Camaro MAF sensor tip for maximum tuning results!!! - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

Chris_B · 06-30-2011, 07:37 PM

There are several electronic and mechanical nuances that tuners will find when extracting the maximum performance out of L99/LS3 engines. One peculiar find was a variation in the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor. As it turns out, GM has been sourcing from (at least) two different suppliers. The difficulty is that while each of these meet the minimum requirements, one of the two has much better capabilities for tuning.

Think of a stereo amplifier and the term “headroom”. A better more expensive 50w amplifier will have more headroom than a cheapie 50W amp. This means the better unit can operate at its maximum output and still be able to handle the occasional spike over 50W without excessive distortion. The cheaper amp is already starting to distort near its peak, then completely clips any signal that is greater.

In the case of the L99/LS3 MAF, one supplier has built a unit that has more “headroom”, while the other clips the higher signals -- the very ones we need to tune a higher output engine correctly! This means a good tuner using the better MAF sensor will get greater results – all other things being equal. This goes a long way to explain why some cars tune up better after bolt-ons than others. Fortunately, we have discovered a couple of differences to help tell them apart even though they are nearly identical.

-- See! They look almost the same, but sensor “B” is the winner here.

-- View from the connector (visible without removing). Look at the arrow style and the part number font. The part number with the rounder font and the arrow with rounded corners are the visible giveaways (B).

-- View after removal. The key identifier is a tooling reference. You want one with a single letter and two numbers (Sensor B). It doesn’t seem to matter what the letters or numbers are, but just thjat there is 1 letter/2 number sequence (per every one we’ve tested so far).

If you want maximum power and efficiency from your Camaro after adding headers, hi-flows, cat-back, cam, etc., make sure you have sensor B!!! If you don’t, head to your local dealer and go through their stock to find one ASAP! It will make all the difference in the world when optimizing the entire map for power, drivability and economy.

P.S. Note: Those wondering about the performance effects of aftermarket upgrades to 2010 cars versus 2011, we have been seeing the 2011 cars pull a stock baseline of around 25-30 more HP (rear wheel hub dyno) than the '10s. We have seen no official power rating change from GM, but there is definitely a different and more aggressive factory tune on the later cars. The overal maximum horsepower with carefully selected add-ons is roughly the same regardless which car we have been testing with, but the later cars are starting at a higher base point. We might also point out that there is still a LOT to be gained from the factory maps (which seem to us to contain quite a few errors), but the latest Camaros are definitely being delivered with a little more grunt than before.

Jose · 06-30-2011, 07:49 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to replace the Camaro MAF for the Corvette MAF?

jtzako · 06-30-2011, 07:50 PM

I have a K18 MAF. Havent done a tune though, so probably nothing I'd notice one way or the other.

Busy_Boi · 06-30-2011, 10:08 PM

bmorecam · 07-01-2011, 11:06 AM

Good information but I think this is old news and has been tackled long time ago.

IndeedSS1 · 07-01-2011, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmorecam

Good information but I think this is old news and has been tackled long time ago.

Vararam users mainly know about this but it's good that it's been brought to light for everyone else.

epstein · 07-01-2011, 10:21 PM

Thank yoy for your time and effort as well as informative post!

Heliwrench · 07-02-2011, 12:58 AM

I've got a K15... new font... round arrow..

It's a hybrid!

tsears · 07-02-2011, 01:55 AM

Just ordered my "strong" sensor from Patrick @ GM Parts. I hope this works.... (I've been having issues tuning my car on the Vararam.)

Blacksheap · 07-05-2011, 02:54 PM

So the only difference is head room?

