Landtank MAF surprising scangauge results (7 Viewers)

[NLXTACY]

Wow that interesting. I've always had cooing issues but all before the LT MAF. Now that I have the JDM fan I have never had an issue again.

I do not have to do smog til next year BUT when I took my 60 to be smogged my wife was with me with the LX because we were going to get an oil change at the same time. Long line at smog so we both got in the LX and took it down. During the oil change I asked my mechanic if he could stuff in the sniffer into the tailpipe to check the emissions to see if I would pass based on what I had been reading here.

No problems whatsoever. I "passed" so to speak with flying colors. He did warn me that the I would fail physical inspection because of the "missing hose".

So for me, my .5 MPG fuel savings has been consistent and I now can pretty much rely on it. The seat of the pants feel is gone but only because we're now use to it. I'm sure if I put the old one back in I'd be pissed

I did not buy this thinking that Rick had 100% of all the answers for 100% of all the questions. He did his testing on a few vehicles, nothing blew up, everyone was happy, I bought one.

I applaud Rick's efforts and hope he is still working on the next mod. For those that have such an issue with it, either don't get one or build one yourself. Its easy to throw out a million comments after the fact when you weren't there during the 100s of hours it took to even get this point.

 

[Nemo]

If possible I'd like to get the sensor that you have for the housing. I set up a truck with my housing and had miss fires on cylinders 1,3 and 5 with very poor idling. I had another sensor laying around so I swapped that in and for more than 1000 miles the truck has run perfectly and has passed emissions.

I only designed the housing, Toyota supplies the sensor. and is subject to the same issues that any of their sensors are prone to.

edit: if you need another stock sensor I'd be happy to help you out with one.

I can send you the sensor and MAF and you can give it a try to resolve that question.

That bad sensor really didn't come to mind since I bought the sensor brand new and never had any miss fires or poor idling. In fact my idling was good pretty much throughout all of this with no CEL except for when I placed it in my new 40th? Not sure why there yet. Maybe my Fuel injectors are in need of cleaning and it just brought that to the surface.

As of right now based on my O2 sensors going bad in my old LC in less than a year and everything else I chased I will pass on the MAF until I get this fully resolved. So far I haven't had any cooling issues with it out of my old LC and of course with the new truck in play now I don't feel comfortable pushing it so to speak. Summer is right around the corner.

Like I stated I passed emissions as well when "newly" placed in and maybe it just takes a good amount of miles and time to cook the O2 sensors since I was running lean. Do you know how long most waited (a year?, a couple of months?) to get their emissions done and if they did a drive by or a actual rolling test. Colordao lowered their emissions to 15ppm (I think that is the right term) on CO2 emissions and the truck was hitting 23+ ppm prior to placing the stock MAF in and then it was 15.300ppm and after new O2 sensors around 7ppm. I know that CO2 usually indicates a rich condition which goes against my findings but I have to live with the results I have.

Any other thoughts? And thanks for picking this up so quickly. I know your a standup guy and I like your products and enginuity. Lord knows I don't have it.

 

[Nemo]

Wow that interesting. I've always had cooing issues but all before the LT MAF. Now that I have the JDM fan I have never had an issue again.

I do not have to do smog til next year BUT when I took my 60 to be smogged my wife was with me with the LX because we were going to get an oil change at the same time. Long line at smog so we both got in the LX and took it down. During the oil change I asked my mechanic if he could stuff in the sniffer into the tailpipe to check the emissions to see if I would pass based on what I had been reading here.

No problems whatsoever. I "passed" so to speak with flying colors. He did warn me that the I would fail physical inspection because of the "missing hose".

So for me, my .5 MPG fuel savings has been consistent and I now can pretty much rely on it. The seat of the pants feel is gone but only because we're now use to it. I'm sure if I put the old one back in I'd be pissed

I did not buy this thinking that Rick had 100% of all the answers for 100% of all the questions. He did his testing on a few vehicles, nothing blew up, everyone was happy, I bought one.

I applaud Rick's efforts and hope he is still working on the next mod. For those that have such an issue with it, either don't get one or build one yourself. Its easy to throw out a million comments after the fact when you weren't there during the 100s of hours it took to even get this point.

I concur on Rick's efforts. I wouldn't have the know how to do some of the things he has taught us. As far as emissions how many miles did you go on the LT MAF prior to getting the emissions and what was your readings if you know them?

