70mm MAF adapter

[a91what]

I don't think bigger hurts much. Keep in mind, the meter has to have an accurate reading at idle with almost no air going through it. That's not going to change much on the cross sectional area of the meter.

I actually do not know much about tuning. I admit it. As I understand it, the resolution on the factory meter is good, but the response time is not. Does that makes sense? It seems to vary from one tuner to another. One tuner wants you to have a Ford factory meter, and then the next tuner is upset because you don't have an SCT3000. I don't know what to tell you. I know that in the before time, when actual computer tunes were rare, everyone just bought a big Pro-M or CNL meter, and it worked fine.

Kurt

Sorry that is very... wrong.. the size of the housing greatly affects the resolution of the meter. grainy resolution from a sensor meant for a 55mm housing in a 90mm housing will not do you any good. The modern slot style sensor are much more accurate, the OEM have had a movement to HZ based metering over a 5v analog signal the HZ based will never run out of headroom

 

[JMGlasgow]

Will the '94-'95 Thunderbird 3.8L or 4.6L naturally aspirated MAF work in 89-93 Mustangs? It looks like no flange adapter is needed and I think it's also a 70mm unit.

 

[a91what]

this is an @Decipha question....

 

[revhead347]

Sorry that is very... wrong.. the size of the housing greatly affects the resolution of the meter. grainy resolution from a sensor meant for a 55mm housing in a 90mm housing will not do you any good. The modern slot style sensor are much more accurate, the OEM have had a movement to HZ based metering over a 5v analog signal the HZ based will never run out of headroom

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I don't think putting an oversized properly calibrated meter on a car will hurt. That is to say that if you were deciding between a giant SCT3000 95mm MAF or a basic BBK 70mm MAF, as long as they are both calibrated correctly, they will both function adequately. So much focus is given on optimum air measurement at WOT, that the fact that both meters are able to get accurate measurements at idle is ignored. We get the same argument with fuel return lines. Is such and such return fuel line too large, etc? When the engine is at idle, almost all the fuel is returned via the return line, so at wide open throttle, almost any return fuel line will keep the injector feed pressure at the right place.

Kurt

 

[a91what]

agreed, I see far too often guys build ve tables that favor the WOT and boost areas of the tune in a car that they want to daily.. [standalone ecu territory here]

then they wonder why the car is often jerky or has poor milage... to be honest at WOT for the vast majority of builds out there we just want the thing rich.. 12.5ish NA 11.8ish if boosted... get within .2 or .3 of these targets at WOT and the engine is usually happy... will it make the most power it could, no.. will it be ok in 99% of installs on a street car, yes.
I will take a meter that I know will peg at WOT under boost and use it for drive-ability then add the extra fuel with a MAP modifier for boost.. just like you would on a typical gm install.

 

[Mustang5L5]

Will the '94-'95 Thunderbird 3.8L or 4.6L naturally aspirated MAF work in 89-93 Mustangs? It looks like no flange adapter is needed and I think it's also a 70mm unit.

If you are using a standard A9x ECU without a tune, then the only compatible 70mm MAF has the f2vf-12b579-a1a part number.

The only vehicles that have these are

1995-94 Mustang 3.8L F2VF-12B579-A2A,
1994-92 Crown Victoria 4.6L F2VF-12B579-A2A,
1995-94 Mustang, Mustang Cobra 5.0L F2VF-12B579-A2A,
1994-92 Town Car 4.6L F2VF-12B579-A2A,
1994-92 Grand Marquis 4.6L F2VF-12B579-A2A,

Like I said before, I have one on my car and the car drives beautifully. No idle surge or hunting, very smooth, plenty of power (for e7 heads) and very reliable


Now if you are running MS then you can use whatever you want with the proper transfer function data. I was actually going to use a 99-04 80mm slot style MAF with integrated ACT with my MS3

 

[Noobz347]

I don't think bigger hurts much. Keep in mind, the meter has to have an accurate reading at idle with almost no air going through it. That's not going to change much on the cross sectional area of the meter.

This may seem correct but the truth is that when you swap a mass air element from a 55mm housing into a 75mm housing --and-- even if you tune for the differences in housings, you have [lost] resolution across that sensor. It's taking a smaller sample of a larger cross-section of air. The EEC is tuned to interpolate the rest from the available range. That loss in resolution would be most noticeable at the bottom end and around cruise.

 

[Noobz347]

Sorry that is very... wrong.. the size of the housing greatly affects the resolution of the meter. grainy resolution from a sensor meant for a 55mm housing in a 90mm housing will not do you any good. The modern slot style sensor are much more accurate, the OEM have had a movement to HZ based metering over a 5v analog signal the HZ based will never run out of headroom

LoL You beat me to it. I missed that there was another page.

