I have been pondering this comment since I first read it and I think you are comparing apples and oranges, or probably more correctly apples and baked beans. Canisters are nothing like a MAF.JA2Z wrote:I know MAFs can be far superior at very low air flow (and at idle) conditions, ADR compliance being so tough is why R&D teams are forced to use them to meet emissions specs, (same as O2 sensors and Canisters, none of those are for power, they are all for emissions control) but I've always belived that MAP achieves more accurate results under heavy/WOT and boost conditions.
The problem here is, and I am probably guilty of this too, the discussion in this thread is based upon "belief". I think instead of "discussing" the merits of MAP vs MAF based on our own beliefs we need verifiable results that are gathered by tests conducted in a proper scientific fashion. Anything else would be open for debate and debate always relies on individual belief so it becomes a revolving circular discussion that never gets resolved.
How do you propose to "test" your theory? Will you use a dyno with a gas analyser?