obsolete

LOL, lighten up! Johnny is just making a joke about some people's attitudes...

Wow, awesome. GLWS.

Just order from an online parts dealer who won't make it so difficult for you to give them your money.

^^^ Cannot disprove.

1G MAFs are not rare. You can pick them regularly on here for $40 or less.

Like factory...perfect. I hope I can achieve that on my car. Great job so far, looking forward to what you have coming up.

http://i.imgur.com/dJtcF.gif

Cool. I've done gaskets like that before on other cars...gotta wait for the RTV to set up. I've only given it 15 minutes or so on cork/paper gaskets, and that worked fine, but I'll wait longer if I end up redoing the oil pan.

Thanks guys, very helpful. I'm killing leaks one at a time, but if the oil pan is still getting wet, I'll pull it and see if there's a real gasket in there.

...how important are they? There was no gasket on my '87 manual trans pan, just black silicone RTV. When I put the pan back on, I used black RTV as well. Now I'm looking at the parts locator manual, and I see there should have been a gasket there. Makes me wonder if there's a gasket on my oil pan, or just RTV there too. Do these seal okay with just RTV? Is black "maximum oil resistance" the best, or is something like blue "gasket maker" better?

Thanks!

Hey, that's really good info. Thanks.

Stay away. Nothing to gain, much to lose.

Free bump. Any more info on the FPR? Is it rising rate or 1:1? What's the adjustment range?

I was looking the other day, and they actually fixed that. They still stock the part, but the Conquest/Starion is no longer in the interchange.

Okay. I have no firsthand experience, but I think your tune is going to drift. Florida is pretty flat and temperate, so who knows, you might be fine. Please report back when you get it running and let us know how it goes.

Good idea. Here: http://www.starquest...howtopic=135096

DNJ VC101G valve cover gasket kit for the 2.6 at RockAuto: http://www.rockauto.com/info/RockProducts/VC101G.jpg The little guy looks surprised and scared!

Well, how does it run? How much fuel did you end up adding for the 2G over the stocker? I bought a MAFT Gen 2 was planning to use a GM MAF, but now I'm leaning toward a 2G, 3G, or other newer Mitsu MAF because I'd like to keep my IAT and baro.

Okay, I kept researching, and learned that what I was planning on doing (and what it looks like Dan is planning on as well) is wrong. You can't use anything but the fixed IAT and baro setpoints that the MAFT outputs to the Mitsu ECU if you want it to work "correctly". This has to do with the fundamental difference in how the Mitsu MAF and GM MAF measure air, and knowing the relationships between temperature, pressure, mass, and volume. http://i48.tinypic.com/2nu0heg.jpg The Mitsu MAF isn't really a mass airflow sensor. It doesn't measure the mass of the air flowing through it. What it does is measure the volume of air flowing through it. A given volume of air can have a different mass (and a proportionally different amount of oxygen) depending on its temperature and pressure. As most of us already know, a given volume of cold air at low altitude has more mass, and contains more oxygen than the same volume of warm air at high altitude. Since the amount of fuel the ECU commands from the injectors must directly correspond to the amount of oxygen in the air, the ECU needs to know the mass of the air, not just the volume. So, to calculate the mass, it needs three things: the volume, the pressure, and the temperature. That's why a Mitsu MAF is actually 3 sensors in one: a Karman vortex sensor delivers the volume, a baro sensor delivers the pressure, and an IAT sensor delivers the temperature. The GM MAF actually measures mass airflow. As the density and temperature of outside air change, the mass airflow reading of the GM MAF changes proportionally. Great technology, right? Just input that to our ECU and we're done. Well, not exactly. Our ECU still expects three parameters from which to calculate mass airflow. So, in order for it to work, we need to give it all three: volume airflow, baro and IAT. The problem is, we no longer have a volume airflow reading, we have a mass airflow reading. So, by setting the baro and IAT readings to known constants, we can effectively eliminate them from the airflow calculation. That's the simplest way to do it, and that's how the MAFT works. If instead, you gave the ECU the real IAT and baro from actual sensors, it would double-compensate, which would make the car hard to tune consistently and very sensitive to weather and altitude changes. The airflow calculation with a MAFT, as many of you have experienced, is very accurate, but the unfortunate side effect is that your ECU now thinks you're always at sea level at 80F. So, anything else that the ECU uses temperature and pressure for, besides just airflow calculation, is going to be wrong. What are those things? Probably not much on a simple old computer like ours. The only thing I could find in the FSM is that above 3,937ft altitude, the computer advances ignition timing by ~5 deg. That doesn't really mean much to those of us who spend most of our time east of the Rockies. Hope this was helpful.

Update: I did some research on Mitsu & GM sensors and here's what I found. According to my '87 FSM, here are the specs for the Mitsu baro sensor: 101 kPa (14.7 psi) = 4 V (sea level) 88 kPa (12.8 psi) = 3.5 V (~3800 feet above sea level) According to my '87 FSM, here are the specs for the Mitsu IAT sensor: 20 C (68 F) = 2.7 kΩ Unfortunately, they only specify that one point. According to the internet, here are the specs for a GM baro (or 1-bar MAP) sensor: 100 Kpa = 4.9V 90 Kpa = 4.4V 80 Kpa = 3.8V etc. Sources: http://www.diy-efi.o...fo/sensors.html http://www.robiether...m/mapsensor.htm According to the internet, here are the specs for a GM IAT sensor: 20 C (68 F) = 3.457 kΩ 25 C (77 F) = 2.752 kΩ 30 C (86 F) = 2.205 kΩ Sources: http://www.diy-efi.o...fo/sensors.html http://www.bmotorspo...products_id/400 As you can see, neither GM sensor matches the Mitsu specs. Good news if you like to solder things (which I do), here's an absolute pressure sensor that appears to match Mitsu's spec: MPXA6115A, MPXH6115A Series $9.66 at Digi-Key. Still looking for an IAT that will work--maybe just gutting a junk/spare Mitsu MAF is the best way to get one. In fact, I have a spare MAF around here--maybe I can do some testing with it and get enough data to find an aftermarket IAT replacement.

Hey, great write-up. This is exactly what I was thinking of doing with my MAFT Gen2--using actual sensors instead of just feeding the ECU fixed (wrong) values from the Gen2's aux outputs. I think this is the right way to do it. Edit: Turns out I was wrong, see post #8. I'm assuming you used the standard GM 1-bar MAP and IAT sensors? There are some specs in the FSM regarding what the stock Mitsu IAT and baro sensors should output at certain temperature/altitude. Have you done some research to verify that the GM sensors have compatible outputs? That's something I still need to look into.

Thanks again. I have an "85mm" Delphi MAF (5-pin, built-in IAT) from a 5.3L Chevy truck. Currently set up to draw though. If I ever go blow-through, I was thinking I would want to change to the 3" MAF to minimize the difference in diameter from the charge pipe.

Thanks Brian. I don't need a MAF, I already have a few around.

Oh, that's not expensive... Glad to hear you're feeling better, get well soon man!