The ATS turbo is hungy for air at WOT and I set P0103 codes quite regularly. It is a MAF sensor high voltage code that sets when the ECM sees the MAF sensor at more than 4.5 volts or 444+ g/s. I've seen the MAF sensor read a max of 470 g/s at WOT. Does anyone know if 470 g/s is the limit of the MAF sensor or is it higher? I don't feel the truck lay over but the ECM uses the MAF sensor for calculating fuel delivery so I'm wondering if the ECM is backing off fuel or leveling off fuel when I exceed 444 g/s air flow. Maybe it's time to find a MAF sensor that can handle more air.

Just ramblin', no idea how the diesel handles MAF:

Not sure if the MAF sensor is the same design as the cars, but if you have a spare, you might want to experiment with applying a light coat of paint to the sensor to "desensitize" it. Perhap a small obstruction in front of it might be the answer.

The real solution is to recalibrate the MAF from inside the PCM, but those tools are not available to us yet.

As far as whether the MAF pulls fuel at WOT? You'd need to test with a tech II and look at the main shot volume mm3 I think.

Won't the MAF burn that coating off at startup?

It might render it completely non functional too. I thought I saw an aftermarket one from Granetelli but that might be complete snake oil?

bmdmax, was the one from Granetelli specifically for Diesels?

Fingers would be someone to talk to. He's done quite a bit of research on the MAF for his 'fingers stick'. He might be able to give you ideas or might even be able to design a circuit to help you out.

Does the MAF do anything at WOT?

Personally I do not trust Granatelli. Doctored dyno sheets, "fibbing" to customers, etc.

Prick still owes me for an MAF that made less HP than stock on an LS1 engine. And that was after 3 attempts.

Tell us how you really feel Pat):h

Tell us how you really feel Pat):h

Yeah, I'm not his biggest fan. They guaranteed a 10HP gain, and showed a dyno sheet with a 25rwhp gain on the same model and year as my car. I told him face-to-face "I expect 5rwhp gain from this after tuning, can I return it if it doesn't?" and he said "Certainly, but your gains will be much higher!". After 3 attempts, no MAF they could supply would match the HP of the OEM MAF. After showing them the dynos ($300 worth of dynos) suddenly the warranty was void. "Your car is different!" Uh, 2000 LS1 Camaro with stock engine just like the dyno on their box. On closer examination, the dyno curve was for different year Camaro with the LT1 engine, no matter what they say. Curves on the two engines are ALOT different, and did not come close to any LS1 curve I've ever seen. When asked to produce a copy of the dyno, the said they would send me one. That was 4 years ago, still no sheet.

I'm not the only owner who fell for it. And typically on car dyno days I attend, if a car runs like crap, I'll look under the hood and if I see a GMAF on it, we swap it, and the power picks back up.

They claim to have a diesel MAF upgrade but with the comments McRat has posted above that is why I added the possible snake oil qualification.

No one has installed one that I am aware of. Looking at the pricing and applications link a MAF for the Duramax smells like BS to me, they list is as a 2000 to 2001 without an airbox???:

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/gmmaftruck.htm#PRICING%20&%20APPLICATION%20GUIDE

Does the MAF do anything at WOT?
No.

They claim to have a diesel MAF upgrade but with the comments McRat has posted above that is why I added the possible snake oil qualification.

No one has installed one that I am aware of. Looking at the pricing and applications link a MAF for the Duramax smells like BS to me, they list is as a 2000 to 2001 without an airbox???:

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/gmmaftruck.htm#PRICING%20&%20APPLICATION%20GUIDE

Right, and it fits all GM trucks 00-04 no matter if you have a V6, V8, or diesel...
Now, where is that bs flag a guy can raise?!

On edit: Brandon, that has to be one cushy jail you're in since they let you post here while you're there ):h

No.
So is it a big deal then? Go out and run the dog piss outa it and get a bunch of codes stored and see if it starts pulling power......if not then big deal right? Whats Clint say? Figure he woulda ran into this??

They claim to have a diesel MAF upgrade but with the comments McRat has posted above that is why I added the possible snake oil qualification.

No one has installed one that I am aware of. Looking at the pricing and applications link a MAF for the Duramax smells like BS to me, they list is as a 2000 to 2001 without an airbox???:

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/gmmaftruck.htm#PRICING%20&%20APPLICATION%20GUIDE

Right, and it fits all GM trucks 00-04 no matter if you have a V6, V8, or diesel...
Now, where is that bs flag a guy can raise?!

On edit: Brandon, that has to be one cushy jail you're in since they let you post here while you're there ):h

Wireless Internet via my Blackberry 7520. :ro) I would not be a true techie if I let a little incarceration slow me down... :D

During testing we didn't even have the MAF plugged in and it didn't seem to make a differance. I am pretty sure it's not a problem.

Do you guys know for fact that the flow through the MAF is indeed the limiting factor or is there a chance that the PCM detects values above a certain programmed limit (444 g/s) as a problem and cuts fuel back? A higher flowing MAF will not help then. :ro)

Edit: Never mind:o:

Thanks for the info carterkraft

I have seen first hand MY pcm pull fuel at WOT after a P0103. I cleaned the MAF sensor and cleared the code and all was good. On another note don't we have a 3bar MAP sensor, IIRC is that only good for 44.1psi? I think you may have just exceeded it's capacity.

