“VOLVO MAF” conversion 1997 to 1998 3.4, supercharger upgrade,

You can go to most parts stores and have the cel code read for you. I'm curious what yours was. Did you notice any issues with how it ran or was there just a cel?

 

If I wasn't in a hurry this weekend to get errands done I likely would have, would help everyone on here, as I'm curious too. I really didn't notice any issues such as surging, dead pedal, weird idle etc.

Had the CEL not been thrown I likely would have kept driving it.

 

Did you disconnect the battery so the computer would start from baseline?

 

For me NO,

 

Ah, I should have clarified that for the 95-96 ECU issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the 95-96 ECU can't adjust for it just like it can't adjust for a SC.

 

This is what I suspect also. I just can't' figure out why I didn't' throw a code but basically wouldn't run and @mateo_roberto threw a code but seemingly ran fine. I hope some other 95-96 guys give this this try and report in.

 

I did. I also reset the computer prior to reinstalling the stock MAF, just to see if the CEL was a learned condition. Resetting the battery cleared the CEL.

 

subbed

 

Ok so the summary is all done and is shown below.
Some big plus’s for a 50.00 swap
Before the VOLVO ECU swap was done these are the numbers recorded by the same company that did both tests.

MAX POWER HP 237 REAR WHEEL
MAX TORQUE. 263. REAR WHEEL
MAX BOOST. 9.12
AFR was spot on consistent across the whole RPM
Boost pressure graph was a little erratic, not totally linear

Summary after Volvo MAF swap with new DESNO sensor was completed

MAX POWER HP 245 REAR WHEEL
MAX TORQUE. 270. REAR WHEEL
MAX BOOST. 9.82
AFR was spot on consistent across the total rpm band
Boost pressure graph was very linear across rpm band unlike the 1st test.

TORQUE PEAKED AT 10 more at 4500rpms then the 1st dyno.
TORQUE WAS +5 more, higher across the whole chart minimum and maxing at +10 more peaking at 270 rear wheel

HORSE POWER CURVE WAS THE SAME FOOT PRINT with the added +8 horses give or take in some areas.


Rear wheel Horse power went up +8hp
Rear wheel torque went up +7
Rear wheel torque peaked +10 more at 4500rpms compared to stock MAF
Boost went up .70 pounds.
Gained 1-2 MPG
Boosts pressure was much more linear in power than stock MAF uneven chart
Can replace the MAF sensor in 5 minutes now
No air restriction in the MAF tube now
My AFR stayed the same, same footprint before swap and after swap


This swap has been perfect with zero negativity for 1997 v6 Superchargered Tacoma
All positive results

The 1995 and 1996 ECU is different than the 1997-1999 ECU and this swap
might be problematic with a lean code for the 1995-1996 years to adapt to the newer DESNO sensor and the Volvo tube section.

 

Toyota swapped the ECUs as much as every 3 months from my research. Total crap shoot on which ones it'll work. You likely have a 97 ecu as you can run boost. Anything before october 1996 ecu cant run boost without major timing issues.

 

UPDATE

2 months later and 5,000 plus miles on this conversion and everything works perfectly.
No codes, no issues, even had my mpg as high as 25mpg at 65 on the highway

New 3 core ALL aluminum radiator (200.00) also keeps my temps at 185-190

Best 50.00 I have spent in a long time
And Radiator was another fantastic conversation for 200.00

 

Sorry if im just over or under thinking this. Would i just replace my stock MAF and install the Volvo ones with no changes other than the repinning of the Wires?

 

I believe so from what others have said, but I
have a KN filter setup, so my setup is a little different

 

5 months later, 12,000 miles later and everything is still running perfectly.
No hiccups

 

Any pictures of how it was done on the k&N?

 

I got a different tube reducer, went to the auto parts store and matched on up.

The rubber donut that slides into the KN FILTER I had to sand it down a good 1/4” to get it to fit.
Circled in yelow
The reducer in red in the KN reducer and needs to be a bit longer

Still working perfectly with zero issues

 

This is the larger reducer I used, its abit longer and fits better.
This is how it goes together.
Used a 80 grit sandpaper the take off a good 1/8”-1/4” of the rubber so
the donut will fir through the kn steel bracket wall.

 

Nice thank you!

 

This is the rubber sleeve from KN that I had to sand down 1/4” in order to fit through the metal kn support because the new Volvo
input section is 1/4” larger so the sleeve goes on very tight on both ends

 

So, I picked up a 'new' ECM #89661-04310 which is supposed to be the boost ECM and tried this again. No bueno. With my stock ECM I never threw a code, even after the truck literally stopped running from being too lean (LTFT in the 20's). With the 'new' ECM, I got the same LTFT but this time threw P0171 pending code almost immediately. Oddly, in both cases the truck ran well, noticibly better in fact, for the first maybe 20 miles or so until the fuel trims slowly crept up. OP, do you know which ECM you're running? I'm a bit perplexed by the whole thing.