So, back in the halcyon days of my youth, I drove a 1982 Chevy Citation X-11.  It was an early (the first, I think) computer-controlled carburetor vehicle.  The thing about it, though, was that its air cleaner had two inlets: A normal one that had a large hose to get air from up front, and a 2nd that had a vacuum control (vacuum kept it closed, wide-open-throttle allowed it to spring open) which, when open, sucked air in from the hood cowl. 



Old-school cold air induction.  BUT, it wasn't big on MAP/MAF/IAT sensors and all that.

IF someone were to do such a thing with the 2.5 or 2.7, how confused would the computer get? 

What I'm thinking is leaving the existing plumbing as is, with the sensors down by the airbox, but also having a second opening right near the plenum to allow in cool air from a hood cowl (through a secondary filter).   The air it brings in now from the fender is plenty cool, but the stock tube is necessarily constricted as it makes it way from the plenum and under the intake runner.  I'd love to free things up a bit.

IIRC the 2.5/7 is a MAF system, the MAF sensor measures the airflow and the computer then calculates the required amount of gas. If you are going to add the second opening before the MAF sensor then no problem at all, its all taken care of by the sensors.

Unfortunately, if the MAF sensor is where I think it is, no.  I was hoping to position the secondary inlet clear up by the butterfly.

How do you figure this guy is dealing with the computer?  Looks like he's pulling air through the hood scoop.  Doesn't look like a great set up to me, but....sensors??



Allegedly, he's also running nitrous, but who knows for sure..

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/338504

I can't see the back of the injection set up from that pic. It looks like the K&N is fitted directly onto the throttle body. I don't see anywhere for a MAF but both sides of the intake are linked with a big balance pipe across the front. Could be a MAP based system, I know Suzuki have used a MAP sensor with MPI because the Jimny has that setup. Maybe someone else here is familiar with the V6s, got any good closeups of your intake setup?

I think that you will find that the MAP sensor(#19) is bolted directly onto the inlet manifold on the 2.7

That would be ideal.  But what are the two (as I recall) sensors located at/near the airbox?  My FSM's at home....will have some homework tonight.  The 2.0 L4 had the same ones (same exact airbox, as a matter of fact).

There will be an IAT (inlet air temperature) sensor and it appears that some 2.7's have MAF sensor instead of a MAP sensor and run a blanking plate on the manifold where the MAP sensor would go.

Okay, it looks to me like it has IAT, MAP and MAF sensors.  That possible?  Anybody got an 02 XL-7 FSM that can verify?  The 2.5 reference in my 03 Tracker FSM isn't being helpful..  I don't want to drop another $20 or whatever for another month of the on-line version.

Further, can anyone think of a reason why I couldn't relocate both the MAF and IAT sensor clear up at the intake (where the guy's truck in the earlier picture has his K&N mounted)?  I'd hate to bake it with the engine heat, I guess...  But if that would work, I think I may have a plan. 

if your truck has a mass airflow meter you can't allow more air into the system ahead of the sensor. it's essentialy a huge vacuum leak and the truck wont run. as far as moving the maf sensor without seeing the setup it would be hard to say if it would work.

derek

Okay, it looks to me like it has IAT, MAP and MAF sensors.  That possible? 

Yep, MAF based systems have a MAP sensor for barometric measurements.

I'd like to move the MAF sensor from the location in the first photo to the location in the 2nd photo. 

From here:


To here:


(from the side)


Thoughts?

I have just seen one with a cone filter on it that way.
It was here somewhere.
Recently too.

Earlier in this thread.  I just have  to assume his truck didn't have MAF.

I assume that the MAF sensor is located by the airbox to keep it away from the engine heat and vibration no reason why it wouldn't work right next to the throttle body unless you get a heat soak problem.

The general concept of where I'd like to end up.  Tires would be a little bigger, of course.  And, ideally, the bulge will be less...protrusive.  But as long as the sensors don't puke, I'm all in on this.