JR-Vette · 07-05-2011, 08:03 PM

That tip is not valid for most NA powertrains as no performance gains would come of using a higher MAF output to a PCM that only can compare to the lower max freq value in MAF table of PCM

If the MAF frequency tables in the PCM is looked at you find most GM newer cars like Camaro have a maximum value of 12,200 Hz ( NA engines) or 15,000 Hz for like boost, IE, new ZR1

If you look at a 2010 ZR1 at a drag strip recorded scanner data even at high boost the maximum MAF (air mass ) moved is about 9900 Hz.
No where near the maximum ability of the MAF output or MAF PCM table
In this case max airmass was about 75 lbs and about 1.4 grms/cyl

Stock 2010 ZR1 at drag strip in 90 degree weather

Code:

MAFLb   MPH   MAP   BoostPSI   MAFRQ   MAFgrms   grmcyc   MapKpa       75   65   51   11   9720   569   1.389   173       75   65   51   11   9720   569   1.263   173       75   65   51   11   9720   569   1.263   173       75   65   51   11   9888   569   1.263   173       75   65   51   11   9888   569   1.263   173       70   88   47   9   9673   531   1.358   160       70   88   47   9   9673   531   1.281   160       70   88   47   9   9673   531   1.281   160       70   88   47   9   9768   531   1.281   160       70   88   47   9   9768   531   1.281   160       74   89   48   10   9673   558   1.392   162       74   89   48   10   9673   558   1.309   162       74   89   48   10   9673   558   1.309   162       74   89   48   10   9925   558   1.309   162       74   89   48   10   9925   558   1.309   162       74   92   48   10   9768   560   1.350   163       74   92   48   10   9768   560   1.257   163       74   92   48   10   9768   560   1.257   163       74   92   48   10   5298   560   1.257   163       74   92   48   10   5298   560   1.257   163       70   115   47   9   9626   531   1.343   160       70   115   47   9   9626   531   1.296   160       70   115   47   9   9626   531   1.296   160       70   115   47   9   9673   531   1.296   160       70   115   47   9   9673   531   1.296   160       71   117   48   10   9673   539   1.323   164       71   117   48   10   9673   539   1.294   164       71   117   48   10   9673   539   1.294   164       71   117   48   10   9720   539   1.294   164       71   117   48   10   9720   539   1.294   164       73   119   48   9   9673   550   1.341   161       73   119   48   9   9673   550   1.295   161       73   119   48   9   9673   550   1.295   161       73   119   48   9   9828   550   1.295   161       73   119   48   9   9828   550   1.295   161       71   121   49   10   9720   539   1.294   165       71   121   49   10   9720   539   1.262   165       71   121   49   10   9720   539   1.262   165       71   121   49   10   9876   539   1.262   165       71   121   49   10   9876   539   1.262   165       74   124   49   10   9876   560   1.310   166       74   124   49   10   9876   560   1.273   166       74   124   49   10   9876   560   1.273   166       74   124   49   10   9937   560   1.273   166       74   124   49   10   9937   560   1.273   166

If we compare that with the recorded scanner data of a 2010 LS3 Camaro
maximum MAF output is about 8,700 Hz ( no where near the 12,000 HZ MAF limit) and less then 50 lbs airmass peak

In neither case did 400 HP or 640 HP was limited by MAF and that is clear because you would rarely see anyone post having a DTC error of HIGH MAF value hit.

2010 LS3 Camaro

Code:

