PS I will be bench flow testing and compairing the sensors signals to stock signals be fore mounting to engine.
hmm could make a for a cool magazine shot after I Turbo my lancer, if I make a one off custom job. sigh soo many ideas not enough time


Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison

 

Well, I'm not a big fan of FPR, unless forced induction or trying to push NA beyond 300 HP on the 4g94. Any AFC should be good enough to correct A/F mixture.

Bigger TB is only good if you port match the intake manifold.

Also, I made no mention messing with the honeycomb. I leave that to the 2g GSX/GS-T drivers. They have more room to pull the two sides and bottom honeycombs and tuning it till their heart's content (not mess w/ the center honeycomb).

Rock,
How can the Evo use the same MAF from the US spec Lancer and the 1.8L mirage? It doesn't make sense.

Mitsu's conservative motor like the 4g9x series use the smaller MAF while the bigger NA 2.4L and 3.0L 6g72 use the slightly bigger MAF. Don't know about 6g74 = Diamante's 3.5L.

Do you have the model # of the Evo's MAF? That's the only way to get correct info that I can think of w/o guesswork.

I should expect the Evo's famed 4g63T use the updated MAF off the 2g GSX or GS-T.

 

I have checked the net for Evo motor w/ pics of the MAF, but they are all blurry or not at all in the shot.

www.myevo.com has a great detailed pic, but the owner turned his MAF upside down.

http://www.terato.com/cars/Cararchiv...2/DSC00312.JPG
This is the close as I get . . . I can't see squat what's its MAF model #.

 

Check out this page at the RPW site. I think they may be just useing 4g93 parts on the 2002 lancers but it looks like they have a good idea of what they are doing. note particularly paragraphs # 3,4,7 & 8...! cam, 4 into 1 headers, talk about opening up the maf with a piggy back.... http://www.rpw.com.au/New%20Website/...U200/VU216.htm HMMMMM

 

The E-manage will allow you to swap Mass Air flow sensors of diffrent sizes and makes as long as you retain the same type. if your intrested in this unit I can help you. I install a ton of them on customers cars.

Jeff

 

Heh, see?

Don't ask, "how can" just accept that "it does". Road Race has had access to both EVO VIIs and Lancers.

Why doesn't it make sense? I already said before that there is a restrictor plate in the MAF that sizes it down for use in the Lancer. That is now corroborated by ROCK.

The measured air flow is thus of smaller cross-sectional area and will not out-flow or under-flow an EVO-sized MAF. It is simply a matter of calibration.

 

I'm not really doubting the tech stuff from RRE. I just can't take tech info out of hand w/o solid evidence to support so.

I was also informed that Evo has to be restricted a bit because of WRC rules. As for the truth, I don't know . . . it may be the cause to use NA MAF. I have no rule book . . .

 

ok ... I hear you guys saying that with a new fuel pump your engine will run richer. not unless your ecm sees a lean signal from the o2. you can boost the fuel pressure all you want the ecm will just reduce the pulse width to keep the o2 in spec. until it hits its limit then it will trip the cel.( self adaptation at limit, a typical failed maf code) am I wrong or will the only time higher fuel press, larger injectors ... have an effect is when those systems are at their limits which is far beyond stock. For example when you turbocharge or supercharge an engine. Not with just a cai and exaust. if you have a larger maf higher fp will not make a differance unless you change the signal

 

With those mods, it's a requirement to have some sort of AFC unit.

W/o it, a CE light will come, because the ECU can't compensate properly, beyond factory, conservative, performance specs.


The only exception at the early stages of my mods were the 2g GSX FP along w/ I/E. Cruising spd, the GSX FP ran fine, but at WOT it ran constantly rich. Ecu just couldn't compensate.

 

I have a CM5A 4wd 1800 GSR with the 4G93 turbo engine. I just bought a 4G63 Turbo engine from a Japanese Spec Evolution 7 for an upgrade. I compared BOTH MAFs today. There is an noticeable difference. The opening of the 4G93 unit is almost (not quite) small enough to fit in the opening of the Evo 7 unit.

Don't have the different model numbers at home, but can post info tomorrow if you like.

 

Not to go off topic, but if anyone is willing to do some MAF mods and is a little worried about modding thier own, I have one for sale. It's $260 from the dealer, but I'll let this one go for a lot less.

 

rhyzin has done this, and the gains were incredible for him i think, more the 10hp or something like that, i wanted to do it, but i am skared of using the Safc, so if u want more information search on this or contact rhyzin, or even bahamut, i think he has done it too.

 

I have done this mod too 2g 609 maf if you remove the center honeycomb the car will stall when you come to a stop at a light. Tried it, with the honeycomb in perfect no problems also running e-manage.

 

http://www.mirageforums.net/phpBB2/v...t=maf&start=25

Here are some MAF info/pics of past Evo and the G92. One day, I'll get all the info 100% correctly. There are so many to sort out from the US to pacific rim.

Nix,
That would be great if you could get the MAF # for the true 4g93T.


The honeycomb is needed to straighten the air out. W/o it, at idle, air is swirling like crazy, and the sensors can't accurately read it.

 

At the cost of sounding silly, is there any MAF that is so easy to hook up and so much wider that it's really worth doing? Otherwise, why not just go the speed/density route if you've got to use a piggyback/standalone anyway?

Granted you'd need more sensors, but with MAP the sky is the limit. 5" intake piping? You got it!