Paul Here is your TECH/ Debate thread.

From a tuning point of view......

If I was gonna tune the combo I'd rather start out with a ProM maf.

Later
Grady

I like the fact that Pro-M calibrates specifically for supercharged applications. It was extremely important for me in particular with the blow-thru setup. I mean they put my meter on ProCharger tubing and calibrated it like that.

C&L MAFs suck and arent dependable ON AVERAGE

i dont care is cars have shown gains going to them that coudl easily be due to a change in the fuel curves due to teh c&l not reporting as much air and the car leaning out... things they dont show you in the dyno comparisons in magazines and advertisements (which is shady)

Pro-M all the way no matter if it is N/A or blown.

i love how people who dont have either maf are for pro-m when they have never tried a C&l themselves. i have never tried a pro-m but have never had a problem with a C&L. dont know what the big rucuss is with a pro-m anywho. anyone have any proof as to why or how they are "better" or is just all hearsay?

who's still in buisness? nuff said!

ef200098 said:

i love how people who dont have either maf are for pro-m when they have never tried a C&l themselves. i have never tried a pro-m but have never had a problem with a C&L. dont know what the big rucuss is with a pro-m anywho. anyone have any proof as to why or how they are "better" or is just all hearsay?

Click to expand...

that's what i was thinking ,i've heard alot of people slamming them that haven't had either...i am very happy with my c&l setup...it works perfectly and i've never had a problem......and fwiw i had a pro-m on one of my foxes and had nothing but trouble with it......that was part of the reason i went with c&l this time.....i don't know why everyone seems to think c&l's are so bad..

ef200098 said:

i love how people who dont have either maf are for pro-m when they have never tried a C&l themselves. i have never tried a pro-m but have never had a problem with a C&L. dont know what the big rucuss is with a pro-m anywho. anyone have any proof as to why or how they are "better" or is just all hearsay?

Click to expand...

I have never owned a C&L maf.

I have been on these forums for years and I've seen many threads from C&L users who say they had a bad experience and after they went to a ProM things were ok.

I have seen a handful of threads where peeps had a bad experience with the ProM 77 or 80.

I have tuned my car with a ProM shorty na 80mm called for 30lb inj's. I loaded in the curve ProM provided and the car idled fine right out of the box with no further tuning from me.

Many of the guys on the various tuning sites just gave up trying to custom tune their C&L maf and went with a ProM. It is important to understand these guys had full access to custom tailor a curve any way that might work with the C&L.

I talked to ProM's tech btw and he told me their 77 and 80 maf had the most accurate electronics in their line of mafs.

Just some of the stuff I've seen and found over time

Later
Grady

Ive never had a c&l, but I can give you my opinion on a pro-m 75 and 80 which ive had both. I had absolutely no problems w/ either. The 75 was on my stock h/c/i cobra w/ ran low 13's- high 12's and the 80 is on my stock h/c/i cobra w/ a vortech pushing 13lbs. of boost and when I had my chip done at Kauffmans for my blown setup Dave told me that the Pro-m cars are very easy to tune and almost never has any problems w/ them.

I have no dyno #'s to prove it, but when I put the 75 on my N/A application, I can honestly say I gained no less than 10rwhp. Total difference. Maybe the c&l would have done the same, maybe it wouldnt of, i'll never know.

bimmertech said:

who's still in buisness? nuff said!

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. Pro-M still made a better product. I see alot less people have problems with the pro-m.

Dustin

what kinds of problems are people having with the C&L? eratic maf curve or something? im just trying to understang whay TYPE of problem "everyone" is having with the C&L. like i said ive never used a pro-m and can't say good or bad about them. but i would assume that there are people out there who have problems with C&L as well as Pro-m

Any MAF is hit or miss on any 5.0. Some cars like c&l and others like pro m. When I had 24# injectors, my car ran better, idled better and made more power with a 76mm c&l over a 80mm pro m. Now that I have a real tuning device I wouldn't use anything other than a pro m.