I was just out looking at my stock setup. It appears the easiest way to alter the MAF would be to physically raise it upwards. This could possibly relocate it into an area that did not receive as much air flow. Floors and ceilings have a tendancy to be slow.

I duno how the MAF works? I assume that it is used at low load situations? If so I would say keeping it accurate in those sits but limit what it sees(so WOT high use it dosnt throw a code) Interesting to see what fingers or some of the other smarter guys say......

i've been setting 0103's for some time now with the extreme doing WOT runs... yes the max the sensor can read is 473 g/s or somewhere in that area...

I duno how the MAF works? I assume that it is used at low load situations? If so I would say keeping it accurate in those sits but limit what it sees(so WOT high use it dosnt throw a code) Interesting to see what fingers or some of the other smarter guys say......

On cars, they are VERY sensitive at the low end of their spectrum, and less at the top. In other words, at light pedal, idle, cruising, etc, they are very good at telling how much air is going by. It is done deliberately. This is where they need to adjust fuel to get the best emissions and mileage.

Just an edumacated type guess, is that the MAF on a diesel is used the same way, for mileage and emissions mostly at light settings. While I suppose they COULD control engine output based on air mass, it is not necessary. The pedal on the right already does that. We do not have Fuel/Air ratio requirements that cars do, and with stock programming we have a LOT of air available.

Someone with a Tech II can answer this in 30 minutes or less. Record peak main shot volume and do a test pass, then do it again with the MAF blinded.

:drinking:

During testing we didn't even have the MAF plugged in and it didn't seem to make a differance. I am pretty sure it's not a problem.
You're lucky. I thought the same thing and found that not installing it after the twins were installed immediately threw codes limiting the fuel. In fact, while cruising at 75 mph down the highway I cleared the codes and I immediately felt a surge of extra power. I put it back in and no longer have the problems I had when it was missing. I am however setting the same 103 codes as Tomac now. Must be that extra air. I'm watching this thread with interest too.

Here's a little bit of info on generally how the thing works.....gotta love Google.

I think we have the hot wire variety. Fingers, where you at?

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h34.pdf

IIRC, GM uses hotwire "frequency" style MAFS's. They output a frequency to the PCM.

Finally, I can't believe it took this long for someone to ask this question.

Bronco - Why do you think the MAF is not used at WOT, if the MAF is not used at WOT then why does the ECM set a code when approaching or exceeding it's measuring capabilities?

Carbon04 - I believe you have the MAF mixed up with the MAP sensor, MAF measures air mass not pressure.

The GM vehicles I have played with will operate in speed density mode with the MAF unplugged. On vehicles that I have exceeded the measuring abilities of the MAF on, the ECM did not pull fuel, the system simply could not measure the additional air mass even though the rpms continue to increase, creating a lean condition. There are ways to cheat the ECM with programming however that can bring it's own issues. In my experience, the correct way to resolve this is to install a MAF that is capable of measuring the needed airflow and then updating the MAF table.

Mcrat - Do you use any editing software to tune the Vette or do you have it tuned by someone else?


When will SCT be ready?????????????

I used to do my own tuning until recently. I can still do what I need to do to "adjust" the car for track conditions/fuel. I use LS1Edit.

Mcrat - Same here, Carputing and Tunercat for the GM stuff, SCT for the Mustang's and Powerstrokes and hopefully this summer for the Dmax.

yes I did mix up the 2.................but doesn't that raise another issue of the MAP sensor not being able to "read" the new found boost if it is only a 3bar?

what purpose does a MAF have in a vehicle that is turbocharged and doesn't have a throttle plate? The MAP sensor is telling what the motor "sees". Right?

When you are cruising or idling, you are making little or no boost. The MAF would be far more sensitive to the amount of air than the MAP. It's another reason why I'm a bit skeptical that the MAF controls fuel at WOT, as the engine should be looking at the boost level, which is clearly defined, rather than the high flow end of the MAF, which can barely tell high flow from medium flow.

Bronco - Why do you think the MAF is not used at WOT, if the MAF is not used at WOT then why does the ECM set a code when approaching or exceeding it's measuring capabilities?



I remember reading that with the Dmax the MAF is NA past 2/3 load/capacity/throttle?

Also typically a MAF do not do much when WOT. You programing goes into power mode and an entirely different logic kicks in.

This code 0103 can be set in 3 seconds? So it could be happening at the begining of the 1/4 mile when staging? It could be happenig before ever approaching WOT? I think the main criteria is that the voltage has to be pegged. It did not really specify when this max voltage has to occur. The code could trip at idle if the MAF pegged.

I really am not positive on my posting just keeping ideas flowing.

Funny. I have not set that code yet (knock on wood) even while towing heavy at my full power settings.

Are you guys sure your sensor is clean?


I am watching this thread closely.

Quad emailed me with a solution to the MAF problem. I'll have to try it out.

Congrats mtomac. This is actually a pretty big deal to be among the first to max out the MAF. :D

We've really only been doing it for about 2years in the LS-X engine FI arena. :) There are a couple of tricks that are used there with the programers like LS1 Edit and HP Tuners where you can adjust scaling on other table to spoof the PCM into handling more airflow.