 

[Nemo]

nemo, assuming you installed it all correctly, it sounds like you had a failing and now bad toyota maf sensor in your land tank maf housing. the tip off is the way it performed in your new truck. if you are throwing a code every time you drive your truck right after you install the new maf then obviously the combo of the housing and sensor is not performing the same as it is for other people using the lt maf setup who are not throwing the code. i guess also the maf housing or hose could have a hole in it or a leak on the engine side that is allowing in more air in than it is metering.

if you swapped in another sensor and still get the problem that would be a different story. but based on what you report i doubt that would happen. that said, i would be very interested to get an exhaust gas sniffer test on a lt maf that is not showing any bad symptoms.

by the way, to break this down into hard facts

1) you overheated once on i70 when you slowed to a stop for traffic after a long run at highway speeds. you changed out the landtank maf have not seen that symptom since. that could have been caused by running lean but my comment would be that the same thing has happened with my stock vaf setup at a border lineup on a hot day. hot engine over hot pavement on a hot day with the ac on and no air circulation can create a feedback loop in the engine bay. if you have oversized tires on stock gearing and were running any small hills beforehand this can aggravate the problem because you may have been lugging the engine and making it run even hotter. i highly recommend the raventai temp gauge mod if you don't have one. the solution if that happens again is to pop the hood for a short time. even leaving it propped slightly open makes a big difference.

2) you reinstalled the lt maf to sell it, failed emissions, then failed by less afte tweaking other stuff, then failed by even less when you replaced the maf, then passed with new o2 sensors. again, could be what you say but it could also have been the o2 sensors from the beginning. it would be helpful if you provided the test data from each test.

3) an exhaust gas analyzer said the landtank maf was running consistently lean especially under idle or at idle rpm when coasting. it is not clear whether this was before or after the o2 sensors were swapped but it certainly sounds like a problem with the maf sensor.

4) your o2 sensors could not get you through emissions after less than a year. changing them fixed that. yes running lean can do that. it also may have cooked your cats.

Semlin,
Your always the hard one ;p

No issues were noted on the previous LC I owned so I wouldn't suspect the bad sensor but you never know. See my posting to Rick. I also know for a fact that I had no air getting in after the MAF> I run a tight ship...

I agree with your statements on the hills and what not. I am in Colorado and I don't drive my truck like some do. I run it hard but I take care and fix every little problem that surfaces. Many long nights in the garage and I think I have payed for Slee's lease for the last few years taking care of my baby.

As far as the O2 sensors you are correct but it is hard to state that I just placed new O2 sensors in not long after the MAF and ran for a good while, keeping in mind that I drive 80mph down the road and never give the LC a break. That is what I demand from my trucks and it has always delivered for me. Hence why I love the Landcruiser. And why I was looking for more advantages with the LT MAF.

O2 sensors were placed in afterwards so it could have had some effect. I will grant you that, but my seat of the pants issues prior to this test tells me in my heart differently. (My concious being my heart)

I was worried about the cats but the new owner did pass so should be somewhere close to the clear there, plus they were under warranty so I guess if the next time emissions comes up he can use that and get them replaced for free.

very good observations and I thought those out prior to posting. I never meant to bash but I couldn't not post my experiences. If you search the threads I was one of the guys posting about how great it was. Maybe the MAF sensor went bad after a while for me but MAF sensors don't usually go bad, they start out bad but rarely. Least that is my thoughts.

Thanks

 

[Nemo]

Emission numbers - I found them so I thought I would share. Check the NOX as well

Based on CO emissions these are the passing numbers.
HC: 1.3
CO: 15.0
NoX: 3.0

I mentioned in my previous thread I stated just passed with 15.something but it is below corrected.

Last test which passed after O2 sensors replaced and stock MAF
HC: .1978
CO: 2.9401
NoX: 2.3108

After oil change and running some gas additive
HC: .3873 (1.3) => Pass
CO: 16.0141 (15) => Fail
NoX: 3.23 (3) => Fail

First run with LT MAF
HC .8325 (pass 1.2) => OK
CO 23.2180 (pass 15) => Fail
NOx 3.0536 (pass 3.0)=> Fail

 

[semlin]

nemo, is that an idle test? it totally contradicts your exhaust sniffer results??

high co like that means too much gas or oil. e.g., you were running rich not lean. if you were lean you would have had high hc. i would have checked your pcv valve with those results.

 

[Nemo]

Semlin,
I agree with you here on that. See my NOX levels. This was not an Idle test but on rollers. The CO was high probably due to the O2 sensors more than anything else. If you saw my comments to Rick you would have seen where I stated that if had conflict to my thoughts but my NoX levels were high as well....

 

[Nemo]

CEL question

Just out of curiosity since we seem to focus on my CEL on my 40th to some degree trying to point out that the MAF may be bad. How does a PO171 state that a MAF is bad.

But what really catches me is if I was running a bad non-LC factory MAF since it isn't stock would the ECU be able to flag it as the problem? Or would I be left to try and figure out the variables to what is within spec or not?

I guess I would like to think I would receive a PO100, PO101 if all is good in the LC World.

 

[landtank]

The thing is that the O2 sensors dictate the fuel mixture. The MAF sensor only provides a rough estimate on the air intake and the O2 sensor is what determines the FT% that is used to compensate for the estimate.

