Landtank MAF surprising scangauge results

[Brian894X4]

OK, first of all, none of what I'm about to report is conclusive. This is just observation from reading the scangauge and other factors could be at play here and I'm not 100% sure how accurate the scangauge is in the following readings.

But basically I ordered Landtank's MAF housing last week and just got it today. Awesome product! Fast shipping! I purchased a used sensor out of a 2003 Camry for about $40. Considering the numbers I produced tonight with my first runs, I really, really wish I would have made some recent runs with the old MAF.

Among other things, I tested the set up using the scangauges h.p. meter. I don't know how the scangauge determines h.p. but I assume after being imputed several factors like engine displacement, it uses it's numerous sensor readings to come up with a brake h.p. reading. Rather than compare the scangauge numbers to other data, its probably most useful to compare scangage to scangage on the vehicle in the same conditions. I couldn't really replicate conditions. My original readings were at 70 degree intake temp. The new readings with the Landtank MAP was at 40 degrees intake temp.

In going over my notes, when I made a number of h.p. test runs last year, the highest numbers I could achieve on the scangauge was 246 (brake) h.p. I was typically maxing out in the upper 230s. This is with a bone stock engine, and original MAF.

Tonight, after the MAF install, the highest reading I got was 306. Most runs showed in the very high 290s.
The only difference in the engine itself was the Landtank MAF.

Air temp was at least 30 degrees cooler, so we can probably attribute around 6% of that gain to the colder denser air. That leaves us with about a 15+% power gain that can't be accounted for, except for the Landtank MAF.

Seat of pants experience did seem to confirm a significant power increase at WOT and upper rpms. When pushing past legal speeds, even going uphill and loaded down to over 6500lbs, it just wanted to keep speeding up. Not what I remembered with the old set up.

But the numbers I was seeing almost seemed too significant, even taking the weather differences into consideration. I can't believe that an MAF would make that much difference. I really wish I had taking direct readings using the old MAF on the same night for a more direct comparision. I'm almost intriqued enough to put the old MAF back and run the numbers, then run home and put the new one on and do a direct face off.

So, has anyone else with a scangage experienced similiar results? Gains of more than 15%?

On a slightly seperate note, the 1FZ was produced long after 1997 and as it turns out later model 1FZs made more power. 221 h.p. and 285ft/lbs of torque to be exact. And this is not the VVTi models that made 240 h.p. These are just the run of the mill Aussie 78 series models. I know Toyota improved the intake system and made a few other tweeks, but I've been wondering if Toyota added the same type of sensor or something similiar in later 1FZs that really helped out this motor and now those of us with the Landtank MAF appear to be experiencing the same type of gains.

Anyway, more later......

 

[fjfar80]

Are you running a super charger or just normally aspirated?

- Mark

 

[Lugboot]

He said, "bone stock engine":

"This is with a bone stock engine, and original MAF.

Tonight, after the MAF install, the highest reading I got was 306. Most runs showed in the very high 290s.
The only difference in the engine itself was the Landtank MAF"

 

[Toyo Boyo]

So if I put two of these in series I get 30%? Not worth bothering with my turbo mod lol

Only joking, ahem.

Brian, you've had the truck long enough to know so this sounds intriguing. Have you put high octane in by mistake? The scangauge hasn't been altered so these figures can be relied on.

I think for your own sanity (and ours) you have to do that back to back test! (Go on, its only a couple of hose clamps).



Now where's Landtanks contact details? I gotta get me one......

 

[Riad]

I have been pretty happy with it. It's been a while since I installed it. After 2.5" exhaust, I have been noticing more power increase. The power is noticeable at both ends; 0 - 60 mph and 40 - 75 mph or higher. I might put my sway-bars back on one of these days.

 

[fjfar80]

Lugboot...I realize exactly what he said...just knowing all the modifications he has performed...I wanted to double check to ensure that he was normally aspirated. I have heard many folks say...bone stock...and then you find out they had this or that...and a little of that. Just wanted to double check.

