Supercharged - Landtank or OEM MAF? (1 Viewer)

1973Guppie

Supporting Vendor
SILVER Star
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
10,056
Location
"the whale's vagina", CA
I searched but could not find any info specific to this on a supercharged engine.

I know there have been other threads on the validity of the landtank MAF. I don't want to rehash that here. So please stay on topic. FWIW, I feel that before the supercharger the landtank MAF did give me a good off the line performance upgrade.

What I am looking for is opinions from those whom are supercharged and what they are running for the MAF and why? Curious to see if others have used both and which one worked better or if there really was no difference whatsoever between them. I have a LT and an OEM MAF on the shelf. My LT MAF is gen 3 with the updated sleeve.

Right now I am running the LT MAF and the car runs great, no overheating, etc. But curious to know if the supercharger likes the OEM maf for any reason vs. the LT MAF.

Thanks,

Noah
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2016
Messages
102
Location
San Diego
Bumping and hopefully resurrecting this thread. With the SC group buy recently done, I think that this discussion is relevant. Guppie, did you ever test out the two and find a difference?
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
913
My LaNDtank just cost me 750USD, put a used one in and it runs beautifully. The LaNDtank one lasted a few years fwiw
 

1973Guppie

Supporting Vendor
SILVER Star
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
10,056
Location
"the whale's vagina", CA
My LaNDtank just cost me 750USD, put a used one in and it runs beautifully. The LaNDtank one lasted a few years fwiw

I don't understand? what happened to the landtank unit you had?

FWIW, I am still running mine with no issues. I don't understand what all the issues are about. I did have it redone with a new sleeve or whatever. Anyhow, truck runs great and no issues so plan to leave it as is. If it ain't broke.........
 

TrickyT

Hate that mud...
SILVER Star
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
1,500
Location
Mill Valley, CA
I'm guessing that @beachcomberspi must have had a MAF sensor that failed, since Rick's housing is all billet aluminum and there's nothing in it that can fail short of outright abuse or aggravated attack with a heavy/sharp tool. But the sensor can get dirty and requires periodic cleaning with... ta da... the spray "MAF cleaner" found at any auto store.

Since my FZJ80 is NA, I can't really address your primary question but I will note that I had to swap my LT MAF out and go back to my OEM MAF because during my last CA bay area smog inspection the guy noticed my MAF was not what came with the vehicle and said he'd have to fail me on visual inspection. I pointed to the OEM Toyota sensor used in LT's MAF and he pointed to a bulletin on the wall warning technicians to be vigilant for TEQ supplied parts that are not CARB compliant. I protested, but he had a book that listed MAF part numbers by vehicle year and the 22204-07010 sensor I had didn't cross-check with the 1FZ-FE motor. Maybe I could have pushed the issue, but I had the OEM MAF in the back of the truck and asked if it was okay if I swap it back in. He said "no problem" and 15 minutes later I was on my way home with my approved smog cert. At least with my NA motor this was no big deal as I can't say I ever really noticed a difference between LT's MAF and the OEM MAF. I _think_ I maybe had better low RPM response "off the line" with the LT MAF, but this was always seat-of-the-pants and maybe all in my mind. Certainly things were no worse with LT's MAF, even after many thousands of miles on the highway and trails. If it wasn't for CA smog I would be running my LT MAF setup.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
4,918
Location
SacTown!
I have landtank one and it does feel a little better on power. It is a LOT bigger internal diameter/better airflow.

4.5 is a good size motor and the oem MAF is a bit like sucking air through straw.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
10,933
Location
Washington
While that might sound good in theory the data does not support it. If it was a free mod awesome but I can't stand by in good conscience and let the more power talk keep being thrown around. I only wanted a little more power out of my truck and bought the LT MAF, and out of my pocket dyno'd v1 and v2 three times each at a cost of $75 each time and every time they lost power compared to the stock MAF. I had close to a $1000 in a modification and testing that was worse than stock. YMMV.
 

landtank

SILVER Star
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Messages
19,965
Location
Groveland MA
we ran and posted dyno results showing a power increase with the GenIII. Nothing earth shattering but it was there. Those dyno runs were posted on mud for everyone to see.

While scottryana was doing all these runs he had a GenIII housing in his possession and chose not to run it. Not sure why and at this point I really don't care. I did offer to reimburse him for his cost for those runs and he declined that offer.

Everyone who has installed one of my MAFs have said that they notice a better driving experience. At this point there are no new housings available. So purchasing one is not an option. If you have a housing I'd install it and let your own experience dictate whether you like it or not.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
10,933
Location
Washington
Nope never had the gen III, you offered, I declined. By that point I was over it. It was frankly a little embarrassing to keep going to the guys at the dyno shop over and over again.

If you did finally get a gen III working that's good news. But I have never seen a gen III in person.