MAF   MPH   MAFRQ   MAFgrms   grmcyc       47   75   8686   355   0.834       47   75   8686   355   0.781       47   75   8686   355   0.781       47   75   8247   355   0.781       47   75   8247   355   0.781       47   75   8247   355   0.781       47   74   8492   355   0.840       47   74   8492   355   0.786       47   74   8492   355   0.786       47   74   8438   355   0.786       47   74   8438   355   0.786       47   106   8492   355   0.816       47   106   8492   355   0.795       47   106   8492   355   0.795       47   106   8583   355   0.795       47   106   8583   355   0.795       46   57   3511   351   0.780       46   57   3511   351   0.923       46   57   3511   351   0.923       46   57   8230   351   0.923       46   57   8230   351   0.923       46   91   8602   351   0.963       46   91   8602   351   0.919       46   91   8602   351   0.919       46   91   8385   351   0.919       46   91   8385   351   0.919       46   70   8501   350   0.882       46   70   8501   350   0.821       46   70   8501   350   0.821       46   70   8686   350   0.821       46   70   8686   350   0.821       46   70   8359   350   0.950       46   70   8359   350   0.827       46   70   8359   350   0.827       46   70   8492   350   0.827       46   70   8492   350   0.827       46   94   8385   350   0.916       46   94   8385   350   0.880       46   94   8385   350   0.880       46   94   8547   350   0.880       46   94   8547   350   0.880       46   94   8547   350   0.880       46   100   8547   350   0.880       46   100   8547   350   0.831       46   100   8547   350   0.831       46   100   8359   350   0.831       46   100   8359   350   0.831       46   104   8359   344   0.818       46   104   8359   344   0.791       46   104   8359   344   0.791       46   104   8492   344   0.791       46   104   8492   344   0.791       45   90   8528   340   0.943       45   90   8528   340   0.903       45   90   8528   340   0.903       45   90   8565   340   0.903       45   90   8565   340   0.903       45   48   8429   339   0.920       45   48   8429   339   0.801       45   48   8429   339   0.801       45   48   8447   339   0.801       45   48   8447   339   0.801       45   65   8510   339   0.872       45   65   8510   339   0.855       45   65   8510   339   0.855       45   65   8501   339   0.855

Since cars today have 20 or more electronic controllers, under sized unshielded wire and other functions can produce/output EMI and RFI so clipping the signal reduces chances of MAF output being effected by the above and also the PCM hardware quad drivers.

As the elevation increases the airmass decreases and the same cars above that were at sealevel would require or use less airmass and see lower MAP.

Being NA engines will never reach 12,200 Hz there would be zero reason or gain changing MAF and in fact the new MAF output would not match the MAF table such as if maximum MAF frequency your PCM is 12,000 Hz and the new MAF outputs 15,000 Hz the PCM would not understand any values above the 12,000 Hz and would require a PCM code segment from another PCM that did support 15,000 Hz

Blacksheap · 07-06-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-Vette

That tip is not valid for most NA powertrains as no performance gains would come of using a higher MAF output to a PCM that only can compare to the lower max freq value in MAF table of PCM

If the MAF frequency tables in the PCM is looked at you find most GM newer cars like Camaro have a maximum value of 12,200 Hz ( NA engines) or 15,000 Hz for like boost, IE, new ZR1

If you look at a 2010 ZR1 at a drag strip recorded scanner data even at high boost the maximum MAF (air mass ) moved is about 9900 Hz.
No where near the maximum ability of the MAF output or MAF PCM table
In this case max airmass was about 75 lbs and about 1.4 grms/cyl

Stock 2010 ZR1 at drag strip in 90 degree weather

Code:

MAFLb   MPH   MAP   BoostPSI   MAFRQ   MAFgrms   grmcyc   MapKpa       75   65   51   11   9720   569   1.389   173       75   65   51   11   9720   569   1.263   173       75   65   51   11   9720   569   1.263   173       75   65   51   11   9888   569   1.263   173       75   65   51   11   9888   569   1.263   173       70   88   47   9   9673   531   1.358   160       70   88   47   9   9673   531   1.281   160       70   88   47   9   9673   531   1.281   160       70   88   47   9   9768   531   1.281   160       70   88   47   9   9768   531   1.281   160       74   89   48   10   9673   558   1.392   162       74   89   48   10   9673   558   1.309   162       74   89   48   10   9673   558   1.309   162       74   89   48   10   9925   558   1.309   162       74   89   48   10   9925   558   1.309   162       74   92   48   10   9768   560   1.350   163       74   92   48   10   9768   560   1.257   163       74   92   48   10   9768   560   1.257   163       74   92   48   10   5298   560   1.257   163       74   92   48   10   5298   560   1.257   163       70   115   47   9   9626   531   1.343   160       70   115   47   9   9626   531   1.296   160       70   115   47   9   9626   531   1.296   160       70   115   47   9   9673   531   1.296   160       70   115   47   9   9673   531   1.296   160       71   117   48   10   9673   539   1.323   164       71   117   48   10   9673   539   1.294   164       71   117   48   10   9673   539   1.294   164       71   117   48   10   9720   539   1.294   164       71   117   48   10   9720   539   1.294   164       73   119   48   9   9673   550   1.341   161       73   119   48   9   9673   550   1.295   161       73   119   48   9   9673   550   1.295   161       73   119   48   9   9828   550   1.295   161       73   119   48   9   9828   550   1.295   161       71   121   49   10   9720   539   1.294   165       71   121   49   10   9720   539   1.262   165       71   121   49   10   9720   539   1.262   165       71   121   49   10   9876   539   1.262   165       71   121   49   10   9876   539   1.262   165       74   124   49   10   9876   560   1.310   166       74   124   49   10   9876   560   1.273   166       74   124   49   10   9876   560   1.273   166       74   124   49   10   9937   560   1.273   166       74   124   49   10   9937   560   1.273   166

