you can use a maf housing from a sn95 mustang. They are 70mm from the factory. You'll just need an adapter.

 

Oh perfect! It will function properly??

Sent from my DROIDX using AutoGuide.Com Free App

 

The 70mm sn95 air meter has a big center divider in the middle.

I doubt it flows a hell of a lot more air than the stock 55mm because of that divider.
Wonder if anyone has flow tested the 2?

 

Could it be cut out??

Sent from my DROIDX using AutoGuide.Com Free App

 

The t-bird 3.8 sc maf is a direct bolt-in 70mm unit. It's nearly identical to the 93 cobra maf and flows considerably better than the 55mm unit. I've seen them sell for around 50-75 bucks with the matching sensor. You will need the whole sensor and housing together - the 55mm sensor will not work right in the 70mm housing.

 

What year tbird?

Sent from my DROIDX using AutoGuide.Com Free App

 

Any supercharged 3.8l thunderbird or cougar will have this maf. I believe the years are 91-95

 

I had a 70mm MAF off a 95 4.6 T-bird and it was good for a tenth in the 1/8th mile when my car was mostly stock.

 

OK cool, so another good option.... Ill look into those!

 

Guys, before swapping MAFs, you need to be certain that the MAF transfer curve for each particular unit is correct. If not, you can have issues.

I know for a fact that the curve for the 94-95 models is usable on the fox body cars. Curve is almost identical.

The 93 Cobra MAF has a signicantly different curve and may lead to undesirable drivability issues with a regular 5.0.

My fuzzy memory doesn't recall the MAF transfer curves for the other MAFs mentioned, but you should be leary of using them without all the facts. You CAN cause a lean condition with an unknown MAF and have engine damage, even if it runs "just fine" at start up and idle.

And, for SURE use the sensor and the housing from the MAF. DON'T mis and match sensors/housings.

 

I know for a fact that the curve for the 94-95 models is usable on the fox body cars. Curve is almost identical.

The 93 Cobra MAF has a signicantly different curve and may lead to undesirable drivability issues with a regular 5.0.

And, for SURE use the sensor and the housing from the MAF. DON'T mis and match sensors/housings.

That's why I said "nearly" identical. I know the electronics are different for the cobras. The 94-95 sc tbird mafs have virtually the same curve as the 55mm mafs and work well if used with 19lb injectors. My other engine setup ran a little lean with the large cone filter on the 70mm housing, so I modified the plate covering the sampling tube a little to get the afr back where I wanted it.

 

Very good - just wanted the OP and any others who read the thread to know that swapping MAFs around can cause issues if you don't know what you are doing.

Wasn't sure if your "nearly" identical statement related to physical size, electronics, construction, etc. Better safe than sorry.

 

Yes - sorry, I was not very clear on my comparison. My experiences with the 91-93 sensor was similar, but I wasn't sure if I got a sensor/housing that was slightly off spec or if it was in fact physically different. At least the part numbers on the electronics were the same as the 94-95. The 4.6 housings have different electronics on them, so we can probably say they have a different curve. BTW, It's amazing how much difference the type and location of air filter can change the curve on a given sensor. I heard that ford used the plate on the sampling tube to get a more accurate reading in the lower airflow range, but it does restrict the airflow a bit.

 

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help. I am familiar with the way the system works, I just wanted to know if anyone had the quick answer as to which ones will work. Again thanks! I think I'll stick with the 94-95 MAF for an upgrade unless my buddy will sell me his 75mm Pro-M for cheap! HE MIGHT!

 

Now I just need a cheap TB! Any Ideas?

 

Any ideas on a TB now? I was wondering if the bigger one from the 4.6l engines will work if I made an adapter plate? Is the TPS the same volt sweep? I have a Lathe and Mill so I can make most anything I need to adapt it... Just need it cheap! LOL!

 

Find yourself a 65mm explorer tb and convert the linkage. It's very easy to do.

 

OK so they will bolt right up? Cool! I'm on it! What year and engine is it?

 

I always thought a 73mm c&L works great with an almost stock engine and can be had for cheap.Others will certainly differ.

 

73 C&L is cheap. A stock 70mm from a SN95 including the 3.8 cars works. I used a 93 Cobra meter but some people had issues with it due to the difference in transfer function. I ran it on my car NA and SC'ed and ran 13.80@100 with stock motor and stock gears, then 12.77@111 with a SC added. I could post up the different MAF transfers. The 93 Cobra is close to the C&L as most aftermarket MAF lean the mixture out. That is where they gain most of the HP.

I used a 70mm from a Super Coupe on a 90 GT with h/c/i and tuned it, it ran better with that than the PMAS 75mm.

 

73 C&L is cheap.

Well, *IMHO*, I agree that all C&L MAFs are "c**p".

To use a 70mm 94/95 Mustang GT MAF on a Fox Mustang 5.0 (except a 93 Cobra), use an adapter:
Ford MAF Adapters - Air Filters - Kurtz Kustomz Motorsports, Inc. KKM

For all practical purposes, it's the same curve as the Fox GT curve. But, with "no/minimal" restriction up to ~350 RWHP, and with more accurate sensing.

To see the Fox MAF, LMAF (requires a chip), and 94/95 MAFs, see below:
http://www.veryuseful.com/mustang/tech/tmp/mafs-fox-LMAF-94.jpg

I've gone over the advantages and trade-offs of the different MAF designs many times before.

 

yes , use the explorer t.b. i bought mine for $35 on the classifieds heere. There is a write up on the linkage fix. very easy. I cleaned up(smoothed) the inside of the tb and installed it. direct cheao up grade. I guess almost and explorer/mountanier with a 5.0. Mine was a 96,7 or 98 i believe.

 

Mass Airflow Meters: Meter----Size----FlowRate@28in
Stock----58mm----606cf
Cobra----70mm----815cfm
ProM----Bullet---964cfm
C&L------73mm----1171cfm
C&L------80mm----1415cfm
Ford-----80mm----1017cfm
ProM-----83mm----1598cfm

Sent from a phone down by the river

 

Yes it may flow that much but remember, CFM ratings on the intake/throttle blade/carburetor area are usually rated at 1.5" of water if i remember my studies at S.A.M. correctly, so you would see at that little pull on the flowbench it would do considerably less and that is why most of the time bigger is better when it comes to EFI intake parts. Great comparative info there though! Thanks for the numbers..

Sent from my DROIDX using AutoGuide.Com Free App

 

I have 2 mafs, pn#
F2VF-12B579-AA AFH70-04 1E15 (93 TOWN CAR 4.6)

AND

F2VF-12B579-AA AFH70-04 2M03 (96 3.8 MUSTANG)

will they are will they not work. Information online is so hit or miss. I've tried the second one and it missed under any throttle and would idle fine. 14.5 AFR idle and under wide open throttle 15.5. The first one ran fine but would die when ever i tried to stop. Does the AA, A1A, and the A2A matter that much? Attached is one of the websites i got the info from.

what size is the maf from a town car | Mustang Forums at StangNet

 

Sensor #1 is probably bad. Sensor #2 probably didn't get fully "learned" by the ecm yet. It would be a good idea to clean the sensor off first just to rule out contamination. That sensor part number will work, but you need to tweak the sampling tube cover a little to get it richer (this is out of a 4 bolt flanged style housing, right?)

The better sensor to run in that housing would be the F4SF-12B579-AA(A1A,A2A). The older F1SF-12B579 is the early cobra sensor - despite all the info floating around about how it's the same as the SC t bird unit, it has a different response curve. It will make the car run a little richer than with the stock sensor/55mm housing. My car had the F4SF sensor in the 70mm housing and it ran great, but I did have to play with the cover plate a little to get the wot a/f to 13.0:1. The type of air filter you use will surprisingly play a significant role in what a/f ratios you end up with.

 

I thought the F4V was 80mm and F2V was 70mm.

Anyway, I am interested in the effect of the sampling tube in the housings with regard to airflow restriction. Is there a better housing without the tube or is the restriction negligible?

Also, not too happy about the square flange on the housing. Doesn't really play nice with my cone filter.

 

I got my 70mm out of a cougar with a 4.6, i did some measurments of the factory sample tube and compared it to the 94-95 70mm and they are exactly the same. So what i did was take the cougar 4.6 electronics out and threw it as far as i could, then i took out the 94-95 maf electronics meter and bolted it into the 4.6 cougar meter, only because it was a direct bolt in and looked factory on my 93 Mustang. From what i could tell without having a data logger and just sotp was the 70mm upgrade was pretty sweet, it had better throttle response and idle qualities then the 55mm. I used to have a 75mm pro bullet as well and the bullet definatly made my car run leaner as i could hear it in my exhaust, with the bullet the odd time i could hear my car ping even when i dropped timing to a degree where i had no power, when i put back my 70mm maf in, it never pinged again and i was able to bump my timing back up to 14, and when i took it out for a hard run the car would pull HARD and smooth right up to rev limiter and i liked that. Then when my computer started to learn everything after about a day of driving it felt like i lost a bit of power, ive always knoticed that tho, when resetting KAM then go drive around it felt like i had awesome power until the car learned its fuel trims and what not then it felt like it lost a bit of power. Im not blaming MAF either lol, it was like that with all the 3 MAF i had. 70mm was best one, untill i get a quarterhorse i will be hunting down a lightning MAF.

 

Pulled mine of a 1994 4.6 Thunderbird non SC.

I took some measurements to compare effective opening surface area of a 55mm w/ no sampling tube vs a 70mm w/ sampling tube.

70mm w/ out sampling tube: area = 3848 mm2
70mm sampling tube (calculated it is a rectangle 8x70mm): area = 560 mm2
70mm w/ sampling tube: unobstructed area = 3288 mm2

55mm area= 2375 mm2

I am just fine with the sampling tube since it essentially makes the opening equivalent to 65mm which is almost the same as the 65mm Explorer TB I am going to use so there is no restriction in flow as far as those components are concerned. Plus, everything I read about removing the tube pointed to it being a BIG NO NO!

Going to end up cutting the square part of the flange off and hope that my cone filter fits well on what remains.

 

Pulled mine of a 1994 4.6 Thunderbird non SC.

I took some measurements to compare effective opening surface area of a 55mm w/ no sampling tube vs a 70mm w/ sampling tube.

70mm w/ out sampling tube: area = 3848 mm2
70mm sampling tube (calculated it is a rectangle 8x70mm): area = 560 mm2
70mm w/ sampling tube: unobstructed area = 3288 mm2

55mm area= 2375 mm2

Good job! I've been meaning to do that very test for a long time. Thanks for saving me the work.

I hope you guys understand that it's the transfer function of the MAF that really matters. And about the only way to know that transfer function is to either flowbench test a MAF, or to look in the tuning software for the vehicle that MAF belongs to.

There are some that are very close, such as the 89-93 and 94-95 Mustangs. Those are pretty close, and should work. Others are way off. I can tell you that just about every 4.6 MAF I've seen has a transfer function that hits 5v at around 44.5 lbs/minute. The stock 5.0L MAFs peg 5v at around 35 - 36 lbs/minute.

Also noteworthy, each lb per minute of airflow is likely to support about 10 HP. So if a MAF "pegs" 5v at 36 lb/min, it will likely support about 360 gross FWHP. However, there's another problem here. The stock MAFs on some calibrations are limited to 4.79 volts in the tune, which is 31.48 lb/min (stock Fox MAF). So without tuning, or a calibrated MAF, that's still the upper limit for airflow, so the HP limitation for a 55mm MAF is about 300 - 310 FWHP.

The MAF sensor should NEVER be swapped to a different housing, unless you are going to flow or dyno tune the MAF transfer function.

4.6 MAFs should never be used on a 5.0L motor unless you're dyno tuning the car, or building a custom chip that can accomodate those changes.

Now if you're going to the dyno and want a cheap reliable MAF upgrade, the 4.6 MAFs are dirt cheap, and can support over 400HP electronically. And their 80mm housing (despite the big bar in the middle of them) probably flows enough CFM to get the job done.

Aftermarket MAFs like C&L (which I use all the time in mail order chips) benefit airflow considerably because they don't have that divider bar in the middle. However, Ford used that bar to prevent backflow thru the MAF, so there may be some perceived benefit to keeping this divider.

You should also realize that the O2 sensors generally can "fix" any tune inaccuracy up to 25% richer or leaner than stoich, at idle and part throttle. 12% for Fox bodies. That's a pretty big margin, so chances are unless you are WAY off on the MAF, the car will "learn" how to drive and idle right eventually. BUT... and this is a big one... adaptive learning does not 100% apply to WOT. The narrowband O2 sensors don't work at richer air/fuel ratios, so they cannot monitor or correct for WOT.

At best, they learn at half throttle, middle RPMs, and apply those learned corrections to full throttle. That in itself is a bad idea that gets turned off when we tune. Moral of story: car can run and drive great, and still be lean as hell at WOT. Don't trust the car just because it runs good. The only way to truly know is with a wideband air/fuel ratio meter.