can you use an 87-93 MAF sensor on our cars?

Slow5.0 said:
Thats what i was about to post, we have different color of tubes
1994-1995 Mustang 5.0, 73mm Unit
Std Fuel Injector (GT-19, Cobra-24) Gold Tube (096)
GT 24lb & Cobra 30lb Injectors Orange Tube (097)
GT 30lb & Cobra 38lb Injectors Purple Tube (099)
GT 36/38lb Injectors & Cobra 42lb Injectors Red Tube (103)

its not that 94-95 have different tubes, they just use the tubes in a sequence of fox inector# + ~6-8 for their style maf
so they use smaller tubes. think about this, if fox and 94-95 have equal "sample tubes" in their stock mafs' the stock fox say samples 1/16 of the total air while the 94-95 samples say 1/20. they both put out same voltage which means the 94-95 puts out a higher voltage per "sample tubed" air when electronics are switched to an equal sized maf, the 94-95 will need a SMALLER sample tube to drop the voltage to equal range of the fox. this is what im thinking now -----same!
 
Maybe it will help if you think about these Calibrated Mafs from the manufacturers point of view.

Lets talk about a STOCK Fox & a 94-95 GT for an example.

ProM and C&L both know they have to work with two things that are common and fixed between these two examples for their cheat method (not telling the pcm the truth about the injector size and increased airflow) to work.
1 stock maf transfer
2 stock inj size

ProM uses their own modified electronics for the cal
C&L uses your stock electronics and their sample tube for the cal

The reason the sample tubes are different between the two examples even though each car is using 19lb injectors is due to the differences in the two maf transfers.

Both manufacturers have their own way to lie to the pcm, or cheat their way around the pcm but never the less ..........................

Each one makes a way for us to put larger inj's & mafs on our cars without making changes to the pcm and it works .........................

kinda sorta...sometimes pretty good...sometimes not so good:rlaugh:

The more airflow or larger injector you try to make work with the good ole cheat method the more than likely it ain't gonna work so good.

The most accurate method is to just tell the pcm the truth about your airflow & injector size. And for our cars, that truth is more of a big deal than for the Fox cars due to the fact that our pcm's are load based and the cheat method thing just hoses up the load factors.

btw ...... does this stuff make any sense to ANY of yall:rlaugh:
or
maybe possibly even help anybody:shrug:

From time to time ...... I wonder if I hinder more than I help:rlaugh:

Grady
 
expand on the TRUTH factor. cheating does exponentially decrease the margin of error, because of less acuracy, but how do oyu tell the car the truth. is it one of those sit down birds and bees talks or are you referring to a chip?
 
blk9450 said:
expand on the TRUTH factor. cheating does exponentially decrease the margin of error, because of less acuracy, but how do oyu tell the car the truth. is it one of those sit down birds and bees talks or are you referring to a chip?

:shrug: EXPONENTIALLY:shrug:

Thats a 5 or maybe even a 10 dollar kinda word!

and

I'm only a 1 dollar kinda guy on my very best day:D

Not sure about that big word but ...... the farther you move away from stock maf/inj's the more probs you are gonna have with the load not being like it should be when using that cheat method with our pcm's.

You can tell the pcm the truth about combo changes with a tuning interface such as PMS, EEC Tuner, Tweecer, etc.

Grady
 
walker95svt said:
That post by final50 was out of control. :shock:




(in a good way)

So ...... Tell me then.

Are you saying that info did or did not make sense?

If not, what part about my attempt to explain the maf cal thing did not make sense.

That whole maf deal is kinda hard to get a grasp on IMHO.

Grady