Well I have had both and currently started with the pro-m and bought it when they first came out with the one for the 94-95 cars. At the time I was running a stock bottom end bolt on's with nitrous and 30# injectors with a stock computer tune. In this config the C&L worked great. Now when I added a custom tune with a new motor and smaller injectors I was constantly fighting with tuning issues with the C&L. So I found someone on the trader that was wanting to trade a Pro-M for C&L straight up. So I did and once I got it I called Pro-M and told them what I had and what I wanted and sent it in. About two weeks later it was back and works perfectly and the car has never run better. Too bad they went out of business.

ok....this stuff is WAY over my head

i have a 73mm C+L housing. When i went for a tune they guy said that the huge dip in my midrange was probably due to the meter, because its c+L. BUT it still had the powerloss with the stock meter....so i doubt it

GreenMustangGt said:

i have a 73mm C+L housing. When i went for a tune they guy said that the huge dip in my midrange was probably due to the meter, because its c+L. BUT it still had the powerloss with the stock meter....so i doubt it

Click to expand...

thats likely due to the fact that the c&l is just a housing that uses the stock electronics....if you tried new electronics both probably would have been fine

bimmertech said:

who's still in buisness? nuff said!

Click to expand...

With a comment like that you obviouysly don't know the situation. The original owner passed away and the new group were a bunch of idiots and ran it into the ground. Its still a superior product. Pro-M's employees are supposedly buying the company and trying to restore it to the way it once was... we shall see.



OK, here's my take on the meters...

I do not like C&L. Let me first give a little detail as to how a meter works, as it will help explain why I don't like them. A MAF is nothing more than devise that tells the EEC how much air is flowing into the motor. It does this by a very thin wire that acts like a resistor with a small amount of voltage passing through it. The more air that flows over it the cooler the wire gets and since it acts as a resistor the voltage will change with the temp. That's all it does, nothing more and nothing less. Since the incomming air can be at different temps the EEC also used an ACT (Air Charge temperature) sensor. With these two sensors the EEC can determine what amount of air is coming in and adjust the injector pulse wdith accordingly. When we get larger injectors we need a "re-cal'd" MAF. What this means is that in order to maintain the correct fuel delivery per certain amoutn of air the voltage will need to be altered. Pro-M did this with NEW electronics. Basically the MAF will send a "tricked" voltage to the EEC and tell it that LESS air is coming into the motor than there really is. The EEC sees this voltage and shortens up the pulsewidth on the injector... BUT since the injector is larger than stock more fuel is supplied for that pre determined pulsewidth. This is a problem for 94-95 cars because they are the MAF voltage to determine LOAD. The old fox's were more of an RPM based EEC, ours is more of a LOAD based EEC. The EEC uses LOAD for damn near every table in it, includind the fuel and timing maps. This is also why our cars are more sensative to MAF's than the 93-older cars. Now that I've explained a little on how it works, let me tell you why I don't like C&L.

Pro-M accomplishes it "tricked" voltage through new electronics in the MAF itself. This is good because it is CONSISTENT, meaning that you know exactly what the meter is going to do. Now the C&L take an a different approach. Instead of tricking the voltage by electronics, it simply alters the amount of airflow that reaches the MAF wires. It retains the stock electronics, but there are different "sampling tubes" which are nothing more thna a small piece of aluminum with a hole through the middle of it which air passes through. The problem is that there is a LOT that can effect the amount of air that passes through the metereing tube and can cause issues. Some of those are tubulent air, areas of higher or lower air velocity within the meter itself etc. The pro-m is vulnerable to this as well, but since its relying on electronics its more consistent as to what it does.

My dad went with a C&L 76mm MAF on his 91GT. On the dyno we could not make 2 consecutive pulls with repeatable results. He had the C&L tube with a conical filter on the end inside the engine bay just like I used to have with my Pro-M in my 95 without any problems. No matter what the tuner did he could not get the A/F ratio to remain the same on every dyno run. It was a wasted trip because they could not tune the car. We then put the stock airbox back on with a K&N panel filter and went back to the dyno... this cured the problem and made it repeatable, but it shows how sensative the C&L can be due to the way it meters the air.


How was that Striped?