What MASS AIR SENSOR can be used on 94-95 SC other than stock (Electronics--Mustang.)

lube70

Registered User
I am trying to see what might be a MAF sensor problem. I wanted to change the MAF and the 94-95 SC one is BIG BUCKS!!!!

What other years fit the 94-95 SC. I know that the 89-93 Mustang MAF will work on the 89-93 SC's.

Any vehicles compatible???

Thanks,


Don
 
JESUS!!!!!..

Don man you can do a search!....Any SC meter will work and any fox body stang with stock size injectors will work...To make it easy for ya/ There are many other applications but start there as those are easiect to find.


I still havnt tried anothe rmAF to seeif my hesiation is a MAF problem or not''Good luck
 
Actually the 94-95 SC processor runs on a different frequency than the 89-93's meaning that the MAF sensor is different. An early model sensor on a 94/95 will change the AF ratio.
 
Thanks Dave!!!!!!

Damon, I did a search and found no answers to this question. That's why I posed it here.

Dave is correct and I'm gonna try to clean the MAF wires.


Don
 
Damon, I don't know why you always have to argue. If I'm wrong about something I would appreciate if you could tell me why I'm wrong rather than just make argumentative comments.

Please look at the following transfer functions and tell me how you figure that they are the same.

transfer%20funct.jpg


One if from a 93 SC and one is from a 94 SC. We already know that the meter housings are the same, so perhaps you can explain how the electronics are also the same yet the transfer function is different?

{edit} I don't know anything about the processor clock speeds and how they affect MAF transfer functions, but that is how it was explained to me. Apparently the 94/95 EEC is a hybrid between EEC IV and EEC V. It is possible that the 94/95 Mustang uses the same MAF sensor but I don't know. I do know that using an early style MAF sensor in a 95 causes all kinds of problems with AF.
 
Last edited:
David, if anyone would have a correct answer for Don's question, I would expect it to be you.

I'm just trying to figure out though, how the MAFs are different, when Ford lists the F1SZ 12B579 A unit as a replacement for all 91 - 95 SC. I know my 95 had the F1SF stamped sensor on it originally. :confused:

Don't mind Damon, he's from NYC ... he can't help but be argumentative. :p


cheers
Ed N.
 
All SC's from 89-93 use the same transfer function with the exception that some of the 93's read all the way to 5v whereas the others stop at 4.75v. However, at all increments below that the values are identical which means that there is no difference between an 89 sensor and a 93 sensor. However, on the 94 there is a 15% difference in airflow reading at idle. This is a big difference when the EEC is expected to calculate load based off of those numbers. Adaptive would be able to correct for the 15% but that would take up the vast majority of it's corrective capability. Then there is the issue of the EEC applying learned adaptive to the WOT tables. When you consider that the MAF tables come into re-alignment in the upper airflow ranges, you can see that if the meter is applying a 10-15% correction to them the car is going to go lean by up to that amount.

Of course I may be wrong in all of this, but if so then I'd like someone to explain to me why.
 
XR7 Dave said:
All SC's from 89-93 use the same transfer function with the exception that some of the 93's read all the way to 5v whereas the others stop at 4.75v. However, at all increments below that the values are identical which means that there is no difference between an 89 sensor and a 93 sensor. However, on the 94 there is a 15% difference in airflow reading at idle. This is a big difference when the EEC is expected to calculate load based off of those numbers. Adaptive would be able to correct for the 15% but that would take up the vast majority of it's corrective capability. Then there is the issue of the EEC applying learned adaptive to the WOT tables. When you consider that the MAF tables come into re-alignment in the upper airflow ranges, you can see that if the meter is applying a 10-15% correction to them the car is going to go lean by up to that amount.

Of course I may be wrong in all of this, but if so then I'd like someone to explain to me why.
I'm not quite sure I get all this right now, and I don't mean to change the subject with this, but doesn't the EEC see the new MAF, "learn" from it, and then make adjustments accordingly? Isn't that why we pull the battery; to force the compter to see something new?

And if the EEC does not make an adjustment, then aren't we in danger of really leaning the engine out when we change the MAF??

Ira
 
Last edited:
I would expect the transfer functions to be different being the injectors are different. Does not mean that the mass air itself is different.

The 93 Cobra Mass air(Body wise ) is identical to the 93-95 SC.

The late 88-93 5.0 mass air body is Identical to the 89-92 SC one.

We can argue about electronics But it makes a hell of a lot of sence that different injectors using same MAF would have a different transfer curve. Especially with some EEC running at a different frequency as you say.

And then there is the argument which is better..To fool the computer by reducing the amount of airflow over the factory sensor elements..OR...DO as curve.

I seriously doubt Ford would create a New Mass Air Sensor for each and every application as that was never thier style and not cost efficient. Like Ed said they show one part # as a replacemnt for all anyway...