A good guy to talk to would be Matt Harlan. He can probably confirm the specs on the Dmax MAF and might have some tricks up his sleaves. McRat has probably seen him as y2khawk over on LS1Tech.com. :)

By the way, MotownMuscle.com will be renting Martin on May 29th if you want to come out and show off the progress on the truck. You should be pretty solid in the 11.99 and faster bracket class by then. :)

Rick

If the MAF is not being used at WOT to measure the air mass and the MAP sensor is limited to 3 bar, I don't see how "load" or "VE" could be calculated at 31 PSI of boost and above? That would leave the TPS and RPM inputs to determine which "cell" the ECM looks to for accurate fuel delivery under that particular set of circumstances. Seems to me the technology of these trucks is beyond such a basic level of control.

Where is DieselTech, I have a feeling he may know a little about this?

Quad emailed me with a solution to the MAF problem. I'll have to try it out.


Finally

My 01 always threw that code running the old version Quad.Things are looking up :D

Throwing a MAP sensor code is a whole different story

Hmmm...

Never thought of PCM limits. Guess they are coming up.

GM does not program boost above 24? PSI roughly, which is fine for the existing MAP/MAF.

But it shouldn't affect hot-rodding. Since accurate A/F ratio is not important to a diesel at max output, I would guess you'd fill all the cells up top with as much fuel as you can get away with, and just vary it as a function of RPM/TPS alone.

If you wanted to make progressive curves up past 3 bar, you would need to rescale the MAP and MAF either with circuitry or PCM changes, and just redo the entire set of tables I would think. IE - what GM currently has for the highest cells, would be remapped with "lied to" inputs. The 3 bar MAP cells would now be like 4 bar, and ditto for the MAF.

1.014v to 4.670v 11kg/hr to 1620 kg/hr

4.5v or 1600 kg/hr will throw code.

Somebody can probally convert 1600 kg/hr into CFM?

Bronco - Good info, where did you come up with that

Has anyone tried a wide band 02 sensor on a diesel to verify A/F ratio doesn't matter? It would be interesting to see what happens when the MAF is maxed out. I plan on installing a LM-1 from Innovative Motorsports sometime this summer to have a look.

When will a Dmax datalogger be available?????

Currently for LLY's there is nothing but Tech II that I can find.

I'm hounding EASE to get us hooked up. I'm on their list (they say).

Does A/F matter? Yes for fuel efficiency, but the big HP guys overfuel like crazy. Watch a diesel pulling tractor or a seriously bombed Cummins. Probably 1/2 their fuel energy goes out the exhaust. Thick black smoke!

SCT says this summer for editing software and a datalogger.:ro)

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/images/smilies/deal.gif

2.08 kg/hr = 1 CFM at sea level and baro press = 29.92 mm Hg

So my calculations tell me that the MAF will trip a code when it sees 769.23 CFM.

Now the GM ENGINE DIAGNOSTICS PARAMETERS trouble shooting chart that I am using does not tell me when exactly it is taking this measurment. It does say though that it is looking between 500-2500RPM.

So at about 2500 rpm and 40PSI you should get that code? Or 3200rpm at 30PSI?

No, I do not think that is what the code is thinking.

Lets take pressure out of the equation. Up where the MAF is located there is no pressure other than atmospheric. The MAF is basically a wire that reports a temparature ( voltage). So the colder the air, the denser the air and the more air there is moving over the wire, the higher the voltage will be.

I also do not think the MAF is sensing anything above 2500RPM. So this tells me that Tomac is pulling 789 CFM before or at 2500RPM, which is more then the MAF was ever calibrated to see. So basically the computer is thinking the sensor is broken.

Physically altering the airflow to the MAF, relocating the MAF, coating the MAF, adding componets to the wires from the MAF, one of these methods has to reduce the voltage signal being sent to the PCM.

Curious to see what Quad told Tomac to try?



How come I keep thinking the guru is about to come in here and slap me upside the head?

Curious to see what Quad told Tomac to try?

Um........ :D

would a boost activated resistor do any good....ie...onc a certain boost is reached its trips a resistor to interupt some of the singnal.....

Bronco - I disagree with your theory, if the MAF is saturated, you need a MAF that is calibrated to measure more air along with a programming change to the MAF table. What you are proposing would decrease the calculated fuel across the entire curve. The MAF does not know about RPMs, the readings may be ignored by the ECM above 2500rpm(doubtful) but it does not stop measureing air at a specific RPM.

Yeah you are correct. It would lean it out across the board. There are better ways to go about it.

I do not think the MAF meausres or senses RPM. I think the test in the PCM does not monitor below 500 RPM or above 2500RPM.

I say this because of what GM printed for troubleshooting.

Engine run time >2sec
2500rpm>=engine speed>500rpm
ignition voltage >9v
Inlet air temp -6.75 degC
None of the following codes are set P0112 and P0113
Above conditions met for >3secs

You need a voltage limiting circuit.

Plug this in between the MAF and chasis harness. The only thing it effects is the upper limit voltage. Cap it at 4.45V.