In my case I suspect that the sensor was sending erratic info which in turn produced erratic fueling.

I'll PM you my address and let me know the shipping costs.

With the exception of a "no signal" from the MAF it doesn't trigger any faults that I know of.

 

[concretejungle]

great example of Rick standing behind his product.

 

[retrofive]

Ive read and heard quite a bit on this mod (I know Im 94 and cant use it, but like to read). The last 10 or so posts starting with nemo's experience intrigues me. Please follow up with any results

 

[semlin]

Just out of curiosity since we seem to focus on my CEL on my 40th to some degree trying to point out that the MAF may be bad. How does a PO171 state that a MAF is bad.

But what really catches me is if I was running a bad non-LC factory MAF since it isn't stock would the ECU be able to flag it as the problem? Or would I be left to try and figure out the variables to what is within spec or not?

I guess I would like to think I would receive a PO100, PO101 if all is good in the LC World.

by itself i wouldn't necessarily suspect the maf just from that code, but since it triggered as soon as you put the lt maf in, the logical conclusion is that the maf caused it. the maf has the job of accurately reporting air flow to the ecu which could cause a lean issue.

 

[shfd739]

Ill toss out that Im happy so far with mine. Havnt seen any mileage improvements but I admittedly have a lead foot so I may not. I can say that right off my truck idled smoother and has better pickup and throttle response. I drove an '08 FJ Cruiser before this big beast and Im still trying to get used to lack of power comparativley. I will say the LT MAF made a difference power wise.

I dont have emissions testing here in Alabama so I wont know if Im running lean like Nemo until O2 sensors go out or the cat goes out. I drive about 22k miles a year so Ill know in short order if there is a problem. So far I like it and Ill run it till something happens or a check engine light comes on.

 

[sleeoffroad]

The MAF sensor only provides a rough estimate on the air intake and the O2 sensor is what determines the FT% that is used to compensate for the estimate.

Rick, how rough is rough? If that was the case, why would they not allow for more than a 20% fuel trim chance by the O2 sensors?

As far as I know the MAF signal is there to accurately measure the air. Not roughly. O2 sensors are there to calibrate for other variables.

 

[NLXTACY]

I concur on Rick's efforts. I wouldn't have the know how to do some of the things he has taught us. As far as emissions how many miles did you go on the LT MAF prior to getting the emissions and what was your readings if you know them?

I am at about 1300 miles on the MAF so far and to be honest I didn't think about getting readings to getting the print out. I just wanted to make sure it would pass. After seeing what your results are I may stop in again and have do the sniffer with print out just to post up. ....maybe

 

[turbocruiser]

I have been hesitant to post this for a couple of weeks and I am still worried that I will get flamed for my post based on what I have seen so far.

So with that said let me state this. Any attempt to Negate my findings by jumping my credibility due to this post will be ignored. Any serious discussions I will take on since that is what this is for.

Nemo, I would never jump your credibility, and with an honest attempt toward totally serious statements only (per your request and your right) I'll add that I have an aftermarket wideband AF gauge, an aftermarket temperature gauge, have had emissions tests done throughout my time with the LT MAF and I have never had any hot conditions, any lean conditions or any codes anywhere related to the MAF. I have always passed the sniff tests with completely flying colors. I can say with complete certainty that your sensor was bad, not LT's MAF housing. That's All.

 

[Nemo]

The thing is that the O2 sensors dictate the fuel mixture. The MAF sensor only provides a rough estimate on the air intake and the O2 sensor is what determines the FT% that is used to compensate for the estimate.

In my case I suspect that the sensor was sending erratic info which in turn produced erratic fueling.

I'll PM you my address and let me know the shipping costs.

With the exception of a "no signal" from the MAF it doesn't trigger any faults that I know of.

Based on the fact that we can't verify from the Toyota LC that a MAF is bad, how would you determine that the sensor is bad? Except by placing it into another truck which changes the varibles all over board since I am at a greater altitude? This just crossed my mind and was trying to get there with my post earlier.

Thanks

 

[cruiserdan]

Stick another sensor in the housing.

 

[george_tlc]

Had the LT MAF for many months now. Tested for emissions this Jan, CA non-dyno test:

IDLE
CO2 meas 14.8
O2 meas 0.3
HC meas 1 (max allowed 100)
CO meas 0.01 (max allowed 1.00)

2500 RPM
CO2 meas 14.5
O2 meas 0.6
HC meas 1 (max allowed 180)
CO meas 0.00 (max allowed 1.10)

pass and basically no different from previous years with the stock MAF.

cheers,
george.

 

[landtank]

Rick, how rough is rough? If that was the case, why would they not allow for more than a 20% fuel trim chance by the O2 sensors?

As far as I know the MAF signal is there to accurately measure the air. Not roughly. O2 sensors are there to calibrate for other variables.

Not even going to bother with this.