Thanks, it's just my way.

I hope it does (but are you being facetious?). I think I'm getting positive results, already, on just two run cycles.

Being retired, on a fixed income (with mounting medical expenses for both myself and the wife, and unexpected septic tank repairs, etc. this past week), I would rather have bought another Siemens MAF, like my maybe original from 2001, for $216 at FCPEuro, but deferred it to later. I could've gotten it a bit cheaper at Amazon (or even a Hella @ $72 or Bremi @ $93, both from Rockauto), but those would've been just substitutes at higher prices for the cheaper one that Xchemist had already tried, with success.

I received the MAF in the mail this afternoon, and installed it, and ran two start/run cycles, observing g/s at various speeds, then compared test data from both (at idle) with another test taken months ago.






Not much difference shown, this early-on, but I felt the new MAF reached higher g/s from 1500rpms-WOT, though I failed to capture the proof on my equipment. It does show higher g/s at idle (though temperature differences may have affected the readings), and for the first time ever, the LTFT's fell by themselves (no action by me) while I watched my Foxwell. Perhaps more run cycles on the road will bring the fuel trims nearer normal? and I won't have to keep searching for vacuum leaks, ad infinitum.

__________________
01 BMW X5 E53,3.0i-5L40E, 7/13/01
topas-blau,Leder-grau,"resto-project car"

Here:
14 Lexus ES350,3.5L-U660E
09 HHR Panel,2.2L-4T45E
04 Chevy 2500HD,6.0L-4L80E
98 GMC Sierra 1500,5.7L-4L60E

Gone:
66 Chevelle Malibu 2dr ht.,327>441c.i.-TH350>PGlide/transbrake
08 Cobalt Coupe,2.2L-4T45E
69 & 75 C10s,350c.i.-TH350
86 S10,2.8L-700R4
73 Volvo 142,2.0L-MT4
72 & 73 VW SuperBeetles,1.6l-MT4
64 VW,1.2l-MT4
67 Dodge Monaco 500 2dr ht.,383c.i.-A727
56 Chevy 210 4dr,265c.i.-PGlide