All good guesses but it does not work that way. There are tables of information about expected airflow at given test points. The Xtreme tune by it self @30 psi has always overflowed the MAF so anyone can look at a Tech II and see the MAF hit the limit it's no big deal, you just need to change the test parameters in the code. The finger stick works much the same way. It gives the ECM signals that match what is expected when the EGR has been removed. Since the signal is dynamic a simple voltage limiting circuit will not solve it in all cases.

So Dieseltech,

Not to trying to be a jerk but if it is all about programing then why is Dieselpower throwing the P0103? Does his code need a little tweaking? Not that fine tuning is against the rules.

I understand the tables need tweaking but is there a limit to how much tweaking can be done via parameters? Would a voltage cap device come in handy at this point?

All good guesses but it does not work that way. There are tables of information about expected airflow at given test points. The Xtreme tune by it self @30 psi has always overflowed the MAF so anyone can look at a Tech II and see the MAF hit the limit it's no big deal, you just need to change the test parameters in the code. The finger stick works much the same way. It gives the ECM signals that match what is expected when the EGR has been removed. Since the signal is dynamic a simple voltage limiting circuit will not solve it in all cases.
Diesel Tech, (resident diesel guru) I was reading this thread hoping you wouldn't respond. You amaze me, your still here offering information to these guys. :eek:

It is a proven fact that no one on the West Coast has a clue on how to do anything.

I'm sure ATS, Quad, Van Aken, DTT, already have a fix for this. They wouldn't dare sell a product without considering all the implications would they?

Mack,
What was that fix Quad had for you? Beat on the dash 3 times and say a prayer? :D

Tomac,
Quad/ATS/PPE should be able to write you some code and use a resistor to take care of this. Assuming they know which code to change. At least that's how we did it with LSx engines. I use EFI Live's Flash Scan. "plug plug" :D


Is Heart Beat Canada having the same issue? That 12.10 is going to go sub 12's for sure as soon as you get this code figured out. :ro)

Trippin you claim to be such a Saint but we all know better. You are a green headed monster like the rest.

I'm going to the track tomorrow to try what Quad suggested.

DING DING DING! we have a winner! send the man his prize! Guy is just whoring himself out.....he is planning on quiting his day job soon with all his sales from the gauge mounts, pickups, traction bars and of course he is figuring he can spread enough propoganda to get all the Dmax owners to go out and buy an Xtreme and it will send the value of his TTS stock options through the roof.

Good luck Mike. Seeing a 11 sec #2 pass from a duramax would ruel! REally get the Dodge boys shaking

Edit: Hope to see a new post monday of you busting outa the 12's:ro)

Trippin you claim to be such a Saint but we all know better. You are a green headed monster like the rest.Congratulations Bronco, you figured me out, along with keeping the tank 1/2 full or better when racing.

Brad from FASS says hi. :eek:

Does it defuel at a certain boost pressure, like the Ford and the Cummins engine? If so a boost relief valve might help in that area.

In the Powerstroke, this valve fools the sensor into seeing only a certain amount of boost, (20 psi) thus not allowing it to cut back fuel, which starts to happen at about 21-22 psi and then throws codes, setting off a check engine light. The valve, we use is all mechanical, but some of the Ford owners do it electronically by cutting the voltage the sensor sees.

One dealer, uses our boost relief valves from the Ford's with his LB7 Duramax propane systems and his trucks and his customer's are usually stellar performers at the track and pulls. So there might be something to it.

Congratulations Bronco, you figured me out, along with keeping the tank 1/2 full or better when racing.

Brad from FASS says hi. :eek:Trippin this "Battle for supremacy" has got to stop. I am not sure why you do it, but it hurts the diesel community. If you would like to have it out like an adult, lets do it right here right now.




As far as the current situation with the MAF. I asked Dtech some simple questions and I am still waiting for a reply. Can the programing be strechted to accomadete bigger injectors, twin turbos, lots of airflow. I am still waiting for a reply. If there answer is yes, my next question is can it be accomplished with a handheld or does it require a custom ECM?

If it cannot be done via programmers or a handheld then an electrical/mechanical device still needs to be developed for Tomac and others. There is obviously a problem. This current thread had brought an issue out on the table. Without the help of the so called resident guru. We as a bunch of hacks did a pretty damn good job of deteriming what the code was and what might possibly fix it. Diesel tech came in and told us we were all close but no cigar. Fine. I would like to illustrate that most of us understand tables have been modfyed. The real question is, why are some still receiving the code even after these tables have been modifyed? Nick lives right in California and he still gets the 0103. So maybe a quick keystroke?

While we are at it, lets just get a few more things on the table. There is nobody here on this website in any capacity that did one single ioda of original Duramax/Allison programming from the ground up. The code GM provided was hacked into and then modifyed. Something anyone of us with the right tools could acomplish. These vehicles and mods are a combined total of years and years of discovery and mistakes. We got here because of the hard work of millons rather than a few .

If you would like to continue to try and separate yourself form the crowd by being a vendor that is fine. I noticed in another thread you mentioned there is a difference between the guy who uses the product in comparision to the guy who designs the product. You insinuated the guy who designs the product is superior and of higher status/intelect.