Cheers.

- Mark

 

[bpassmore]

He said, "bone stock engine":

"This is with a bone stock engine, and original MAF.

Tonight, after the MAF install, the highest reading I got was 306. Most runs showed in the very high 290s.
The only difference in the engine itself was the Landtank MAF"

this was kinda smartass....

 

[sleeoffroad]

The scangauge can only calculate HP. Without knowing what it is that it uses, it is impossible to interpret the results. Your initial reading is way high for wheel HP. Here is a chart showing wheel HP for a 97 truck in stock form (ignore the turbo). So as you can see it is way lower.

You might be reading a difference, but in real world terms in would be way smaller. I think the tool is good to see what changes you made if you monitor fuel trims etc etc.

Did your IAT drop 30 degrees just by swapping in the new MAF? Or was this a different day.

 

[e9999]

Christo beat me to it (as usual ), but yes, these HP numbers are way overoptimistic. No way the SG can calculate HP accurately, but even with that in mind, the numbers are crazy wrong. It's saying you got more HP (brake?) stock and old than the truck was ever spec'ed as having HP at the engine when new...

Anyway, sure, having colder air could result in an increase in HP since you can then cram more fuel in there. Then again, more power yes, but also more gas...


Having said that, this is interesting, and I'd like to see some more numbers on it all.

 

[Brian894X4]

I know this sounds crazy, so like I said in the original post, the scangauge's horsepower calcuations are not comparable to the factory SAE h.p. readings, so I wasn't implying one single bit that the truck makes 306 h.p. as we normally think of 306 h.p. The scangauge is apparently caculating something close to or more than real world gross h.p. which is much higher than the factory h.p. readings and FAR higher than dyno reading at the wheels. This is why I'm only comparing the original scangage reading before the MAF mod to the new scangauge reading after the MAF mod on a percentage basis. I'm also not saying that other factors couldn't be at play here, including the scangauge itself being inaccurate.

The engine is absolutely bone stock, no mods, no supercharger, original exhaust system, intake system, factory filter, etc, etc. Currently has about 106,000 miles on it.

There was a signficant difference between air temperatures of the original reading and this new reading. My notes from the original readings taken last year indicated 70 degrees F, which is intake temp. I didn't record outside temp at the time. Intake temp for the new reading was about 40 degrees F with an outside temp of about 30 degrees F. So, using the formula of 10 degree drop = 1.8% gain and rounding off, I've wiped out 6% of the difference and attributed that to intake temp.

By the way, I'm not implying that the new MAF has any affect on intake temp, this is purely due to outside ambient temp differences.

OK, so I found some additional scangauge notes that I took of other readings. I found that after another test last winter, intake temps were about 50 degrees, I was able to achieve a max scangauge h.p. reading of 255 on the Land Cruiser. (stock MAF) I was taking these readings because I had rented a 2008 4Runner with the 4.0 V-6 in which I also took some scangauge readings and achieved a maximum h.p. rating in the 4runner of 279 scangauge h.p. with the 4Runner's 4.0 engine. Because there was an 11% difference in factory h.p. ratings between the two engines and there was a 10% difference my own readings, I drew the conclusion that the scangauge was at least relatively accurately reading the difference in h.p. between the two rigs.

So, with the new data, comparing 255 scangauge h.p. on my rig last winter (at 50 degrees intake) with 306 scangauge h.p. (at 40 degrees intake) last night with the new MAF, what is going on here? We're talking about a 20% total difference in max brake h.p. Does it feel like a 20% difference? That's hard to say, because I had to go off of memory of how my rig behaved before rather than being able to compare on the same day. The engine definately felt like the upper end had been opened up and that it could rev faster and wanted to pull harder and higher rpms. My rig is 6500lbs and it felt like it really wanted to go a lot faster, including up a hill than I ever remember it being capable of, especially at this weight.

Now, the felt power increase was NOT across the powerband as far as I could tell. There didn't seem to be a significant increase at the lower end. Maybe slightly better throttle response, but the felt gains to me were all at the upper end.

