Fire back with what ? more speculation I can only guess.

I asked a question above about the MAFS that JDM sells, you never answered that.
I went and looked, it is a 90 mm MAFS. This requires a reburn of an existing chip or a chip to start off with.
This MAF is for those who have the 80mm L MAFS, and the Street performance program from JDM, where the chip drives the voltage to the max side of the range of 5.00 volts at 4,600 RPM.
The 90 mm MAF from JDM and a reburn of the chip are for those who are producing more then 360 RWHP.

So while this looks cheap, a mostly stock Ford 5.4 non S/C is not producing more then this amount, and the 90 mm MAF is not needed.
This info is on the JDM web site, the link you refer to above.
If you get the 90mm MAFS from them they will reburn the superchip for you. Else you would need to buy a chip to take avantage of the 90mm MAFS, again OVER 360 RWHP.

I will agree that JDM has nice stuff, but it is mostly for an L or HD for the performance side of things, not for mostly stock 5.4s N/A.

JDM is not the same a Pro-M. Sorry if I confused this for you, don't know how this refers to JDM. If that a Pro-M 90 mm I did not think it was.

If you cannot find the info on the web sites by a search, let me hold your hand and do it for you.
http://www.pro-m77.com/Price%20Deale...r/dealers.html
GMS is listed as a distributer of Pro-M MAFS.
https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...&threadid=6163
GMS emplyee posted a thread on this web site with the info.
Sorry that search was too much for you to do.
If you are still in doubt after this, call Pro-M and ask them yourself.

You would like to know which MAF is better ?
I think I asked that quetion of you 2 times, now this real nice.
I try to get some kind of feedback on the MAFS I have and all I get is : LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP and FACTs about a camero being quicker then heavy modded Ls.

Hard numbers from what ? Are you looking for voltage or MAFS flow Rates. You are the one poking fun at my methods of testing b/c it is more then just SOTP dyno work. now you are looking for hard numbers ?

Tell you what if you don't know that is more then alright, but don't pass around gossip.
If you don't like a product for the heck of it, say you never used it b/c...[ you don't like the material it is made out of, or what ever it is ]

I for one don't care for the MAC FIPK kt. The metal tube worries me ( heat soak ), and after reading about rust on the inside of a few, I did not care for it even more. I did not use it, I did not hear from several people, no crap just what I read on this site, and I personally would not buy one, but I never used it.

That is an example of an opinion, that is stated so it does not form Gosip. What you write here gets put on other pages, I more then once wrote in threads, I read over in this thread....

You want to get back on subject, good stop telling me about Camero's and start giving up some of this great info you claim to have knowledge of on MAFS. Helping answer the question of : which is better, might be able to be answered with some of you info.
Case in point Neal has the labeled Pro-M MAFS on his truck, and he is turning serous RWHP and 1/4 ETs on a N/A 5.4. How is that for a ref. Keep in mind his is a post that bad mouthed ( heard from a guy who had one type of crap ) the GMS MAFS. Again oddly enough it is the same mfgr MAFS that is on his truck. He even went as far to say take that GMS crap off, and put on a Pro-M. I laughed my a$$ off reading that thread.

Like I said if these several people had the GMS MAFS on their truck for 1 year before it started giving them grief, that would be useful for me, as well as the others on this site that have a GMS MAFS.
If you are keeping this info to yourself, don't bother asking for help, this is a help all if you can place. If you don't have it, say you don't have it.
And before you tell someone to get a 90mm MAFS for a N/A truck, find out what it does, and how it works before you tell him to look into it, wasting his time researching something that does not apply to him.

 

Well I took your advice and did a little research myself. I looked at that post and noticed one very odd thing. it was his first post. well I called the number in the post and asked a few questions. to my suprise the man that answered the phone was VERY honest. I asked him if they made GMS he stated NO. I then told him what whould be the best for my truck and why he thinks his might be better. He informed me if it where him he would actually buy the GMS. I asked him why. He stated that GMS deals more with trucks and they deal with mustangs. On his recomendation he says that GMS will produce more power in a truck. SOOOO all in all I guess well all learned a little bit of info.

I was think about the 90 maf from JDM one still could use this product even if they do not have a lighting. I think that you can buy a kit to make it work. With the information that is on the JDM sight how does that read against your reads with the GMS?

lets try not to get personal and make little jabs at each other

 

If they made the GMS MAFS, or if GMS OEM'd the Pro-M ?
There is a difference between the two.
At the begining of the year, the guts of the GMS were Pro-M.
Did you ask him why GMS is marked as a Pro-M distributer ?
Did you call GMS and ask them ?

This may have changed from the begining of the year, so the new GMS MAFS might not be 100% the same as mine.
Thanks for the new info, now I need to call GMS and ask them WTF, is there something differnet now.

Yes, you cold put a 90mm MAFS on, but why ?
If you want to stick with a Ford stock part, you can do what Neal does and run a 80 mm MAFS, but you need the chip burned to take this into account. The GMS and Pro-M work with stock software, the 80 mm L MAFS would need the program changed. This is what I recall Neal posting, best bet to ask Mike at PPI and ask him. They are the ones tha did Neal's custom programming on his chip. Neal is also running a butt load more RWHP then I even will ( including if I ever got serious on a the S/C ).
Either way, a chip reburn, or a chip with the MAFS program is needed to run them. I don't know of a single person that uses a 80mm L MAFS on a N/A 5.4 or 90mm MAFS on a L , that does not have a chip burned for it.

I did not see a flow spec sheet on the 90 mm at JDM's site.
Where is it located at, I looked on the 90mm MAF page, and in the support section.

If you could point me to the flow sheet I can tell you how they compare, but once again the 90mm is designed for a 360+ RWHP truck, not exactly a 5.4 N/A truck, so I would expect it to outflow the GMS MAFS, but on a 360+ RWHP truck you'd ned that.
That would still be quite a bit of programming on the chip, to put somethig in that does do not more then a stock 80mm L MAFS would do on a N/A 5.4.
I don't know what the code would look like for a N/A 5.4, but I would imagine that alot of safe guards would need to be put in so the engine does not try to run too much air, with the fuel mixture. Also I wold think a stock T/B to be used with the 90mm MAFS, the T/B would now be the strangle hold. Now to make the pairing of the 90mm MAFS flow rate, you'd need at least a 75 mm T/B installed,and I do not know if the single plate T/B from JDM works on a N/A 5.4, I would guess not. don't knownever thougth about it.
I could almost see using something like that if you had a Allen Twin screw with 12 PSI ( non stock pulley ), along with the injector upgrades for fuel starvation....but that is slightly off target for this. If that is your target...better go see crash and skid.

Still is the same, this is not personal to me, don't know why you feel that way.
Staying on subject has alway sbeen my target, I not the person that sited car vs truck for factual purposes.

 

I talked with GMS, and NOTHING has changed in the past year.

Same MAFS that shipped when I got mine, is the same one the is shipping now. Don't know why the story changed over at Pro-M, but nothing has changed.

 

I wanted to point something out here. I have read several posts touting the "great" poor mans intake as an alternative to a true FIPK or AF1.
This is monkey shine. Yes the poor man's intake gives you a bit more air flow than stock, but it is not the same as a true FIPK or AF1. Both of these have a filter that has about 30% more surface area than the K&N drop in filter. That allows more air without loosing filtration.


Let the flaming begin...LOL.


Rocks

 

I was hoping someone with reason would come along and say this, I already had my a$$hole quota for the thread.
I got into a pissing match about this with another memeber, where he claims cool air and more power then a K&N, even though it is using the drop in filter. I could not get the point across, and all he had to back it up was SOTP dyno testing, and guesstimations.
The reasoning behind it is cool air from the fender, free flow tube with the mod, it had to produce more power then the "hot air" of the K&N FIPK. Again all gosip, and to date I have seen noone make the same claim of more power then a K&N.

Does it cost less then an off the shelf FIPK YES.
Does the design out flow stock : I would guess it does, don't really know for sure, but I would imagine it would
Produce more power then an off the shelf FIPk, I doubt it, but I really cannot say for 100% sure, but the filter surface has to have something to do with it, along with the MAFS to T/B tube is all wacko with the sliencer tube cut out of it, and not smooth like the inside of the FIPK tubes like a K&N, AF1, WMS, or MAC ( did I get them all ? ).

I have yet to see a dyno pull that shows the poormans FIPK is better then anything ( stock or off the shelf FIPK ),
For all I know the mod only makes the sound different, and has nothing to do with an increase in air flow.

If anyone has dyno compares for this, I would be very curious to see them. After that, I would stop saying maybe and could be.

I find it hard to believe that someone figured out to remove the sliencer tube, and they got the same results as K&N engineering took how ever many months and amounts of money, to produce.

It is good advice to take a look at it, but without dyno pulls and engineering behind it, it is hard to say how well it works, beyond it sounds cool, and the SOTP dyno say s it is better.

If SOTP dyno and your ear is all you care about...be my guest and hack it up.
I know after 14-SEP I will be able to say for sure where my mods have gotten me to. no more calculations from AutoTap, over what was there. I will have the slip to prove that this combo of mods does x in RWHP.

Flame at who ever you want, but bring the data to back up the claims, that is all that I ask, bring info, not gosip and hear say.

Thanks for taking the inital role of a$$hole on this topic in this thread, I owe you one for being the wing man and taking one for the team

 

The problem with all of this is that one basic item is getting ignored. Static pressure.......Greater surface area results in lower static pressure losses through the filter media.

The larger filters that come with the true FIPK's offer less air resistance, which allows more air than a stock sized filter. Even the K&N drop in filter is smaller so as to allow it to fit into the stock tubing. Cutting off the end of it or cutting holes in it only gives slight gains in airflow. The filter itself will only allow so much air through it. Now here is the rub. By cutting the end off your filter box and allowing the warmer air into the intake while using the same size filter, you could actually be getting a lower volume of oxygen than if you took the air from outside the engine compartment where the air is cooler.
The true FIPK's make up for the warmer air in the engine compartment by allowing more air to enter through the use of a larger surface area filter.


Rocks

 

Add to that, with only ~ a 5* delta from outside to underhood air temps, the loss is less then 1/2 of 1 hp per the cool air intakes mfgr web pages [ for every 11* increase in air temp into the air intake is a loss of 1 HP], but this is not specified as flywheel HP, or RWHP.
So the heat increase to an open element filter once moving is only about .45 HP off of the HP gain when you turned the key on.

Testing done by the web sites, and magazines show that the closed element FIPK produce less HP at the start, but this is constant. The open element shows a greater HP at the get go, but looses over time due to heat build up.

This is with the truck standing still. I have take the Autotap readings for intake temps ( while driving on the road with the hood closed ) and seen that the intake temp once moving is less the 5* from the outside air temp ( that is where the 5* delta came from, 4 logs of test driving, and 5* is the mean ). Blowing the fan into the front is not the same as driving it at 55 mph down the road is what the FIPK tests tell me.

Go ahead and flame away, yes I am using more then SOTP dyno and my ear. I use the Autotap software and dyno shops b/c it seems my butt is broken. Last time I tried to have to have my butt calibrated it showed a 45% margin of error, so I stopped using it for data recording purposes and just went back to using it for sitting on, as it was intended for ( well when I was younger it was also used for giving my dad a place to plant his foot...but that is for a differnet thread )

 

Interesting reading. Some valid points were made. Here is my theory. Open up the inlet to a large as you can afford. The bigger the better. Use the biggest air filter you can afford. The largest MAF and Throttle Body. Get a chip calibrated for the size you are using and you are all set. I created the poor mans FIPK. I was too cheap to buy a K&N or the other brands. Did I get flow numbers? NO. I saw a $200.00 pipe that I could make for $50.00 so I did it. Am I going to spend $$$ to test a $50.00 pipe? If I was too cheap to.......... One thing I had not done is use a bigger filter. I will be talking to Neal about correcting that one. Thanks for pointing the air filter out.

One last thing. The MAF in my truck did not line up properly with the outlet pipe so it was creating an airflow restriction. Because ot this I am pretty sure that my system out flowed the stock one.

Regards

Jean Marc Chartier

 

HI!... Just to clear a few things up. 1ST I have a JDM 90MM MAF on my truck. Actually the JDM 90MM MAF is just a BONE STOCK "2001" - "2002" LIGHTNING MAF. It is though calibrated for 42lb injectors that are stock in the LIGHTNING. I'm currently running 24LB injectors in my truck and MIKE TROYER had to create a speical custom program for my N/A 5.4 so I could run the larger 90mm MAF. My 90MM MAF is also not stock. It has been carefully ported/polished out to 94mm on the intake side and 104mm on the filter side. The 90mm MAF is tapered slightly. I'm currently still running my stock 80MM MAF because of tuning problems with the 90mm MAF. We got it close but I think my AIR/FUEL is slightly still off. This will be fixed by MIKE T shortly. As for the GRANATELLI MAF's : I would'nt touch one. I have know many MUSTANG owners that have used them and have had nothing but problems with them, plus two F-150 owners I met at the dragstrip. Stick to a larger OEM MAF or a good quality PRO-M unit.

 

sscully,

In your first reply on this thread, you mention a "JLP" airbox. What exactly is this? Thanks in advance.

 

Blue Dog,

After going through (stilling going through it) the process that you are about to, as related to airflow in or out of your truck, I would recommend remembering the terms, "Air Velocity" and thinking of your engine as a large "Air Pump". What does this all mean? Don't ask me! Everytime I think I have it figured out, someone posts something that confuses me again.....ha!

Seriously, for your own info.,

I took the air silencer out of my stock air tube that connects to the throttle body. The result being that, I lost lowend torque!
Therfore, I put the silencer back in. It appears, that the air silencer also reduces the space for the air to flow, therefore creating more "Air Velocity".

To me it seems, that if you do not increase the ability of the airpump to suck the air, then you must not only increase the quantity of of air into it, but you must also increase the velocity of the air.

I wanted to get a air intake Kit, like the airforce one. But, I want to wait until a company developes one that is shaped like a "horn" with the larger opening connecting to the airfilter with a continual reduced diameter tube with a smaller opening connecting to the throttle body. In my "shadetree" opinion, it would provide better results than any other design by increasing Air Velocity. But, hey, I am about to install a supercharger so.....

Maybe I'll design one and market it on this site!!!! ha!!!!!

Almost, forgot, the same "theory" applies to exhaust systems. Some of the exhaust systems may "sound" good, but will cause a loss in low end torque. I recommend high flow muffler(s) and catalytic converter(s), but stock or smaller diameter exhaust pipes.

 

Johnny Lightning Performance.

The correct name in case I mistyped it :
JL Ram Air and AirBox
http://www.johnnylightningperf.com/n...sp?intProdID=2

I got the idea from ROUSHFAN-1.
He shows pics of his installed in his galery, on a N/A engine.

This made for a L, but a little fanalging and it can be installed on a N/A engine.

Let me know if you have any other questions, or chekc in with ROUSFNA-1's posts if you have questions, he goes into detail on one post on the install of the WMS tube, and the JLP airbox.

 

Neal thanks for corectng who made the 90mm MAF, I was unsure of the mfgr I thought it was a stock Ford product.
So at current you have a 80 mm MAFS on your turck then, that is what I read..please clarify me if I mis read that.

The thread where someone posted the link of GMS OEM'd the Pro-M MAFS, You also mentioned the above ref, but still have not given details.
Sorry but I discount this statement, due to vauge info.
If you had any type of detail about what "nothing but problems" meant it would mean something.
Odd thing, the vaulted Pro-M actually tells people that a GMS programmed MAFS is better for a truck.
You post buy this mfgr, and they themselves say to buy the one that, again, is "nothing but problems".

You know more about the high HP truck then I ever will, but this is second hand info that has no kind of qualification to it.

You asked on 04-17-2001 who had one, and did a bump to the top to find a Pro-M MAFS pwner on this site. No reply to this thread, kind of hard to believe that not a single Pro-M owner say that thread in 2 days.
https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...threadid=8199&
05-25-2002 same type statements, still no detail.
If you guys decide to go with a aftermarket MAF, then get a PRO-M. GRANETELLI MAF's are known to have problems. Every person I know that has used one has ended up switching it out for a PRO-M unit.
https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...37&perpage=15&
Right at this moment the search engine is failing on the target of mass air* else I'd have that post in this as well.

If you have some insight into what "nothing but problems" actually means, I'd be more then willing to listen.

Passing I heard it is crap does not cut it. That amounts to gosip in my mind, and has not foundation to be used as data.