bad idea. You do not swap sensors from housing to housing. The sensors are specific to the housing. Swapping the electonics from a 70MM to a 58MM o vice versa housing is not correct. They are not calibrated for the differerent diameter housing.
I bought a reman 93 Cobra MAF (70 mm, direct fit replacement) & housing from the local auto parts store and installed my stock sensor in it.
The stock housings have the bar that runs through the middle of the housing. My understanding is this bar is to cancel out back-pressure spikes at the sensor that can cause false readings. If you can find one with this feature, it is better than running a housing that doesnt have it.
Let me ask a dumb question.
Is that different than putting the stock sensor of a earlier car in a 1994 mustang housing?
Its the exact same thing if I'm not mistaken?
Don't want to argue with you or Mike. You guys help people way more than I do.
I hear what you're points are.
Hey bro I have a used 75mm Pro-Flow (Pro-M) MAF calibrated for 19# injectors that's been sitting on my work bench in a box for nearly 2 years. I don't need it since I have a microsquirt ECU for tuning which is speed density. PM me if interested.I imagine the sensor is calibrated for the housing size
Sorry- missed the part in the video where it shows the A/F meter and 11:1 . It's your car and obviously you want to try and make a point, but pllease don't give out bad advice.
As explained, the EEC is what is calibrated to the Injectors on stock Ford MAF's. The MAF meter has a sensor in it and the EEC reads the ratio of the inside diameter of the meter. to help the EEC calculate things like fuel curves. If you put a sensor into a larger/smaller meter then you throw off the calculations the EEC is going to read. Take for instance.......... the 1993 Cobra, it runs 24 Lb Injectors and it uses a different EEC(X3Z) vs the stock 1993 GT with 19lb injectors and a EEC (A9L/P). The inside diameter of a 1994 GTor 93 Cobra is 70MM MAF housing and a 1993GT is 58MM MAF housing-tell me how the electronics calibrated for one size works in the other again? You have to be careful not to peg the voltage that the EEC reads from the MAF.
Here is some additional reading on MAF theory
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/583.shtml
I'm out...
The MAF housing on the left in your example looks a lot like the one used on the 93 Cobra. Back in the day, I used to cut that center part out of the housing to allow it to flow more air. The end result was a slight leaning out of the air/fuel mixture and an increase in HP. This was only done in N/A applications and seemed to work quite well at the time. Considering that in 1996 there was not a whole lot of options out there, outside of Pro-M and C&L from what I recall.I addition to ^this^:
I think that the thing that a lot of folks forget is that a Mass Air Sensor takes only a SAMPLE of the air that is flowing through the housing. Let's take this one for instance:
Let's assume that these two hosings (for the purpose of discussion) are exactly the same size and say that they are each 70mm housings.
Let's also assume for this discussion, that they flow the same CFM under identical circumstances.
Each of these housings sample air passing though it, at a different location. The one on the left has an obvious sample port and is designed and tuned to calculate (the best that it can), the total air volume passing through it as a formula of the whole.
Now the one on the right has the sample port in a different location. Air movement through this housing is going to differ from air movement for the housing on the left. As a result, a different calculation is used to determine the total volume of air passing though it.
What happens if we just swap the sensors on these two housings?
The answer is that the each of them is going to be less accurate because it is not sitting within the housing that it was designed and tuned for.
As JR and Mike have illustrated, the sensors themselves are designed to provide a specific output for a specific volume of air that passes over the sensor. This volume of air is 'calculated' to be an accurate representation of the total mass of air (versus being an actual calculation of the total mass of air).
Changing even the pattern of air as it passes over the sample port, can provide you with some erratic results. If you've ever had to re-clock a MAF because of some sillyness, then you know what I'm taking about. Swapping sensors into NEW/DIFFERENT housings is problematic when trying to uses these kinds of "assemblies" with an OEM EEC.
Aftermarket and/or standalone units are slightly different. They can look at input from many sensors and re-calculate the transfer function of an unknown MAF. Some do it better than others. OEM computers are not designed to compensate for this specifically but can adjust within a tolerance of roughly 20% (that's 10% above and below the base line). That's not very much. It's enough to allow for slight variations in assembly tolerances. Most stock vehicles are generally into and make use of about 5% of the available adjustment just because of differences in pump gas alone. For simplicity, I'll leave engine condition out of this scenario.
Now consider for a moment, that you've discovered a an assembly and sensor that is dead on at idle but varies ever so slightly as air-flow increases. At the top of your transfer function (before you get into the WOT fuel table), your sensor output is going to be either above or below expected output as volume increases. Exactly how much depends on the sensor/housing combo. The point in this event, is whether or not the output signal is still within that +/- 10% of the adaptive strategy.
You really want to screw things up? Use replaceable sample tubes. Their primary function is to cause aggravation and thoughts of suicide. Why? Because small changes in airflow can have large effects when you are 'sampling' and not measuring the total volume of air.
Thanks again everyone. Just an update I did the 70mm MAF and found an eBay adapter for cheap that worked great. Nice inexpensive upgrade. It didn't make a huge difference but I can feel a slight difference which is to be expected and is money well spent
Thanks guys!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anyone use the 75 mm pro flow setup?I got one on mine, seems like the idle is a little choppy since I installed it. Got it for $40 so I couldn't pass it up.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?