Let me shine a little ltight on that statement. There is also the guy who understands his time is worth money and most likely he can make more money at his current employment rather than tinkering in the garage. It takes time and money which is usually better spent at a real job or with ones family. We know if we just hold out some diehard will release the product for us and save us the agony. So there is always 2 ways of looking at things.

In regards to you and your half tank of fuel. You always did mention your truck ran better above 1/2 tank but you never new why. Now you do.

Since you are so smart, why don't you finish the fuel system mods, you have started. Right know your pickup has moved the weakest link one more down the chain. In another words it is a band-aide. Possibly causing problems by sucking the basket dry that much sooner. Hence the published article by Aeromotive.

I'm still curious if a 103 slows the truck down. Doesn't on mine I'm pretty sure.

When you stack the LLY VA with a tuner, you will often get MAF errors, but I haven't noticed a performance drop.

I'm so tempted to get a $3500 Tech II, but I'd slash my wrists when the next day AutoTap/Ease/??? comes out with a $400 one that will actually put the data into a spreadsheet.

Trippin this "Battle for supremacy" has got to stop. I am not sure why you do it, but it hurts the diesel community. If you would like to have it out like an adult, lets do it right here right now. No drive bye, no identity theft, no water in the fuel tank and no threats from Brad at FASS. Ultiment fighter or not.

You guys wonder why I did not finish the original testing? Well I was threatened plain and simple. After a year, a snub nosed .357 with a conceal carry license I am no longer scared.

I did pay cash for a FASS and then return it. Why? Because before I purchaed it, I asked the manufacture 5 questions. The answers sounded good so I bought it. I did take it apart but never applied power to it or ran fuel through it.

4 of the 5 questions were answered with lies. Plain and simple. If the questions were answered with truth I never would have ever purchased it. So I felt justified in returning it. If court actions will be taken against me so be it. I am not going to hide the truth or live scared any more. Too bad the test did not go forward a year ago. We all would have saved a bunch of time and money on product that sends most of the fuel most of the time straight back to the gas tank. Never doing anything to it other than ariation.



As far as the current situation with the MAF. I asked Dtech some simple questions and I am still waiting for a reply. Can the programing be strechted to accomadete bigger injectors, twin turbos, lots of airflow. I am still waiting for a reply. If there answer is yes, my next question is can it be accomplished with a handheld or does it require a custom ECM?

If it cannot be done via programmers or a handheld then an electrical/mechanical device still needs to be developed for Tomac and others. There is obviously a problem. This current thread had brought an issue out on the table. Without the help of the so called resident guru. We as a bunch of hacks did a pretty damn good job of deteriming what the code was and what might possibly fix it. Diesel tech came in and told uase we were all close but no cigar. Fine. I would like to illustrate that most of us understand tables have been modfyed. The real question is, why are some still receiving the code even after these tables have been modifyed? Nick lives right in California and he still gets the 0103. So maybe a quick keystroke?

While we are at it, Lets just get a few more things on the table. There is nobody here on this website on any capacity that did any Duramax/Allison programming from the ground up. The code GM provided was hacked into and then modifyed. Something anyone of us with the right tools could acomplish. These vehicles and mods are a combined total of years and years of discovery and mistakes. We got here because of the hard work of millons rather than a few .

If you would like to continue to try and separate yourself form the crowd by being a vendor that is fine. I noticed in another thread you mentioned there is a difference between the guy who uses the product in comparision to the guy who designs the product. You insinuated the guy who designs the product is superior and of higher status/intelect.

Let me shine a little ltight on that statement. There is also the guy who understands his time is worth money and most likely he can make more money at his current employment rather than tinkering in the garage. It takes time and money which is usually better spent at a real job or with ones family. We know if we just hold out some diehard will release the product for us and save us the agony. So there is always 2 ways of looking at things.

In regards to you and your half tank of fuel. You always did mention your truck ran better above 1/2 tank but you never new why. Now you do.

Since you are so smart, why don't you finish the fuel system mods. You have started. Right know your pickup has moved the weakest link one more down the chain. In another words it is a band-aide. Possibly causing problems by sucking the basket dry that much sooner. Hence the published article by Aeromotive.

I am sick of hiding. If someone wants to bring it on, (Brad) or anyone else. lets get her done. Whether that be in court or in a dark alley or right here in front of God and everybody. I know right from wrong. I ain't scared.

Justice will prevail.
Bronco,

I buy product, I evaluate it and then resell it at a loss. I was forced to do this as a result of some people here stating what great results they had with a product and me not being able to acheive the same results. I then share my thoughts with the communty.

I don't buy product from a vendor, take it apart, evaluate it and then return it for a full refund. :eek:

Your whole Airdog thread smacked of someone who had been given a product and asked to write something about it. Perhaps a vendetta against FASS?

I explained many months ago about the canister and and the 1/2 tank of fuel. This was discovered by Diesel Tech Feb. of 2004, I have advocated for just as long to all who race that they keep their tanks 1/2 full of better when racing.

As usual, you have taken someone elses ideas/research processed it, regurgitated it, then presented it as your own.
Your a year too late on your 1/2 full observation.

My comment about product design was intended to describe Diesel Tech's reaearch, not my own.