I really wish I could see if anyone else has had the same results or has dyno'd the thing for some hard numbers to confirm my own results or see if there's something else at play here.

Trust me, I know this sounds crazy as hell. At this point I'm gonna have to swap back in the old sensor and do some test runs on the same night under the same conditions to see what's going on here. I'll probably do that later this week and post the results.

 

[e9999]

one question would be about How the SG calculates HP. I don't know. But I assume it has to do with using gas consumption figures, maybe throw in some rpm factor, perhaps average efficiency figures and the like. Could be a lot of things. (I don't think these devices are anything like the miracle magic gizmos that some wish / think they are.)
Any chance you could have changed some settings?

Anyway, if you're saying that you got something like maybe 10% more HP cuz the intake air temp was 10F lower, that seems a bit much... Wouldn't everybody in Minnesota beat drag race records with their Pintos if that were true?

 

[Lugboot]

Lugboot...I realize exactly what he said...just knowing all the modifications he has performed...I wanted to double check to ensure that he was normally aspirated. I have heard many folks say...bone stock...and then you find out they had this or that...and a little of that. Just wanted to double check.

Cheers.

- Mark

I was trying to help out and didn't have time to insert smilies and whatnot--sorry if you took it the wrong way.

this was kinda smartass....

See what not using smilies gets you? I was simply trying to point out the part where the OP addressed the engine config and I didn't have time to make it feel-good, apparently. Was not intended to come across as smartass. Sometimes people miss things in longer posts. it's happened on here before.

;p

Okay, now the above string of smilies was smartass, I admit.

On a technical note, I need to move this farther up my list of mods.

 

[bpassmore]

 

[sleeoffroad]

I know this sounds crazy, so like I said in the original post, the scangauge's horsepower calcuations are not comparable to the factory SAE h.p. readings, so I wasn't implying one single bit that the truck makes 306 h.p. as we normally think of 306 h.p. The scangauge is apparently caculating something close to or more than real world gross h.p. which is much higher than the factory h.p. readings and FAR higher than dyno reading at the wheels. This is why I'm only comparing the original scangage reading before the MAF mod to the new scangauge reading after the MAF mod on a percentage basis. I'm also not saying that other factors couldn't be at play here, including the scangauge itself being inaccurate.

Yes, but playing with percentage is dangerous. If the scangauge is already that far off, then the increase is also way off. I just wanted to post some real data on HP.

There was a signficant difference between air temperatures of the original reading and this new reading. My notes from the original readings taken last year indicated 70 degrees F, which is intake temp. I didn't record outside temp at the time. Intake temp for the new reading was about 40 degrees F with an outside temp of about 30 degrees F. So, using the formula of 10 degree drop = 1.8% gain and rounding off, I've wiped out 6% of the difference and attributed that to intake temp.

By the way, I'm not implying that the new MAF has any affect on intake temp, this is purely due to outside ambient temp differences.

Ok, the way it read was that the MAF made the change, which I did not expect it to do, just wanted clarification on that.

We're talking about a 20% total difference in max brake h.p. Does it feel like a 20% difference?

20% estimate is still huge for a simple mod like that.

 

[Brian894X4]

As far as the percentage in change the total percentage in change from the highest h.p. reading that was ever able to get out of the 1FZ prior the MAF mod to what it was last night after the MAF install was about 20%.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the number is accurate, how much of that was attributed to the MAF and how was attributed to different temps, or any other factors, I don't know. I've read the formula about cold air having the 1 to 1.8 % difference for every 10 degrees. Don't know if that's accurate or not, but I could see the temp having some affect, since last night was colder than on any of my previous runs prior to the MAF mod. But I don't think it would be more than about 5-6% based on the above formula.

The scangauge requires that you imput the displacement of the motor and a few other things. I'm sure it uses the rest of the sensors and based off some formula comes up with it's figure. Some of things that the scangauge can display are gallons per hour usage, ignition timing, intake temp, vehicle speed, rpm, etc.