If we compare that with the recorded scanner data of a 2010 LS3 Camaro
maximum MAF output is about 8,700 Hz ( no where near the 12,000 HZ MAF limit) and less then 50 lbs airmass peak

In neither case did 400 HP or 640 HP was limited by MAF and that is clear because you would rarely see anyone post having a DTC error of HIGH MAF value hit.

2010 LS3 Camaro

Code:

MAF   MPH   MAFRQ   MAFgrms   grmcyc       47   75   8686   355   0.834       47   75   8686   355   0.781       47   75   8686   355   0.781       47   75   8247   355   0.781       47   75   8247   355   0.781       47   75   8247   355   0.781       47   74   8492   355   0.840       47   74   8492   355   0.786       47   74   8492   355   0.786       47   74   8438   355   0.786       47   74   8438   355   0.786       47   106   8492   355   0.816       47   106   8492   355   0.795       47   106   8492   355   0.795       47   106   8583   355   0.795       47   106   8583   355   0.795       46   57   3511   351   0.780       46   57   3511   351   0.923       46   57   3511   351   0.923       46   57   8230   351   0.923       46   57   8230   351   0.923       46   91   8602   351   0.963       46   91   8602   351   0.919       46   91   8602   351   0.919       46   91   8385   351   0.919       46   91   8385   351   0.919       46   70   8501   350   0.882       46   70   8501   350   0.821       46   70   8501   350   0.821       46   70   8686   350   0.821       46   70   8686   350   0.821       46   70   8359   350   0.950       46   70   8359   350   0.827       46   70   8359   350   0.827       46   70   8492   350   0.827       46   70   8492   350   0.827       46   94   8385   350   0.916       46   94   8385   350   0.880       46   94   8385   350   0.880       46   94   8547   350   0.880       46   94   8547   350   0.880       46   94   8547   350   0.880       46   100   8547   350   0.880       46   100   8547   350   0.831       46   100   8547   350   0.831       46   100   8359   350   0.831       46   100   8359   350   0.831       46   104   8359   344   0.818       46   104   8359   344   0.791       46   104   8359   344   0.791       46   104   8492   344   0.791       46   104   8492   344   0.791       45   90   8528   340   0.943       45   90   8528   340   0.903       45   90   8528   340   0.903       45   90   8565   340   0.903       45   90   8565   340   0.903       45   48   8429   339   0.920       45   48   8429   339   0.801       45   48   8429   339   0.801       45   48   8447   339   0.801       45   48   8447   339   0.801       45   65   8510   339   0.872       45   65   8510   339   0.855       45   65   8510   339   0.855       45   65   8501   339   0.855

Since cars today have 20 or more electronic controllers, under sized unshielded wire and other functions can produce/output EMI and RFI so clipping the signal reduces chances of MAF output being effected by the above and also the PCM hardware quad drivers.

As the elevation increases the airmass decreases and the same cars above that were at sealevel would require or use less airmass and see lower MAP.

Being NA engines will never reach 12,200 Hz there would be zero reason or gain changing MAF and in fact the new MAF output would not match the MAF table such as if maximum MAF frequency your PCM is 12,000 Hz and the new MAF outputs 15,000 Hz the PCM would not understand any values above the 12,000 Hz and would require a PCM code segment from another PCM that did support 15,000 Hz

Whoa nice job explaining it.