And really not to split hairs but 1.4% difference is well within most dyno's margin of error. All I am saying is that when I bought mine everyone was claiming decent power gains. That's the only reason I bought it. Now that it doesn't make power, the claims are better driveability like I said I only did gen I and gen II but I just don't see how that's possible. The ECU controls the sample rate not the sensor.

You have some great products, no doubt, I just think this one should not be marketed as any kind of upgrade and should probably be sold as a replacement for when the time comes and the stock MAF is no longer available.



we ran and posted dyno results showing a power increase with the GenIII. Nothing earth shattering but it was there. Those dyno runs were posted on mud for everyone to see.

While scottryana was doing all these runs he had a GenIII housing in his possession and chose not to run it. Not sure why and at this point I really don't care. I did offer to reimburse him for his cost for those runs and he declined that offer.

Everyone who has installed one of my MAFs have said that they notice a better driving experience. At this point there are no new housings available. So purchasing one is not an option. If you have a housing I'd install it and let your own experience dictate whether you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
649
Location
Va Beach
Scottryana, did you use Performance Autosports dyno in Richmond? (now at EFI Performance) Just curious, I've been planning to dyno mine before I do an LS swap and curious to compare numbers on the same dyno.

As far as my experience with the LT MAF, when I first installed the gen I years ago, it felt like it ran better but then in the last year I removed and sold it, since it had a good resale value and I am planning to swap anyway. I then felt more power in the midrange when going back to stock MAF. Some variables that may factor in...With LT MAF I had a K&N air filter and stock timing. When removed I had a Toyota filter and 7* advanced timing. I've always kept maintenance up, cleaned MAF sensor etc so that shouldn't be a difference. Not saying it doesn't do anything for anyone, I imagine SC it probably would help, but I think there are other variables that matter too, and it was all seat of the pants, no dyno data.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
10,933
Location
Washington
Unfortunately I haven't used anyone since I have been in Richmond this was a couple of years back when I was living in Texas. It was on an AWD dynojet 424. Baseline numbers were right inline with what LT is showing with his before and afters. 135hp and 186ft/lbs. his baseline was 134 and 181.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
10,933
Location
Washington
It looks like EFI Performance has a dynojet 224, if that's right you would have to pull your front drive shaft and lock your center diff. Would be kind of cool to see what numbers you get because I have always wondered if the VC in the transfercase was a culprit in the abnormally high drivetrain loss these trucks see.

Scottryana, did you use Performance Autosports dyno in Richmond? (now at EFI Performance) Just curious, I've been planning to dyno mine before I do an LS swap and curious to compare numbers on the same dyno.

As far as my experience with the LT MAF, when I first installed the gen I years ago, it felt like it ran better but then in the last year I removed and sold it, since it had a good resale value and I am planning to swap anyway. I then felt more power in the midrange when going back to stock MAF. Some variables that may factor in...With LT MAF I had a K&N air filter and stock timing. When removed I had a Toyota filter and 7* advanced timing. I've always kept maintenance up, cleaned MAF sensor etc so that shouldn't be a difference. Not saying it doesn't do anything for anyone, I imagine SC it probably would help, but I think there are other variables that matter too, and it was all seat of the pants, no dyno data.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2002
Messages
15,197
Location
OC, CA
While that might sound good in theory the data does not support it. If it was a free mod awesome but I can't stand by in good conscience and let the more power talk keep being thrown around. I only wanted a little more power out of my truck and bought the LT MAF, and out of my pocket dyno'd v1 and v2 three times each at a cost of $75 each time and every time they lost power compared to the stock MAF. I had close to a $1000 in a modification and testing that was worse than stock. YMMV.

Thanks for stepping up and doing all the quantitative testing. You saved a lot of people a lot of money and showed them the problem with trusting the "butt dynamometer" and confirmation bias.

I learned this the expensive and hard way back in my street racing days when I would spend my last two pay checks on some super-duper "performance" part or modification. I would think "wow, this really runs better" and then take my car out to the track and find out it was actually slower in the quarter mile. This happened more than once before it started to sink in.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
649
Location
Va Beach
It looks like EFI Performance has a dynojet 224, if that's right you would have to pull your front drive shaft and lock your center diff. Would be kind of cool to see what numbers you get because I have always wondered if the VC in the transfercase was a culprit in the abnormally high drivetrain loss these trucks see.

Yea its only a single roller so I plan to lock it up and pull the front DS. The autocross club has an annual dyno day to save a few bucks but I always have something going on. I definitely will do it thought before I pull the 1FZ.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
913
The MAF simply stopped working.
I don't understand? what happened to the landtank unit you had?

FWIW, I am still running mine with no issues. I don't understand what all the issues are about. I did have it redone with a new sleeve or whatever. Anyhow, truck runs great and no issues so plan to leave it as is. If it ain't broke.........
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom