Kenne Bell intake tube

[Sam88gta1]

Ted which one of the two mounting flanges in the tube are you using for the maf? The one closer to the filter or the one up by the PS pump? The newer kits come with two places. One comes blocked with a plate from KB. The new instructions say to mount it closer to the filter.

The 4.5 tube is nice for making power but it does cause a problem.

Btw Matt. Kb does have a problem with high IAT.

[sting808]

Originally Posted by Sam88gta1

Ted which one of the two mounting flanges in the tube are you using for the maf? The one closer to the filter or the one up by the PS pump? The newer kits come with two places. One comes blocked with a plate from KB. The new instructions say to mount it closer to the filter.

The 4.5 tube is nice for making power but it does cause a problem.

Btw Matt. Kb does have a problem with high IAT.

Interesting... In another thread, someone got an intake as you described. It was said to be a experimental design that was shipped out by accident. Is there a new intake design or was it misinformation? Has the bracket been tweaked for better fitment? Why two MAF locations? Generic intake for 2.8 and 3.6? Matt, please clarify.

[Rcfiddy1]

I was told that the 2 maf bungs were for r&d and should not have been in the kit. As for the question of who has the bigger intake tube? I would want the one that works the best for my application with no headaches. Thats just my opinion and it means nothing.

[charged]

I agree if it is easyer to tune and is better for the L99 cars lets get a 4" tube for us.

Originally Posted by Rcfiddy1

I was told that the 2 maf bungs were for r&d and should not have been in the kit. As for the question of who has the bigger intake tube? I would want the one that works the best for my application with no headaches. Thats just my opinion and it means nothing.

[Revolution]

Due to my own personal background with airflow engineering. Basically my former career choice before I re opened my shop, Has anyone done independent testing against the maf in a 4" tube and a 4.5" or 5" to show the changes in resolution as well as how the "turbulence" which the proper term is static pressure changes internally to the effect reading across the maf? I am with Ted on the tubing size to some extent however I ask if anyone has done independent testing to see what the differences in flow are versus the ability of the maf to translate it into a usable number.

I know the Maf has come leaps and bounds from where they were 10 years ago and I am fully capable of calibrating one properly but my concerns are the accuracy of the reading versus what known flow is. Just like steady state tuning it helps to develop a more accurate number. I know exactly why the placement in the previous pictures of that tube they used for R&D is sensor placement versus the amount of straight feeding for the reading. Basically the larger the diameter of the pipe the longer straight is needed to get a more accurate reading. A rule of thumb for static's you need 3-4 times the diameter in straight before the sensor or input device to obtain a true reading of laminar airflow. I am confident that is what they were trying to test in R&D. I am really interested in what the outcome is with this without flaming anyone. Simply with my track record with prochargers and turbo's I have been able to make the maf work well for part throttle and dump into a speed density tune for higher boost applications. I know it can be done and obviously Ted is doing it.

However I would really love to see data versus the threads back and forth back when we were testing the prochargers with the larger inlet's versus the smaller inlet versus no inlet at all.. it came down to at the end of the day when we exceeded the diameter of the inlet any more than 1/4" it started to roll and tumble at the blower inlet and cause a negative pressure pocket at the inlet and being that the blower was before the maf in my installations I saw some pressure differences. That's the whole reason I am curious as to the testing or outcome if you are seeing surging it will effect the blowers ability to compress the air.

Sorry for the long winded post but I woke up checked out the threads and this one just jumped out at me.

[Matt@KB]

It was a tube we had used for testing, it made its way into our stock pile of chrome tubes and was packed into this kit by accident. At the time of testing we had tried different MAF locations in quest to find the best location and to see what kind of tuning results we would see. Both the 3.6 and 2.8 use the same tube.

Originally Posted by sting808

Interesting... In another thread, someone got an intake as you described. It was said to be a experimental design that was shipped out by accident. Is there a new intake design or was it misinformation? Has the bracket been tweaked for better fitment? Why two MAF locations? Generic intake for 2.8 and 3.6? Matt, please clarify.

[JANNETTYRACING]

I did build One 4 inch MAF Tube for an L99, Cam, Headers, KB car, I started with the Factory MAF curve and only had to tweak it a little to get everything in line.

Everything fell in to place Load values, Timing selection, Idle quality, Transmission shifts etc, and the Car Runs and Drives Absolutely Perfect.

It made 600 RWHP with an Auto on a conservative tune.

I am getting a KB car for next week for Building and testing of a MAF intake Pipe.