Love and kisses,

Green Eyed Monster! :D

Bronco

I told you how the fuel system worked once before and you did not believe me, then you start in with name calling and such. You believed the owner from Preporator instead and in your words you were lied to plain and simple, but instead of owning up to the fact they lied to you, you continue to try and stick up for them and say it works properly in other applications. Well the truth is you have no idea if it works or not, you have to take the owners word for it again. See how far that got you last time! In the end you finally got around to doing the testing and found what I had said was true. You did not find the problem nor did you solve it. You ended up right where we said you would and I've been saying it for close to a year now. So now again you want answers to another problem. Why in the world would I tell you anything more than what I have already?

Nick has set codes since he changed the air intake system, added injectors and NOS, all things that I never calibrated for. That should answer your question.

Bronco,


I don't buy product from a vendor, take it apart, evaluate it and then return it for a full refund. :eek:

Your whole Airdog thread smacked of someone who had been given a product and asked to write something about it. Perhaps a vendetta against FASS?

A vendetta? No just the same as you, a quest for truth. Just becasue I learned of impeding problems after the sell does not make me vindictave. I never set out to review/compare or cause any manufacture any greif.

I contacted Preporator and FASS when researching which product would be best for my truck. Preporator did not respond in a timely manner. FASS did right here on the boards. I asked a few simple questions in regards to the operation of the product and the origins of the product. The answers sounded good, so I spent 564.00 dollars plus shipping. Right after I had the product 2 things happened. One, I had trouble installing it. The install kit was incomplete and the product itself was large and very heavy. The second thing that happens was PREPORATOR retuned my phone call. I was informed that my questions to FASS had been answered falsely and the documentation was faxed to me to prove it. I did a patent search to further validate the statements made by Preporator.

So there I sit, with a product that was difficult to install and also thinking I bought an inferior copycat product because I had been lied too. Did I have grounds to return the product? Maybe a judge can decide? I guess maybe I was a little upset that I had been lied to. Vendetta no.



As usual, you have taken someone elses ideas/research processed it, regurgitated it, then presented it as your own.
Your a year too late on your 1/2 full observation.

I do not think I am too late. It has taken me 2 weeks what it has taken you guys 1 year to think about. So I was a little late to the party.

So there on my shelf sat a Preporator 135A collecting dust. I decided to either return it to the manufacture or to sell it. I opted to sell it to IBDMAXIN. During the process of saling it to IBDMAXIN I contacted Preporator. Preporator informed me of the free switchout to the airdog 80. Well once I recieved the airdog 80 MikeL brought forth his problems with the airdog 80. I could not sell a product to Wade that was not going to work. So I got reinvolved with the airseparators by actaully trying to get uninvolved. Thanks to the encouragment of MikeL and DieselTech I marched forward, even with the verbal agreement with FASS to not speak of these products again.

I learned like the rest of you. Does that mean you guys discovered the problem first? Does this mean you are king? Does this mean there are no durmax owners who have never even visited THE DIESEL PLACE using remote fuel cells?

Does this mean we are any closer to a solution?


Tell your buddy I said hi.

Bronco

I told you how the fuel system worked once before and you did not believe me, then you start in with name calling and such. You believed the owner from Preporator instead and in your words you were lied to plain and simple, but instead of owning up to the fact they lied to you, you continue to try and stick up for them and say it works properly in other applications. Well the truth is you have no idea if it works or not, you have to take the owners word for it again. See how far that got you last time! In the end you finally got around to doing the testing and found what I had said was true. You did not find the problem nor did you solve it. You ended up right where we said you would and I've been saying it for close to a year now. So now again you want answers to another problem. Why in the world would I tell you anything more than what I have already?

Dieseltech, I found the problems by myself for myself. The thread I created will clearly illustrate the possible wows and possible remedys. When you make a quick one line stament about a product, it is hard to tell if you are telling the truth or being a competitive vendor? The moral of the story is that we all now know what is going on, not just the few of you in the know. Atleast I was not so biased as to hide or nor come completly forward with my findings. I posted them as I learned. I pulled no punches. And For the record, the Preporator does work as designed. The difficulty is installing it in such a manner that allows it to live up to its full potential and not cause any undesirable reactions. This is not info. from the manufacture but rather from the testing I have done in my garage and with my truck.

Why should you answer my questions in this current thread? Because you joined a thread in progress. Your post was not completly self explanitory. So therefore out of common courtesy you should be willing to answer questions if you make a post. No need to be a one hit wonder.

For the record, the Preporator does work as designed. The difficulty is installing it in such a manner that allows it to live up to its full potential and not cause any undesirable reactions. This is not info. from the manufacture but rather from the testing I have done in my garage and with my truck.

For the Record it does not! Preporator sells kits for the Ford, Dodge and GM diesel pickups. These do not work as advertised and you know it by your own testing. Your testing showed that below 1/2 tank and low load not only did it not remove air it introduced more than what was present to begin with! How much is Preporator paying you to continue making false and misleading claims? Please provide some proof that it works in a Duramax, Powerstroke or Cummins application. Until you can provide any data other than "I do not see as many bubbles" there is nothing that shows it works, and everything to show they do not work and are event dangerous to install on a pickup truck, plain and simple! The data provided by Preporator is not for the AirDog or Preporator 135 so it is completely useless as it apply to a different unit with different components than what is being sold for these applications. If you want to say it works for a semi truck I would go so far as to give you a maybe but still question it.

