MAF sensor versus MAP sensor

I am curious to know general consensus on which sensor (or both) I should be using to tune my stock Cadillac CTS-V LS6 engine for best all around daily driving, but spirited sometimes, performance.

Depends on the ECU, some do not support MAF based tuning.

It is easier (typically) to get an accurate calibration for a MAP sensor, but unless you have the factory calibration and standard intake in place, the calibration of a MAF sensor becomes quite difficult to do, and to get accurate calibration.

An OE calibration using a combination of both MAF and SD tuning offers a high level of precision in airflow calculation. This is achieved by using MAF in steady state conditions and SD in transients, which avoids some shortcomings of each. This isn't absolutely necessary to have excellent drivability though.

You can have great drivability with simple VE based SD tuning, though it may not account for certain conditions as well, and requires more tweaking of compensations to account for ambient changes since you're not actually measuring air mass without the MAF.

Mike Mcginns id love to expand more on how to "back door" a blended strategy with MAF and SD.

I'm setting up a calibrated MAF for tinkering with on a SD based MaxxECU and while it's initially just for logging and characterizing the airflow, I'd love to potentially incorporate it more fully.

Thanks Mike McGinnis,............... I like the idea of using both MAF and SD in order to, as you mention, obtain the highest level of precision airflow calculation possible.

I am currently only using MAF and I do sense / feel slight inconsistencies sometimes in the engines performance seemingly caused by changes in the ambient conditions.

I will continue to watch the pertinent videos here at HPA in hopes of learning how to tune and utilize both MAF and SD. If you can recommend any other tutorials on how to accomplish excellent MAF and SD tuning on a Gen III LS6 engine please do let me know.