Date:         Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:57:31 -0800
Reply-To:     John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Air mass meters Go Westy
In-Reply-To:  <ac1f198b0712231203l7ceb63e5xa5940bf166284729@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Dec 23, 2007 12:03 PM, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:

> If you are asking which air metering system type is better.. both map
> based and maf based have their pros/cons... but generally speaking MAF
> systems are more accurate, and map usually considered easier to setup
> and tune.. but I don't really find that the case.
>

Ya, I figured as much. Of course then the question is whether the relatively
aged contraption that is the Wasserboxer-Digifant stands to gain much by the
extra significant digits you get from a MAF sensor. I was just curious
whether the job of adapting a MAP reading to the Digifant is easier or
harder than the MAF. A MAP sensor sure would be easier to attach on the
mechanical side, and a barometric sensor is certainly cheap.

--
John Bange
'90 Vanagon - "Geldsauger"