And you call me thick headed.

Did you not comprehend the part I wrote about the difficulty installing it and not causing other problems?

Did you not read the thread about the airdog 80 ? We are still trying to install the unit in such a manner that it duplicates test stand conditions. If you do not understand that then you need to thing about getting your GED updated.

To come on here and say the product does not work is a lie and is just as bad as any other type of lie. It does work. The trick is installing in such a maner that it contiunues to work in any and all situations. Is it worth the time and expense to install it correctly? I doubt it.


Do you not realize that I am puting the truth and shortcomings of this product in front of everybody for all to see? What the hells wrong with you?

You prove to me that it does not work in a test stand condition.

So, how about them MAF's!! Think they will win the Pennant this year?

MAF's SUCK!!!! MAP's ALL THE WAY!!!!!

MAF's SUCK!!!! MAP's ALL THE WAY!!!!!
You guys are both wrong.


MILF's all the way!):h


"Got MILF?"

I got a "MILF" once :ro)

Hey guys obviously we just put the dirty laundry out on the clothesline.

There has apparently been some trouble brewing behind the scenes.

Now that it is out in the open I think we are all gonna have to agree to disagree.

No need to live with enemys or fears. These F-ucking terrorist do that enough already.


Trippin, Dieseltech, and anybody else it is beer:30 and I have some celebrating to do.

You guys have a good weekend and wish us all luck at the dragstrip tomorrow and at the triclub dyno day. Gotta look good in front of those FURDS and DUDS.

Now isn't there a 0103 around here somewhere.

I do not think I am too late. It has taken me 2 weeks what it has taken you guys 1 year to think about.



Wrong, it took you two weeks, to figure out what Diesel Tech did in 5 minutes.

We (3 of us) had the tank and sending unit out of the truck in Feb of 04. A year later you realize that you actually needed to remove the tank and take a look. Then two weeks to understand what you were looking at. Yet, now you want to take credit for the whole thing. :eek:

Perhaps you should stick to regurgitating the Airdog brochure.

I enjoy sharing and learning with the community, what I don't enjoy is being mislead about the newest tune/fuel pump/turbo/trans/whatever. Then buying it and finding out it had all these undisclosed issues. Hence the reason for my original comments.

Adding a new sump to the tank is no big deal, Diesel Innovations has been doing that for years. Returning the fuel to the top of the pickup bucket has also been talked about, but frankly it would be just foam at that point. I don't think the Foamdog 2000 would be able to remove that much air from the fuel to make it worth while.

I have the utmost respect for Mtomac's accomplishments. I have even more respect for him now that he has divulged and asked for help in solving a problem with the MAF using the new ATS turbo.

The difference between you and I Bronco is I refuse to take credit for something I didn't do. You on the other hand seem to revel in gathering information from multiple sources and then explaining to us how it all works, if only you could turn a wrech as well as you can type.

We can keep going Bronco, if you want, or perhaps you'd like to call a truce, either way I'm game, frankly I enjoy the debate.



More Love and Kisses,

The Green Headed Monster :D

On Edit:

Sorry Bronco, I posted the above before I saw your last post. You beat me to it. Good luck at the drags!

"I may not be any good, but I'm slow!"

Hey Trippin I deserve your last post. I did read the edit.

BTW I can turn a wrench with the best of them. I just have not turned my work mule into a toy. YET!

Hey Trippin I deserve your last post. I did read the edit.

BTW I can turn a wrench with the best of them. I just have not turned my work mule into a toy. YET!
Good luck tomorrow!

Have Fun! Ultimately it's all about the fun!
:D

Mack,
What was that fix Quad had for you? Beat on the dash 3 times and say a prayer? :D



That and flash the lights and blow the horn run half way around the truck necked,just half way. Then his cell went dead :D


Good luck Tomac :)

That and flash the lights and blow the horn run half way around the truck necked,just half way. Then his cell went dead :D


Good luck Tomac :)
More comments by a unbiased moderator.:rolleyes:

More comments by a unbiased moderator.:rolleyes:


By the tone of your post you must know I speak the truth,Ford dude. :D

Goofy?Is that you again Goofy?
Who said I had to be unbiased?This ain't your Daddy's forum,Thanks Al.How about a Ins. quote?Can your POPS beat that green lizard?

Forgetaboutit :rolleyes:

On the MAF....(sorry I'm late :) ) Dtech is right. The ECMs function is table based and uses the MAF input to trim fuel to match air density for a clean economical burn at mid throttle/load where we live most of the time on the street. On the LLYs, it also seems to unload the VVT. With the big turbo, you are going off table long before expected. At WOT, you will go off table with a big program early too, but it is expected and the ECM switches to a REV/boost calculation for the fuel calcs.

Too much data in the ECM for me to trace right now. Still learning, so I might have missed a turn in the machine code. When I get off the road I need to investigate the fault table.

The solution is programming. If you trim the MAF signal, the ECM will trim the fuel to match.

