MAF f!#&in' sucks!
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (16)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: Farmingville, New York
MAF f!#&in' sucks! I got my VE table all dialed in via SD mode and have been running in SD for some time, but now it's inspection time. I reset the fail frequency to 13500 and for laughs I logged my trims w/ it functioning. Holy crap! It threw everything way off. I'm at between -10 and -12 in the low RPM range and I'm +7 in every cell in the upper range. This thing sucks! Is there any way to delete the sensor from the computer and still have the computer perform the readiness tests for inspection purposes? If not; does anyone have a MAF table that might work a bit better for me? I'd prefer the former solution, but if I can get the MAF right I'm not opposed to keeping it. Thanks!
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (16)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: Farmingville, New York
The computer goes through a series of system readiness checks each time it's started, when the computer throws a code these tests come up incomplete. Even if you clear the code the computer takes quite a few driving cycles (hot/cold starts) before it will complete all of the tests. This prevents you from just clearing a code before you go to get inspected. If the readiness tests are not completed in the PCM the car will fail (new OBD II inspection). Therefore, you must have the MAF hooked up and functioning or deleted all together or the car will not pass inspection. Here in New York we get inspected once a year, so it becomes a p.i.t.a.
Maybe one of you will know this then.
Could you not hook your MAF back up, but then zero the entire MAF table so it would have no effect?
If that's possible it may be a simple answer to your inspection since the MAF itself should throw no code. I guess it depends on exactly how the PCM is testing the MAF, but I wouldn't think it would be that complex of an issue.
Could you not hook your MAF back up, but then zero the entire MAF table so it would have no effect?
If that's possible it may be a simple answer to your inspection since the MAF itself should throw no code. I guess it depends on exactly how the PCM is testing the MAF, but I wouldn't think it would be that complex of an issue.