Its what i was going to go into if not explained.
That is headroom. Or the ceiling of the MAF function.

These MAF's are pretty Bad ass compared to earlier lt/LS models.

Now, is one sensor more sensitive/accurate than the other?

JR-Vette · 07-06-2011, 03:04 PM

No as makes no difference how high the MAF output frequency is as explained as most NA engines never even get close to the existing stock MAF max output.

I was tuning a 2008 ZO6 yesterday with a CAM and even at 580 HP, up to 130 MPH the max output of MAF was only 8,800 Hz.

Not only that the MAF table is broken down in freq blocks and do not understand freq up 12,200 or 15,000 Hz ( depending on car model) and lastly the PCM is not doing constant realtime updates from MAF, more about once every half second so would not care about max freq for NA engine as fuel trim adjustment are done not every few seconds but minutes.

Lastly as mentioned the PCM hardware logic would limit how well or poor another design of a MAF's output is.

IndeedSS1 · 07-13-2011, 09:46 PM

Here is a little more infomation about the differences in sensors and it's not all about headroom. http://www.vararam.com/camaro.html

06-30-2011, 07:37 PM	#1
Chris_B Drives: Several Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: SoCal Posts: 206	Camaro MAF sensor tip for maximum tuning results!!! There are several electronic and mechanical nuances that tuners will find when extracting the maximum performance out of L99/LS3 engines. One peculiar find was a variation in the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor. As it turns out, GM has been sourcing from (at least) two different suppliers. The difficulty is that while each of these meet the minimum requirements, one of the two has much better capabilities for tuning. Think of a stereo amplifier and the term “headroom”. A better more expensive 50w amplifier will have more headroom than a cheapie 50W amp. This means the better unit can operate at its maximum output and still be able to handle the occasional spike over 50W without excessive distortion. The cheaper amp is already starting to distort near its peak, then completely clips any signal that is greater. In the case of the L99/LS3 MAF, one supplier has built a unit that has more “headroom”, while the other clips the higher signals -- the very ones we need to tune a higher output engine correctly! This means a good tuner using the better MAF sensor will get greater results – all other things being equal. This goes a long way to explain why some cars tune up better after bolt-ons than others. Fortunately, we have discovered a couple of differences to help tell them apart even though they are nearly identical. -- See! They look almost the same, but sensor “B” is the winner here. -- View from the connector (visible without removing). Look at the arrow style and the part number font. The part number with the rounder font and the arrow with rounded corners are the visible giveaways (B). -- View after removal. The key identifier is a tooling reference. You want one with a single letter and two numbers (Sensor B). It doesn’t seem to matter what the letters or numbers are, but just thjat there is 1 letter/2 number sequence (per every one we’ve tested so far). If you want maximum power and efficiency from your Camaro after adding headers, hi-flows, cat-back, cam, etc., make sure you have sensor B!!! If you don’t, head to your local dealer and go through their stock to find one ASAP! It will make all the difference in the world when optimizing the entire map for power, drivability and economy. P.S. Note: Those wondering about the performance effects of aftermarket upgrades to 2010 cars versus 2011, we have been seeing the 2011 cars pull a stock baseline of around 25-30 more HP (rear wheel hub dyno) than the '10s. We have seen no official power rating change from GM, but there is definitely a different and more aggressive factory tune on the later cars. The overal maximum horsepower with carefully selected add-ons is roughly the same regardless which car we have been testing with, but the later cars are starting at a higher base point. We might also point out that there is still a LOT to be gained from the factory maps (which seem to us to contain quite a few errors), but the latest Camaros are definitely being delivered with a little more grunt than before. __________________ Chris Bernal Brake Maven

06-30-2011, 07:49 PM	#2
Jose Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS White S/C Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Puerto Rico Posts: 842 View My Garage	Wouldn't it be easier to replace the Camaro MAF for the Corvette MAF? __________________ "It does not matter if you win or loose, what matters is if I win" Carl Fogarty

