) and an assortment of really shitty and short pliers/screwdrivers in my GF's driveway, she dropped my phone into the fender well.. I few pop-clips and some fecking around later I retrieved my phone and cleaned up the tools/parts etc. I had ealier reflashed my car with Cobb's OTS "safe 91 oct" map and i was blocking her car in, so I tried to fire it up... It started, and died, which is what I expected, but it was enough to move the car to let her out.

I took my AP to my PC, used the 3.5" tru flow JBR MAF calibration values from Alex's OP, loaded them into my ATR on top of the same OTS map I used earlier, renamed it "safe 91 oct + 3.5 SRI", loaded it to the AP, flashed it to the car, and Boom, fired right up.


Let it warm up to a regular idle, and it settled down nicely, took it for a rip (sooo glad to have that familiar turbo whine back) and it's running quite well. TC came on in 3rd and 4th many o times, and I wasn't even pushing her.. I love the cool night air up here :)

Thanks again Alex and Stratified!

Now we have to get you tuned up!

Indeed we do, internals and TBE 1st though! I know there's a bunch of power lurking in my mods so far, especially on 94 octane, but best to get everything installed 1st. :)

question about the Corksport maf cal table posted in the first post. Those numbers look quite a bit larger than the Corksport numbers in Cobbs Corksport cal included in thier maps. These numbers look bigger than the ones for the other 3" systems listed as well.

is this done on purpose or is it a typo or is it for a different intake system?

thank you.