Oh. My. God. Well, I'll give him this, he sticks to his guns.
So, on to his points.
The fine mesh screen in the MAF isn't an issue. First of all, it's constructed of a VERY fine mesh, so it doesn't block much, if at all. Second, it's not required - you can cut it out and sand down the edges where it was connected if you like, it doesn't affect the reading at all, unlike a karmen vortex based air flow meter, which has a screen and requires it to work. Thirdly, I bought the smallest one available, simply because it fits in the stock accordian hose - the largest is 3 and 5/8 of an inch across.
Lets do the math here.
Stock AFM is rectangular, 2.75 x 1.5 inches at it's smallest point. This is 4.125 square inches.
The 3 inch diameter MAF that I use has a cross section of 7.07 square inches.
The 3 1/2 inch diameter MAF that is easily available has a cross section of 9.62 square inches.
The 3 5/8 inch diameter MAF has a cross section of 10.32 square inches.
How can anyone seriously think that 10.32 square inches flows less than 4.125, even with a mesh in there?
Next, we have my real world testing. I purchased one of these, wired it in, and set it to the default settings. On the road, I spool at *exactly* the same RPM. So, if this is an intake restriction, it's the same as the stock AFM.
His description of how MAF sensors work is right on the money - until he starts explaining why it's slow, then it wanders. I don't know why it's fast, I just know it is, because I monitored the pins 1 & 3 on the stock AFM and watched how fast the readings changed, then watched *exactly* the same pins off the MAFT with the MAF hooked up, and saw how fast those readings changed. Both these tests were done on the same day, within 20 minutes of each other, no significant temp changes or any other changes made to the car. The AFM reacts much slower than the MAF. These findings are not unique to me, Shawndude remarked on them when he was beta testing this unit as well.
KV directly measures the passnig air mass as it creates vorticies behind the bar in front of the sensor, and has no 'inertia' to work against.
KV does NOT measure passing air mass. It measures the speed of the air by detecting the frequency of the vortices. Then it uses two other sensors, an ambient pressure sensor (in the ECU for 89+ ECUs, or external but close to the ECU in the 88- ECUs) and an air temp sensor (in the stock AFM, IIRC) to calculate the mass of the air going into the engine. I've no idea what inertia has to do with this.
As to working post turbo...
First, it works. There are several Supra members running it this way, and literally hundreds of DSM owners doing so as well. DSM's use the same stock karmen vortex AFM type as we do, and the MAFT has been available for them much longer than it has for the Supra.
Second, a MAF *IS* a Mass Air Flow sensor, that's why it's called a Mass Air Flow sensor. It measures the mass of air directly. There is a good description of MAFs here:
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h34.pdf, which clearly explains how ambient temperature is taken into consideration inside the sensor itself.
Whoever is trying to debunk the MAFT should really do a bit more homework.
He leaves out the other benefits as well - the fact that this will allow you to tune your WOT settings to use your stock 440cc injectors to the 400 rwhp that they are capable of. The fact that it comes with a built in Fuel Cut defender. The fact that it allows you to use any size injectors you wish, well, up to 1020cc, anyhow. The fact that it costs about half what a Lexus AFM and 550cc injectors do.
Tell you what, Suze - buy one of these, tune it well, and take it to the track. That's all the proof you'll need. Hell, wait a few weeks and I'll take mine to the track - stock CT26, stock fuel, and I'm willing to bet I'll be able to lay down some very respectable times this year.