 

[JMGlasgow]

Has anyone taken a T-Bird 70mm housing and put a '94-'95 sensor in it?

I've read that the housing internals are the same but it's the internet sooo...

 

[Mustang5L5]

Has anyone taken a T-Bird 70mm housing and put a '94-'95 sensor in it?

I've read that the housing internals are the same but it's the internet sooo...

I've read that "theory" too.

From what I've read, the t-bird and Sn95 70mm housing are the same except the t-bird has couplings on both sides, and the SN95 MAF is flanged.

Both electronics are designed for the 70mm housing, and the internals look identical, so in theory swapping the 94-95 sensor (because it's been confirmed to work with the A9L) over to the t-bird/cougar housing should work.

 

[Noobz347]

So much focus is given on optimum air measurement at WOT, that the fact that both meters are able to get accurate measurements at idle is ignored.

The smaller the engine the less air is moved through the orifice at idle. A 90mm on small cube motor can and has caused sampling issues at or just above idle. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this though... Well, besides Joe But yeah, his WOT pulls were just fine

There becomes a point where it just makes more sense to go SD.

 

[a91what]

multiple tuning strategies work better... huge meter for large power? tune the idle SD and then transition... meter too small for the turbo?? tune the idle/cruise MAF and the boost area SD..

 

[revhead347]

The smaller the engine the less air is moved through the orifice at idle. A 90mm on small cube motor can and has caused sampling issues at or just above idle. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this though... Well, besides Joe But yeah, his WOT pulls were just fine

There becomes a point where it just makes more sense to go SD.

So.....I think the problem is that my MAF is older than some of the people posting here. So, us really old guys, we never, like, pulled electronics out of one MAF, and stuck them in bigger housings, or whatever. Ford didn't make any big MAFs, because the Mustang was pretty close to the most powerful FI car they ever made at 245hp. You ordered a MAF with the electronics already in it from Pro-M, and it came with the right sample tube, and the right calibration, and you just bolted it in.

Kurt

 

[Noobz347]

So, us really old guys,

I resemble that remark

 

[John Dirks Jr]

I've read that "theory" too.

From what I've read, the t-bird and Sn95 70mm housing are the same except the t-bird has couplings on both sides, and the SN95 MAF is flanged.

Both electronics are designed for the 70mm housing, and the internals look identical, so in theory swapping the 94-95 sensor (because it's been confirmed to work with the A9L) over to the t-bird/cougar housing should work.

If that works, would it also work to take the stock foxbody maf sensor out of the stock 55mm housing and put it into the Tbird housing?

 

[Mustang5L5]

If that works, would it also work to take the stock foxbody maf sensor out of the stock 55mm housing and put it into the Tbird housing?

No. The sensor is designed to work with a specific diameter housing. If you look on the stock electronics, it will have a number with “55” on it which refers to 55mm housing.

The sn95/tbird electronics have a 70 on the electronics

 

[John Dirks Jr]

No. The sensor is designed to work with a specific diameter housing. If you look on the stock electronics, it will have a number with “55” on it which refers to 55mm housing.

The sn95/tbird electronics have a 70 on the electronics

10-4

 

[Mustang5L5]

For visual.

Stock 55mm. (aFH55 was what I referred to)

Sn95 70 on my car

Now, whether or not sensors can be changed from housing to housing is a different matter. I believe the sensor needs to stay with the ECU but the housing can change across the family (such as sn95 70mm and tbird 70mm) but that’s only a theory

 

[Noobz347]

A lot of us 'old guys' started swapping sensors and housings with the TwEECer. The first thought that comes to mind when I think back to that thing was what a pain in the ass it was.

The second thing that comes to mind about it is that it worked with my SD computer.

I bet that I could write a simple Windows interface for a TwEECer now :

Anyway, back to the housings... That was a 'thing' for a bit until the Lightning meter started popping up everywhere for cheap followed almost immediately by a range extender (made by I can't recall). The LMAF for us small-block PD blower folks, is still one of the best out there for drive-ability topped only by the higher end after-market. It wasn't a CFM giant or anything (neither was the Lightning) but sensors became popular for several applications/housings because they were reliable and accurate.

I finally got fed-up with the TwEECer and begrudgingly converted to mass-air. There was no other real support for the SD computers. It ran fine with the blower but it didn't like the stroker at all.

 

[revhead347]

My MAF is older than TwEECer.

Kurt