|
was my Siemens MAF actually good, and not underreporting as I had believed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by racebmwm3
this is a x5 3.0...
It's (MAF readings in g/s) around 3.5 @700 RPM....
So are you saying the MAF reading should be around 4.37 at idle?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andrewwynn
4.35 is the center of the range.
|
I have a comparison from the day I switched from my stock Siemens MAF, to using the $20 ($23 then) Amazon MAF. First is the Siemens' reading, then the initial reading of the cheap MAF, and a third reading a little later on that day. I didn't zero-out my fuel trims, as I was primarily interested in the MAF readings.
Per JPuma and andrewwynn, the Siemens reading was already pretty good, but the cheap MAF readings were actually a bit high (but that kept the fuel trims from setting lean codes). Since that day, the lowest idle MAF reading I've seen was 4.1 g/s, and the highest was 6.1 g/s. I'm still hunting for a vacuum leak.
__________________
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
|