So Ford would go out of thier was to someone create different MAF sensors(same housings) for different vehicles yet say hey...The replacements are all the same? Hey ya never know though......

Furthermore I have done dyno time myself trying out the different year MAFS on a v8 engine having no drastic change in A/F. As a matter of fact the A/F would slightly change between different MAFS of the same size same type. EVen if ever so slightly.

On that note I do know you have a lot of recent tuning experience with SC's and I wont even question that you had a problem with a 70mm MAF housing and electronics on an earlier car. I however doubt it was the meter itself.

Hey I'm just trying to help and seriously didnt think I would need to explain myself with something as simple as this. And if it makes you feel any better Paul Agrees with you as well. I still think you guys are missing something. Regardless...
 
The housings are not the issue here seeing that a 93 housing is the same as a 94 and yet the transfer function is different.

Regarding injector sizes, sure they are different, but the different size is commanded in the software including high and low slopes and battery offset voltages etc. It also follows that since load calculations are done based off the MAF voltage prior to fuel being added into the mix at all, that any change in the MAF function that doesn't correspond to an actual change in the airflow through the MAF would result in incorrect load information unless load calculations were changed also. This just doesn't make sense. Why lie to the computer and then change the VE calculations.

Anyway, it may well be more complicated than that but I was told there is a difference and since I can see a difference in the transfer function and have dealt with some of the tuning issues, I tended to believe what I was told.

My guess on the OE replacement part is that Ford decided that offering one meter for service is close enough for adaptive to take care of the difference and therefore saved themselves a lot of money from not having to stock different service parts.

For the rest of us mere mortals, explaining ourselves has become a way of life. ;)
 
I think it would be interesting then to compare the transfer functions from an F1SF MAF that was original equipment on a 94 - 95, compared to one from a 91 - 93 car.


cheers
Ed N.
 
mere mortals hehe

Seriously though. I would assume if we had a place that could test lets say a few 89-92 Mafs..A few 93 Mafs and a few 94-95 Mafs maybe we could get somewhere. Otherwise it is pure speculation on allour oarts based on our own experiences...

Stil Ford says One part fits all..Now back to that SC hood being twice as much as a standard hood from Ford...Same hood different part numbers...

They may now list the same number for both..Who knows.

Car manufacturers make more on certain cars just because of what they are..We all know that.

Regardless my 94 SC with stock 94 Maf is running ehhh :O)
 
OK here's what I found.....

I took off the MAF sensor from a 94 Auto and a 95 5-speed. There are two different numbers "C46 and C34". I wanted to see what the difference was so I called Ford and there are different Calibrations for the MAFS!!!!!!!!!


Anyhow, the difference is slight and I figure that the Adaptive Control in the PCM will fix any small differences. I Hope to see the MAF functions between them and actually dyno a 91 SC with the different MAF's to see the MAF transfer function difference.

Now, off to change the plugs and wires!!!


Don
 
DamonSlowpokeBaumann said:
mere mortals hehe


Stil Ford says One part fits all..Now back to that SC hood being twice as much as a standard hood from Ford...Same hood different part numbers...

They may now list the same number for both..Who knows.

[hijack]
Damon, I'll have to call you out on that. I just looked back on the April 1992 edition of the Ford parts catalogue on microfiche, and there is only one hood listed for 1989 - 1992 T-Bird at that point. How long ago do you recall there being a different listing for SC and base T-Bird hoods?[/hijack]

cheers
Ed N.
 
Dyno testing will be inconclusive. The only way to test the meters is on a flow bench and measure sensor output. The differences are in the lower end of the function meaning where adaptive does most of it's work so yes, adaptive will take care of the differences. Where it could get ugly is when adaptive starts applying learned values from light load to WOT where all the sensors are pretty much the same. Bottom line, things will work much better if the meter matches the function in the EEC it is being used with.
 
PHP:
Bottom line, things will work much better if the meter matches the function in the EEC it is being used with.

Yes..If we only new what that lil electronic thingymajig was saying..We know the transfer function curve because its in teh EEC.

Ed,

That was actually back in 89...And you know it could have been a case or price gouging as well:O)
 
DamonSlowpokeBaumann said:
Ed,

That was actually back in 89...And you know it could have been a case or price gouging as well:O)

Well, I found a Sept. 1988 and an April 1990 edition of the catalogue, nothing from 1989 calendar year though. Still showing only one choice for 1989 - 90 hood. No, I won't let this go. :p

Now back to our MAF discussion. :)


cheers
Ed N.
 
Is it a Canadian catalogue>? haha

Seriously thought thats what I was told when the truck slid over my hood and I went to get a hood. But I dont have the resources ot look it up...

HOWEVER..Yes about the MAF..If Ford says its correct then its correct!

HMMPH!
 
Back
Top