|
Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring.... |
Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management |
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
The math only works correctly if the fuel pressure is 50.0 psi from my understanding. I think all non diesel e53 use that same baseline pressure. The e53 doesn't meausure fuel pressure it just assumes it's correct. You said the pressure measured high but was that just at idle? What's the fuel pressure under load? Low fuel pressure will give the same results as MAF reporting low air or unmetered air leak. It also may affect one bank before the other since the fuel is supplied on one end. Did you mention which engine? I missed that important detail. In my experience the fuel pressure will be rock stable at idle and dip a little under throttle but stay at the slightly lower pressure not shake. Any flutter in the needle means FPR not regulating correctly.
__________________
2011 E70 • N55 (me) 2012 E70 • N63 (wife) |
Sponsored Links | |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It's around 3.5 @700 RPM
__________________
2005 X5 3.0 6-spd. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is the 3.0 engine.
__________________
2005 X5 3.0 6-spd. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
P0171 P0174 Check Engine Light CEL
Theory; MAF reading low:
This should mean that the O₂ sensors will add an equivalent percent of fuel to make up for the error. STFT ≈20% 3.5 MAF times 1.2*3.4=4.08 Add 7% long term 4.08*1.07=4.366 4.37 is right in line with a baseline error free engine. Prime suspect: MAF. You can get a $20 test case off Amazon I would buy a Siemens OE MAF once I was convinced. (FYI; when my m54 was about 190,000 miles I did just that when my fuel trims were climbing steadily over time) Not sure if airflow readings are affected but I would def check the condition of the air intake filter.
__________________
2011 E70 • N55 (me) 2012 E70 • N63 (wife) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
2005 X5 3.0 6-spd. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
JPuma did the measurement and yep. 4.35 is the center of the range.
__________________
2011 E70 • N55 (me) 2012 E70 • N63 (wife) |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
This was a recent discovery for me. I had a bad maf wire for a long while. tried two MAF's to no avail. my problem was intermittent but didn't notice until I started monitoring airflow. Finally replaced the wire and its been stable since. I may have killed my Cat's because of this.
__________________
2001 BMW X5 3.0i E53 |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Cats can recover somewhat if just abused
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
2011 E70 • N55 (me) 2012 E70 • N63 (wife) |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
was my Siemens MAF actually good, and not underreporting as I had believed?
Quote:
Quote:
![]() 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-Montana grau 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, 327>427c.i., TH350>PGlide/transbrake 08 Cobalt Coupe 2.2L, 4T45E 69 & 75 C10s, 350c.i., TH350 86 S10, 2.8l V6, 700R4 73 Volvo 142 2.0l, man4 73 VW SuperBeetle 1.6l, man4 64 VW 1.2l, man.4 67 Dodge Monaco 500 2dr, 383 c.i., A727 56 Chevy 210 4dr, 265 c.i., PG |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
That sounds promising.
__________________
2001 BMW X5 3.0i E53 |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
|