LS3/7 blade style with a laminar airflow straightener.
I can get into why I believe all of this SD3.14 chip stuff isn't a good enough solution.
EDIT (1st intermission on the Devils game)...
My concerns are two-fold:
1. Speed Density is too touchy based upon environmental variables which can knock a tune out of spec enough to exhibit issues. The old Buick-type ECMs lack a lot of fidelity from cell to cell which further exacerbates this issue. Hell, in a late model ECM it still is pretty wonky with four times as many cells.
2. MAFs and Translators are just a guess at fueling using a meter that isn't calibrated for the engine it is stuck on; and without the means to adapt it. A MAF needs to be mapped to the engine it is attached to, especially in an open loop application.
Both my Procharged TBSS' 6.0L LS2 and N/A 5.7L LS1 in the wagon run the same LS3/7 blade-style MAF (capable of reading up to 15,000Hz and about 950g/s of air flow) in a 4" tube with a large cell honeycomb air straightener. Both are high RPM capable engines with good volumetric efficiency (outside of boost)
The TBSS pulls the following numbers under load:
2,350rpm - 136g/s @ 6,722Hz = 0 psi
3,900rpm - 216g/s @ 8,171Hz = 4.8psi
5,300rpm - 349g/s @ 9,685Hz = 8.2psi
6,600rpm - 530g/s @ 10,925Hz = 12psi
The Wagon pulls the following numbers at the same load points:
2,380rpm - 98g/s @ 4,942Hz = 0 psi (cam makes it lazy down low)
3,900rpm - 188g/s @ 6,683Hz = 0 psi
5,300rpm - 287g/s @ 7,619Hz = 0 psi
6,500rpm - 350g/s @ 8,120Hz = 0 psi
Note the RPM and Hz points at which both sensors see 350g/s - as you can imagine the curve in the TBSS is a lot longer and smoother than the wagon's. This shows the versatility of the sensor. Truth be told the wagon really should have it's sensor in a 3" or 3.5" tube to improve resolution and driveability (meaning it would likely lengthen the curve and carry it to a higher frequency).
Which brings me to my absolute disgust at how these things have been handed out to Buick owners as a one-size fits all solution to the factory MAF. Unless you have a wideband and a means for collecting the Equivalence Error the LT1/LS1/LS6 sensors installed they are not as effective as they should be. Granted you still have your INT/BLM (short and long term) to trim the fuel under closed loop conditions to compensate for this in the ECM, and the High/Mid/Low fuel adjustments in a Translator to roughly drag the curve back into spec. Ultimately the user has no control over the MAF and cannot fix the error - and this is a huge disservice to the Buick community. Every change you make to your engine moves you further away from an accurate reading (heads, cam, turbo, exhaust, air filter... and yes the intake tube size too).
In conclusion: Ultimately there should be some serious effort put into running a hybrid (MAF/VE) system like it came from the factory, only adding closed loop correction at WOT.
