Driveability Corner

Can volumetric efficiency, altitude, MAP, MAF and BARO

readings be grouped in equations to ID engine malfunctions? Mark asks the questions, and even answers a few.

Mark Warren

n the June issue I devoted my column

to volumetric efficiency (VE), and
gave a formula to calculate VE based
on engine displacement. Ive since created a matrix with engine displacement, rpm and calculated airflow (see
Fig. 1 below). Note that these readings are at
wide-open throttle (WOT).
This matrix makes a few assumptions that will
affect the accuracy of your calculation. First, it
assumes 100% volumetric efficiency, which is
unlikely to occur under real-world conditions.
From 1500 to 3000 rpm, you should multiply
the given value by 70%, or .70. This is a more
accurate reflection of true VE in that rpm
range. Most passenger cars and light trucks are
tuned for maximum VE at about 3500 rpm;
therefore, multiply the value in the matrix by
85%, or .85. From 4000 to 5000 rpm, use a
multiplier value of 80%, or .80.
For example, when testing for an airflow
problem like a plugged catalytic converter at
5000 rpm, a 3.5L engine should flow 173
gms./sec. times .80, or 138 gms./sec. From onroad testing, the 140 gms./sec. I got seems to
be pretty representative. Remember, if the
airflow value is incorrect, the problem could

continued on page 21

Fig. 1

16

be an intake restriction, jumped timing belt,

restricted exhaust or even a bad MAF sensor,
and more testing is in order. One clue is that if
an airflow problem exists, then fuel control
should be normal. But if the MAF reads incorrectly, then its not measuring the airflow
correctly and fuel control will be skewed.
A second assumption relates to altitude.
This chart assumes sea level altitude and a
barometric pressure reading of 29.9 in. of
mercury (in./Hg). If you test at higher altitude, you need to apply another correction
factor for altitude. First, apply the general altitude compensation rule: For every additional
1000 ft. of altitude at which you test, subtract
1 in./Hg from the sea level barometric pressure. Im in Tucson (2500 ft.), so from 29.9
in./Hg I subtract 2.5 in./Hg, to get a true barometric reading of 27.4 in./Hg. This correlates
to the readings I get here from good MAP
sensors, key on, engine off (KOEO). (Vehicles
with MAP sensors should always be tested
KOEO before starting other diagnostics.)
Now youre ready for the final correction
factoraltitude. The correction factor is calculated by dividing true barometric pressure
by the value at sea level. In Tucson this is 27.4

December 2003

Driveability Corner
Fig. 2

divided by 29.9, or .92. Using the 140

gms./sec. from above and multiplying
it by Tucsons altitude correction factor, a normal 3.5L engine should report airflow of 128.8 gms./sec. at
5000 rpm.
Generally, techs have been able to
diagnose catalytic converters that are
50% or more plugged. But would you
be able to find a BMW converter
thats 20% plugged causing two cylinders on one bank to misfire at high
rpm/airflow? Hopefully, if you use
the VE test, you might have a better
chance. Dont forget to consider all
airflow-reducing possibilities in your
diagnostic routine.

Its also important to consider

minimum airflow. What can the idle
airflow reading tell us? The minimum airflow test can reveal false air
leaksbasically any air leak downstream of the MAF sensor, including
vacuum leaks or leaks in the boot
from the MAF to the throttle body
assembly. Also, the minimum airflow
reading may indicate an inaccurate
MAF sensor.
Whats a normal warmed up
closed-loop idle reading? Check out
Fig. 2 above. Here Ive compensated
for the suction throttling loss from
the closed throttle at idle. I assumed
barometric pressure was 29.9 in./Hg.

With MAP at 10 in./Hg (a fairly normal reading), the intake manifold

vacuum is BARO minus MAP, or approximately 20 in./Hg. The actual
pressure in the manifold is 10 in./Hg,
as shown by the MAP, or one-third
the 29.9 in./Hg possible at WOT. I
calculated the airflow at WOT, then
divided it by one-third to get the actual airflow with the throttle closed.
Clear as mud? These are fairly typical
airflow numbers at idle. If you live at
a higher altitude, you may need to
apply the altitude correction factor.
Heres where things get a little
weird for me. Does an engine suck
(intake manifold vacuum) less at
continued on page 22

Circle #11

December 2003

21

Driveability Corner
higher altitudes than at lower altitudes, or the same? In Tucson, the
normal MAP reading for my Honda is
8.0 in./Hg. So, my intake manifold
vacuum is 27.4 minus 8.0, or 19.4
in./Hg.
Recently, the PWR Training crew
drove over a 5000-ft. pass in Idaho.

vacuum gauges instructions indicated

it was calibrated at sea level, so I
needed to add 1 in./Hg to the reading
for every 1000 ft. above sea level to
get a true vacuum reading relative to
sea level. So, if I add 19.5 and 5, does
that mean the true intake manifold
vacuum (relative to sea level) on my

Catalytic converters that are 50% or more

plugged have generally been easy to
diagnose. But if you use the VE test, you
might have a decent chance of diagnosing
a cat thats only 20% plugged.
The KOEO BARO reading was 25.0
in./Hg; the idle reading was 6.5
in./Hg. So, the intake manifold vacuum was 25.0 minus 6.5, or 18.5
in./Hg. The cheap vacuum gauge I
had showed 19.5 in./Hg. Also, the

Honda is 24.5 in./Hg? Wow! That

seems high. Perhaps a few of you
readers at high altitude could send
me some readings so I can make
some sense of this. Maybe my cheap
gauge is to blame. More later.

Circle #12

22

December 2003