My best guess on what I have traced.

On the MAF....(sorry I'm late :) ) Dtech is right. The ECMs function is table based and uses the MAF input to trim fuel to match air density for a clean economical burn at mid throttle/load where we live most of the time on the street. On the LLYs, it also seems to unload the VVT. With the big turbo, you are going off table long before expected. At WOT, you will go off table with a big program early too, but it is expected and the ECM switches to a REV/boost calculation for the fuel calcs.

Too much data in the ECM for me to trace right now. Still learning, so I might have missed a turn in the machine code. When I get off the road I need to investigate the fault table.

The solution is programming. If you trim the MAF signal, the ECM will trim the fuel to match.

My best guess on what I have traced.Fingers, from all of the interested parties reading this thread: :thankyou2

I work with data acquisitions systems everyday (sometimes DAQ'ing Duramaxes!) and I thought altering the sensor (MAF) signal would not be as successful as recalibrating the tables in the ECM to accomodate the larger range of voltage readings.

The "ideal" solution may also involve increasing the cross-sectional diameter of the intake tube to alter the slope of the voltage versus (true) mass flow curve of the MAF measurement system (air intake pipe is included since it affects how the air flow around the sensor wire in the MAF). This would be necessary if the ECM cannot handle the "upper limit" of sensor voltage that is available from the stock MAF. My guess would be that is 5.0VDC. Only you DMax ECM programmers out there would know this...

Off Topic: In a recent discussion with one of the other engineers who is knowledgeable about GM Gas cals, he told me that the Dmax uses the MAF sensor readings in a "Smoke Control" algorithm. That may explain why the sensor is only actively read between 500 and 2500 RPM (as stated in a previous post). This coincides with the info that you have provided:)

Does the size of the intake tube before the MAF play a part? On the stock tube, the sensor hung in the center of the tube. Now in my case with VOLANT system, the intake tube is larger and the sensor sits higher up. Maybe I have no ideal....:o:


LATER!

By the tone of your post you must know I speak the truth,Ford dude. :D

Goofy?Is that you again Goofy?
Who said I had to be unbiased?This ain't your Daddy's forum,Thanks Al.How about a Ins. quote?Can your POPS beat that green lizard?

Forgetaboutit :rolleyes:
Did daddys boy just get busted?):h

Good luck Mike. Seeing a 11 sec #2 pass from a duramax would ruel! REally get the Dodge boys shaking

Edit: Hope to see a new post monday of you busting outa the 12's:ro)

I put the stock turbo and stock injectors back on the truck and got an Extreme so I'll be in the 11's for sure now.

I put the stock turbo and stock injectors back on the truck and got an Extreme so I'll be in the 11's for sure now.Or, you could inject more diesel fuel into the intake manifold via a nitrous fitting. This could be Quads new fix for the CP3 pump's lack of fuel delivery. :eek:

Good luck this weekend, I'm sure you'll kick some serious arse with your new turbo and injectors. :ro)

On Edit:
You'll give up that ATS turbo when they pry it from your cold dead fingers.
The rest of us hot rodders will just have to suffer from "Turbo Envy". :D

no turbo for you!





:joke:

no turbo for you!





:joke:
Good One!

ROTFLMAO

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

The MAF is maxing out. If you increase the tube cross section, it will scale the MAF signal and you will need to adjust the internal scaling to match. If you don't, I think you will be trimming fuel too much. Looks like scaling the table would work better if you change the MAF response.

Hmmm, I don't see any bounds checking on what I think is the table pointer. I wonder if all the other tables and their pointers are that way?

I put the stock turbo and stock injectors back on the truck and got an Extreme so I'll be in the 11's for sure now.


Then where would Quad be?Hanging from his Tree stand not sitting comfy I'd imagine. :D

The MAF is maxing out. If you increase the tube cross section, it will scale the MAF signal and you will need to adjust the internal scaling to match. If you don't, I think you will be trimming fuel too much. Looks like scaling the table would work better if you change the MAF response.

Hmmm, I don't see any bounds checking on what I think is the table pointer. I wonder if all the other tables and their pointers are that way?That is good news on the bounds. And yes, I believe that you would have to do both (enlarge the cross section and re-calibrate with the tables) to get where mtomac needs to go (approximately 600 g/sec). See calcs below and associated assumptions:

I put the stock turbo and stock injectors back on the truck and got an Extreme so I'll be in the 11's for sure now.
We all have wet dreams from time to time. ):h Then we wake up. :eek: ):h

That is good news on the bounds. And yes, I believe that you would have to do both (enlarge the cross section and re-calibrate with the tables) to get where mtomac needs to go (approximately 600 g/sec). See calcs below and associated assumptions:
Your calcs are correct for steady state. On spool up, the turbo flow surges while it brings the the intake up to pressure. The surge is more a function of the Turbo than the engine. A rough (very rough) estimate is to look up the turbo's max CFM at low boost.

Your calcs are correct for steady state. On spool up, the turbo flow surges while it brings the the intake up to pressure. The surge is more a function of the Turbo than the engine. A rough (very rough) estimate is to look up the turbo's max CFM at low boost.
Understood.

Thanks for the technical discussion...:cool: