|
| Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | Air Dried Beef Dog Food | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
|
|||||||
| Off-Topic Talk about anything other than cars. |
 |
 Show Printable Version | 
Subscribe to this Thread
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
#2
04-21-2004, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No you do not "need" to run a GM Maf to use DSM Link. I have the stock 2G Maf on mine. I will be upgrading to a GM Maf and Translator set-up in the future. DSM Link can not read the GM Maf. You would still need to buy the translator so it can "translate" the code to a language DSM Link can understand.
Hope this answers your question. Go to the DSM link web-site and look through the FAQ's. It will answer any questions you will have regarding DSM Link.
__________________
1997 Eclipse GSX: AGP 50 trim, Tial Wastegate, HKS 264/272's, Denso 660's, DSMLink, AGP Race FMIC, Dejon Intake, Apexi cat-back, and some other stuff. 2003 Mazda Protege5: SR Motorsports cat-back. (Wife's Car) 
|
|
#3
04-21-2004, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: dsmlink question
im sorry for articulating that question the way i had. My question is: is it benifichal to run dsmlink and Maft. is their any added benifits? becasue you'll just be setting your transfer settings to 0. would it be more cost effective to just use dsmlink?
|
|
#4
04-21-2004, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No Worries.
Yes it is beneficial to run the Maft set-up. I have been following a post on the DSMLink Message board regarding the settings for the GM Maft and gains over the stock set-up. The poeple who are running the Maft are reaching full boost a few hundred RPM's quicker. They have also experienced smoother idle conditions and a drop in Knock counts. All are positives in my book. Just my piece of advice, take it or leave it.
__________________
1997 Eclipse GSX: AGP 50 trim, Tial Wastegate, HKS 264/272's, Denso 660's, DSMLink, AGP Race FMIC, Dejon Intake, Apexi cat-back, and some other stuff. 2003 Mazda Protege5: SR Motorsports cat-back. (Wife's Car)
|
|
#6
04-23-2004, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've also seen some posts on the DSMLink forums about guys having trouble getting the MAFT calibrated properly to run well with DSMLink. I think that's more the exception than the rule, though?
__________________
J Doug 2003 Mustang Mach 1 1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T *sold* 
|
|
#8
04-23-2004, 11:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: dsmlink question
i e-mailed the nice people at dsmlink, the were nice enough to let me browse their fourm with a temp username and password. their was a thread talking about a possable new version of dsmlink that could have a gm maft built in. eliminating the need to buy a translator when using gm maf. i thought that would be kinda slick. all the threads said the same thing as you all had in here. calibrate to 0 and set tune from there.
|
|
#9
04-24-2004, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: dsmlink question
Check out a thread called "Stock mas vs MAFt" or something like that. I did a very detailed write up of the method I used to calibrate the MAFt to the stock unit. It was actually by doing this that I found the baro signal problem everyone is so familar with now. Man, I get no credit for anything
 Some poeple lately have been blowing the process way out of proportion, and I cant seem to figure out why. After fixing the baro signal problem with the MAFt (should be taken care of by now by the MAFt guys) all zeros on the unit are VERY close to the stock sensor. I only had to richen up 1 click on the WOT knob, most likely because my MAF is descreened (like hacking a stock MAS in effect). Very good product. That guy who is making a big deal of this most likely isnt doing it properly, or has something wrong with his setup.
__________________
Kevin Jewer RWD Talon - 7.92 at 180 Mightymax - 10.7 at 125
|
|
|
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
 |
|
|