I think comparing even scangauge numbers between vehicles is probably questionable, because you do have to imput some settings and the sensors between different vehicles are going to be different, but comparing the same exact vehicle and engine between mods, might be useful, I don't know.

If was reading this I'd be questioning it very hard too. As far as what the new MAF does, you'll have to ask Landtank that question or read the many different threads. One thing for sure, the sensor does open up the intake significantly and appears to cause far less airflow restriction. If I read correctly, the new sensor seems to be more accurate as well. Toyota used the same sensor for a wide variety of vehicles once it was developed after the 80 series production ended.

Definately need to do some more testing and comparing to the old MAF, before I can draw any concrete conclusions and see if it was just anomaly.

My gut feeling is that the MAF does significantly improve WOT, high rpm performance at the upper end of the powerband, but how much is in question. I don't honestly think it's 20%, but I think it's something very noticable.

 

[landtank]

Yeah baby

Programs like this typically will use the speedometer and an input of what vehicle you are driving to calculate HP. It considers the mass of the vehicle and that vehicle must be in stock form. So there is plenty of issues with accuracy.

But it's like a dyno in some sense. Different dynos give different results and will vary on different days.

The best you can do is try and get a direct percentage increase from running both MAFs on the same day, on the same road and then apply that percentage to the factory specs for the truck.

Toyota says the engine make 212hp so the rear wheel horse power would be considerably less.

Another thing that would skew the results is that you are replacing a very old part with a much newer one and some of that increase might also be seen if you used a new stock sensor.

Hey, I love the numbers but I'm a realist also.

 

[aclos3]

I recently installed the Landtank MAF and read the entire development thread. It seemed like during testing, the best estimate they could get based on air pressure was about an 18hp increase for a stock truck. People with forced induction noticed upwards of 50hp. The gain comes from 2 things: a larger, freer flowing MAF housing that allows more air to get to the engine and a much improved data stream from the sensor. The sensor is more sophisticated so it provides many more data points per second and the freer flowing design of both sensor and housing should allow that airflow to remain laminar and therefore not "wash out." More air + much more useful data to the computer allows the truck to run more efficiently, improve throttle response, and increase horsepower in the middle / upper rpm range. My butt dyno may not be that great, but I'd say the mod makes it feel like it gained just about 20 horsepower. I can also echo the sentiment of other Landtank MAFers in saying that it "feels like 500 lbs came off the truck" -- maybe more!

This mod is fantastic. It eliminated my slight warm idle stumble, and definitely improved throttle response and horsepower. I cannot yet comment on the gas mileage since I installed my MAF yesterday, but people claiming the extra power also seem to notice about 1mpg better in the city. They are certainly correct about the power, so I can only assume their statements about gas mileage are true as well.

 

[sleeoffroad]

The gain comes from 2 things: a larger, freer flowing MAF housing that allows more air to get to the engine

Correct,

and a much improved data stream from the sensor. The sensor is more sophisticated so it provides many more data points per second

The sensor is analog and sends out a voltage. The ECU is the one that makes that into a number. What you mentioned above is simply not correct. Here is some info on how the system works.
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h34.pdf

The sensor might be more sensitive to air flow changes, but the analog to digital is still done by the ECU.

Just to be clear, I am not knocking this mod, just don't like it when info is posted that is not correct.

 

[TrickyT]

... The sensor is more sophisticated so it provides many more data points per second...

I disagree about the more data points per second. That's a function of the ECU, not the sensor. What is superior about the new style sensor is that it has more dynamic range and, I believe, is more linear at the low and high ends of its dynamic range.

 

[landtank]

To shrink the sensor in size you need to reduce the sample size needed to get a valid reading. Which means it has to be more sensitive. These sensors are 11 years newer than the original ones. MAF sensor design improvements has been one way that Toyota has gotten a little more HP and fuel economy out of their engines.

While aclos3 might not be technically accurate with his wording I think the basic idea from a layman's point of view is reasonably close.