Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Senior Member
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Originally Posted by GraphiteGhost
OK, I have removed my cowl/intake cover on the motor (thanks to all the helpful hints in the forums) and I see a black plastic screen on what I think is the MAF. Is this screen removable? I hope to increase air volume a little by taking this screen out of the airflow. I have not seen any other post dealing with this. I got too distracted after 4 pages of posts in this forum (without seeing anything remotely like my Q).
Of course I will be mindful of the potential for "dropping stuff in" but I am pretty sure I can be careful enough to keep it clean enough.
Thanks, for hints or solutions for removing this plastic screen. If it involves cutting it out of the frame (being the frame has to be left for matching to the cowl/cover) then so be it. It looks like it may pop out, but without knowing any more than I do, I will not go deeper for fear of breaking something expensive.
Thanks!
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
The function of the plastic screen (#1) and the metal honeycomb (#2) is to make the airflow more linear before being seen by the MAF sensor and filament. Considering how the stock airbox makes a 90 degree (kinda) right above it, I can see MB's concern, the airflow is very turbulent as it enters the MAF inlet.
That said, these MAF's can be bought on eBay for ~$85, so give it a try. But I would only remove the plastic one!
I await your results!
That said, these MAF's can be bought on eBay for ~$85, so give it a try. But I would only remove the plastic one!
I await your results!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Ghost, ghost, ghost...
try a hammer.
Just be careful!
No, really. I've seen mention of dremel tools, but I would remove the MAF from the TB completly first. I'm pretty sure it's molded as a part of the whole.
try a hammer.
Just be careful!
No, really. I've seen mention of dremel tools, but I would remove the MAF from the TB completly first. I'm pretty sure it's molded as a part of the whole.
Last edited by maxcichon; 09-09-2009 at 07:25 PM.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Some just pull out some you need to pry. Nothing holds it in so it's really just a battle between you and the screen. With the right tools you will win.
With that said you may or may not experience a high idle (900-1000) depending on how your car adapts. With the earlier cars it seems to effect the idle, but only after driving.
My advice is that if you don't have modifications that will necessitate the screen removal, then leave it as it will do more bad then good.
With that said you may or may not experience a high idle (900-1000) depending on how your car adapts. With the earlier cars it seems to effect the idle, but only after driving.
My advice is that if you don't have modifications that will necessitate the screen removal, then leave it as it will do more bad then good.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Originally Posted by GraphiteGhost
TVT_DESIGN, what do you base that advice on? Please qualify that last sentence. My car is a 2008 Limited, with a build of September 07. Can't know for sure when all of the computers and sensors were made but some here in the forums have indicated the last couple of thousand were thrown together from a quantity of parts lying around (cannot believe that, it just makes no sense someone would discover hundreds of parts in a box, somewhere, so lets build a few more cars? I doubt it). Truely, if additional air volume (slight) increases idle that much, more would have taken this screen out and I found no references to anyone doing it (yet). Will try to gently pull it up and out, as far as I was able to lean over the fenders with high intensity lights (and my failing eyesight) it looks like there are a few crimps around the radius of the screen where it inserts into the MAF body. A couple of hooking tools (yeah will definately keep from dropping them into the MAF) might ease them out if what you say pans out. If not, how does that MAF sensor come out of the motor? I have not seen anything that would help me get it out (may even take it out before trying to remove that plastic screen, this way its more closely inspect'able).Thanks for relaying some just pop out, still think it might be smartest to try it off the car (MAF) but if thats too much of a job to get to, will try a few hooking tools to lift it out as you proffer.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Age: 36
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Originally Posted by GraphiteGhost
I think your saying if I AM ingesting more air than stock? So you have some data to show this? Charts showing (OMG I'm sounding like that guy who ran for President, Ross Perot) fuel/air ratios with, and without, just that screen in stock MAF's vs HP and performance? I would love to see those numbers, might be really enlightening.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
On a stock M112 motor we've seen -3RWHP and .6 towards the lean end on the AFR. Not a smart move at all. Due to the location of the stock MAF the turbulence caused by the air entering a non-directed intake WILL (not may) result in negative consequences. Needswings intake works because it relocates the MAF to a more direct and unobstructed airflow path. The same design is used on the E, ML, and CLK class M112 engines.
Take the inof that I and many others have provided and use it the way you want to.
Take the inof that I and many others have provided and use it the way you want to.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Originally Posted by TVT_DESIGN
Meaning that if you aren't ingesting significantly more air then stock, it won't help and could actually hurt. I base that off the tons of Crossfires I have worked on and performance packages we have built.
The screen does little for the engine when removed, you'll get slightly more airflow but since its not being properly flowed to the maf it may in fact make your engine run worse. We have these in 3000gt's and removing them has done nothing to improve the car. Feel free to remove it, you'll find no increase in performance and will in fact open up your engine to damage.
Last edited by 12yan12eed; 09-14-2009 at 11:27 PM.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts
Re: Screen removal on MAF below intake on NA 3.2 M112
Originally Posted by GraphiteGhost
Quoted from above "Feel free to remove it, you'll find no increase in performance and will in fact open up your engine to damage".
12yan12eed, what kind of engine damage are you talking about? Can't imagine what if I remove it gently without dropping anything into the intake. If there is something I am missing, I would like to know. Still looking for simple instructions on how to get the MAF out! With such an amazing group of engineers, tinkerers, and people who are not afraid to experiment with their cars, don't you think that if this was even remotely a good idea, someone would have already documented it?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central South Carolina
Age: 69
Posts: 5,842
Received 374 Likes
on
324 Posts