As someone who's been around turbocharged engines for the better part of the last 25 years yes speed density is generally preferable to MAF on higher horsepower turbocharged engines. A lot of people spend a lot of money converting a MAF vehicle to speed density when they're trying to make more horsepower. MAF is generally more precise because it's measuring actual air flow whereas speed density is inferring it based on other parameters.Doesn't Ford's approach to engine management on the 3.5 Ecoboost, using speed density, give them advantages with a turbocharged engine? (in contrast with normally aspirated V8 with much shorter intake)
MAF has lag, comparatively. Speed density gets faster and more accurate air/fuel ratio data.
I'm no expert, of course, but the gurus have always seemed to be pretty impressed with the Ecoboost engine management.
SD/MAF decision is made so far up the product development timeline it's hard to give an easy answer. The answer to "lag" though is processing power and aforementioned machine learning algorithms hard coded into the PCM. The GM E90 PCM is pretty incredible in what it does now. I would have bought a 2.7 Silverado with my discount but you can't get that engine in a truck with a center console and I like being able to see over the hood. It's a great, smooth running engine. Ford does use MAF in other products and I've always wondered why they don't in the larger Ecoboost engines.Doesn't Ford's approach to engine management on the 3.5 Ecoboost, using speed density, give them advantages with a turbocharged engine? (in contrast with normally aspirated V8 with much shorter intake)
MAF has lag, comparatively. Speed density gets faster and more accurate air/fuel ratio data.
I'm no expert, of course, but the gurus have always seemed to be pretty impressed with the Ecoboost engine management.
Here the full link and videoWhile this is about how catalytic converters work, it's a good general overview of how the pcm manages the engine. Maybe someone will learn a thing or two...