Ted.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Due to my own personal background with airflow engineering. Basically my former career choice before I re opened my shop, Has anyone done independent testing against the maf in a 4" tube and a 4.5" or 5" to show the changes in resolution as well as how the "turbulence" which the proper term is static pressure changes internally to the effect reading across the maf? I am with Ted on the tubing size to some extent however I ask if anyone has done independent testing to see what the differences in flow are versus the ability of the maf to translate it into a usable number.

I know the Maf has come leaps and bounds from where they were 10 years ago and I am fully capable of calibrating one properly but my concerns are the accuracy of the reading versus what known flow is. Just like steady state tuning it helps to develop a more accurate number. I know exactly why the placement in the previous pictures of that tube they used for R&D is sensor placement versus the amount of straight feeding for the reading. Basically the larger the diameter of the pipe the longer straight is needed to get a more accurate reading. A rule of thumb for static's you need 3-4 times the diameter in straight before the sensor or input device to obtain a true reading of laminar airflow. I am confident that is what they were trying to test in R&D. I am really interested in what the outcome is with this without flaming anyone. Simply with my track record with prochargers and turbo's I have been able to make the maf work well for part throttle and dump into a speed density tune for higher boost applications. I know it can be done and obviously Ted is doing it.

However I would really love to see data versus the threads back and forth back when we were testing the prochargers with the larger inlet's versus the smaller inlet versus no inlet at all.. it came down to at the end of the day when we exceeded the diameter of the inlet any more than 1/4" it started to roll and tumble at the blower inlet and cause a negative pressure pocket at the inlet and being that the blower was before the maf in my installations I saw some pressure differences. That's the whole reason I am curious as to the testing or outcome if you are seeing surging it will effect the blowers ability to compress the air.

Sorry for the long winded post but I woke up checked out the threads and this one just jumped out at me.

[Sam88gta1]

Originally Posted by Matt@KB

It was a tube we had used for testing, it made its way into our stock pile of chrome tubes and was packed into this kit by accident. At the time of testing we had tried different MAF locations in quest to find the best location and to see what kind of tuning results we would see. Both the 3.6 and 2.8 use the same tube.

I have seen two of the tubes out in public.
Are these being sent out now due the supply issues you had with the tubes?

If the new placement of the maf is the one closest to the filter you need to extend the maf harness another 3-4 inches. When it's stretched the wires want to pull out of it.

[Rcfiddy1]

Originally Posted by Sam88gta1

I have seen two of the tubes out in public.
Are these being sent out now due the supply issues you had with the tubes?

If the new placement of the maf is the one closest to the filter you need to extend the maf harness another 3-4 inches. When it's stretched the wires want to pull out of it.

agree, same situation here. They show the maf plug zip tied to coil bracet but then it wont reach the maf bung.

[Matt@KB]

Ken our tuner and R&D engineer said when they changed to current tube the zip tie that holds the MAF harness to the coil bracket just needs to be cut to allow it to reach the new spot.

[Sam88gta1]

Originally Posted by Matt@KB

Ken our tuner and R&D engineer said when they changed to current tube the zip tie that holds the MAF harness to the coil bracket just needs to be cut to allow it to reach the new spot.

Having 20" of wire dangle like a clothes line under the hood is asking for trouble.
Any chance you guys send out a new extension harness that can be secured to where it does not stretch out?

[sting808]

Originally Posted by Matt@KB

Ken our tuner and R&D engineer said when they changed to current tube the zip tie that holds the MAF harness to the coil bracket just needs to be cut to allow it to reach the new spot.

The current tube incorporates two MAF bungs? If so, then the MAF is now relocated lower on the intake tube, nearer to the air filter for standard installs? What is the purpose? To improve tunning/performance/drivability? When is the second bung used?

[red 2011 ss]

So Ted are you making the tubes?
I would like to purchace one.
Price?

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

If it is the Customer your concerned about, Why not Give them the Best Kit Money can buy.

The Fact Remains, a larger tube reduces Resolution.

WHY, reduce resolution when the Stock Maf has enough range for 1K HP.

WHY Screw up the Trans Torque Calculations?

We spend most of our time driving our cars in the 2000 to 8000 Hz range on a Stock MAF This is where Resolution is Important and this is what makes a nice car a Great Car from a driveability standpoint.

Your tube only goes from 1500 to 6000 Hz range in the same driveability areas, Reduced resolution reduces Driveability.

The ONLY Reason I see for the Larger tube on This Car is a Guy thing, Mines bigger than yours.

If you won't make the Tubes I will.

Ted.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by red 2011 ss

So Ted are you making the tubes?
I would like to purchace one.
Price?

All I can tell you is, I will have a KB car here all next week to Play with.