06-30-2011, 07:50 PM	#3
jtzako Drives: 2010 IBM Camaro SS Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: DFW, Tx Posts: 1,157	I have a K18 MAF. Havent done a tune though, so probably nothing I'd notice one way or the other. __________________ 2010 Camaro SS Imperial Blue \| CAI Inc, CAI \| Solo Hi Flow Cats \| X-Pipe \| Backup Camera \| PDIM

06-30-2011, 10:08 PM	#4
Busy_Boi SoCal C5 Family Member Drives: RJT 2010 camaro 2SS Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,016	__________________

07-02-2011, 12:58 AM	#8
Heliwrench Drives: 2010 Black 1SS Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Langley BC Posts: 666	I've got a K15... new font... round arrow.. It's a hybrid! __________________ 2010 Black 1SS LS3 M6 Power: Kook's 1 7/8" Long Tubes and 3" Exhaust, Injen Full Length CAI, Jannetty Tune Drivetrain: MGW Short Shifter, Street Slayer Twin Clutch, DSS 1 Piece Aluminum Driveshaft, DSS 1000HP Axles, BMR Pro and Delrin Diff Bushings Suspension: BMR Trailing Arms and Bushings, FE6 Swaybar Conversion With Pedders 27mm Front and 32mm Rear ZL1 Swaybars and Links Chassis: Hotchkis Chassis Max Brace, BMR Pro Cradle Bushings Exterior:: Shine by Adam's. ...and plenty more

07-01-2011, 11:06 AM	#5
bmorecam Account Suspended Drives: jealous vendors mad!! HAHA!! Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: CYBERGMONSTER@GMAIL.COM Posts: 3,658 View My Garage	Good information but I think this is old news and has been tackled long time ago.

07-01-2011, 10:21 PM	#7
epstein Account Suspended Drives: SS/RS Join Date: May 2010 Location: Transplanted from NYC..(ret. NYPD).Now in CT Posts: 904	Thank yoy for your time and effort as well as informative post!

07-02-2011, 01:55 AM	#9
tsears Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS - L99 - CGM Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: San Diego Posts: 849	Just ordered my "strong" sensor from Patrick @ GM Parts. I hope this works.... (I've been having issues tuning my car on the Vararam.) __________________ 2007 Corvette Z06 - Velocity Yellow Halltech \| Forgestar \| Bilstein

07-05-2011, 02:54 PM	#10
Blacksheap Drives: z28 Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: NY Posts: 17	So the only difference is head room?

07-06-2011, 03:04 PM	#13
JR-Vette Drives: 1999 500 HP Corvette Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Coast Posts: 164	No as makes no difference how high the MAF output frequency is as explained as most NA engines never even get close to the existing stock MAF max output. I was tuning a 2008 ZO6 yesterday with a CAM and even at 580 HP, up to 130 MPH the max output of MAF was only 8,800 Hz. Not only that the MAF table is broken down in freq blocks and do not understand freq up 12,200 or 15,000 Hz ( depending on car model) and lastly the PCM is not doing constant realtime updates from MAF, more about once every half second so would not care about max freq for NA engine as fuel trim adjustment are done not every few seconds but minutes. Lastly as mentioned the PCM hardware logic would limit how well or poor another design of a MAF's output is.

07-13-2011, 09:46 PM	#14
IndeedSS1 Drives: 2010 Camaro SS LS3 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Eastern MO Posts: 3,786	Here is a little more infomation about the differences in sensors and it's not all about headroom. http://www.vararam.com/camaro.html __________________ She is only memory now.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gran Turismo 5... No Camaro?	5thGenOwner	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	111	12-06-2011 11:06 AM
Modern Camaro Performance Parts - www.PartsTaxi.com	PartsTaxi.com	Sponsor Announcements / Giveaways / Contests	0	10-06-2010 05:26 PM
Official Camaro Convertible CONCEPT Press Release	Tran	Camaro Convertible Forum	12	11-18-2009 08:05 PM