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

If anyone is still not convinced this a route that y’all can take.I found this MAF tube kit adjustable from 3in trough 2in and universal as well. Cheap 33$ plus shipping. Probably be able to do this mod with a non supercharged Tacoma with this kit. I’m no mechanic though so don’t listen to me

 

Wow man, I've never heard of a universal MAF??? If that works correctly that's a great thing to know about

 

I like that.
So the throttle body side of the OEM tube inside measurement is 2 3/4” across which goes the length of 3 1/2”.
The air box side is 1 1/2” length of the tube that is 2 1/4” across for a total length of 5”.

So can you vary the width on either side or you pick a measurement?

 

Seams legit

Main aluminum tube is 3” on each end.
( each insert falls short 1/4” of the length of the 3” tube)
The first insert is 2 3/4” small taper then back to 2 3/4”
Second insert 2 3/4” tapers to 2 1/2”
Third insert 2 3/4” tapers to 2 1/4” minutes.

Just guessing here faster air passing over the MAF means better ecu response ? So if I put the first insert in it would slightly force a little more faster air over the maf better than a straight tube? I’m probably wrong on this if so maybe some school me.

 

Let me know your outcome and what you decide to do.
Got my new AFR combo Boost Gauge in to keep tabs on everything.

 

Ran across this post the other day decided to give it a shot.i repinned the connector and install the tube and new sensor when I went to start the truck it took a few tries, once started if I tried to accelerate any the truck would sputter and die, just to try it I put the volvo sensor in and it fired right up and runs fine, so I’m thinking I just got a bad sensor. has anyone left the Volvo sensor in?

 

Interesting,. I always wanted to try this (use the Volvo sensor), but decided not to since I already had the Denso Toyota sensor. I would think that the Volvo sensor may have issues with being "sized" differently than for a Toyota 3.4, and the pin locations may be different, but sounds like it works just fine .

It's possible that you have a bad sensor (what did you use?), or that you have the two R-W wires backwards - you can try swapping them and see if that helps.

 

I decided to add a poll about this swap.

Vote if you want to see how many are happy and how many are not.

You can vote more than one box

 

Good idea - I'll be swapping in the original bullet MAF next weekend, and after I compare the LTFT results, I'll post my vote .

 

I swapped the grey/red and the white/red put the Toyota sensor back in and it wouldn’t run, swapped wires back it would idle but still die when trying to accelerate, put the Volvo sensor back in starts right up idles fine and revs no problem

I used the same sensor as the op, only thing that I was worried about was when I looked up the part number for 2001 Tacoma it gave me

$158 22204-21010 Internal Air Flow Meter

22204-21010

 

well i went run the truck with the volvo sensor and the truck ran better than it use to, no codes thrown yet, and waiting to see what happens with the fuel consumption

 

I ended up going back to the original bullet MAF. I could not get happy with the high LTFT of the new style MAF in my '97, and didn't see any improvements in gas mileage. My STFT was oscillating pretty wildly, and it seems like the ECU had to constantly compensate by adjusting the LTFT to as high as 11%.

I switched back to the original bullet MAF, and now the STFT cycles from about -1% to +1%, and the LTFT is right around 0%:



Like others have said on this thread, the engine and ECU have been sized on these trucks for a certain set of parameters, and it looks like messing with them may cause problems - just because the new style MAF looks cooler due to the larger opening, it may not be better for the stock engine. Maybe this swap makes more sense for supercharged engines, or for those whose bullet MAF is bad and they don't want to spend the $400 to replace it (understandably). Since neither of these applies to me, I'm happy being back to OEM.

 

Appreciate the honest unbiased feedback. Real data helps all of us in the end

 

Are you running a supercharger? Just curious.

 

No, it's a stock 3.4L. I wanted to try it just because it seemed like less restrictive would be good, but now I think that bigger is not necessarily better for stock trucks, and that the Toyota engineers knew what they were doing when they designed it.

 

I was able to contact scanguage and get the correct short fuel trims codes to work.
Long fuel trims still are not working with their codes on my truck.

The short trim fuel codes for the scanguage for my 1997 v6 are

• Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 1
• TXD. 686AF10106
• RXF. 044105060000
• RXD. 2808
• MTH. 00C80100FF9C
• NAME. SF1

From what I have read on the internet it says to check your Fuel trims at 3 different rpms holding the rpms for 30 seconds

1) Idle
2) 1500
3) 2500


All of my fuel trims at the 3 different rpms showed up at zero holding at 30 seconds and the 2500rpm is at (+1) and (0)
Same info that the dealer told me when he checked my trims.

 

Those are good readings! How fast is the scangauge sampling the data? My Torque Pro app shows the STFT fluctuating between -1.56% and +1.56, with the average being right around zero (which is why the LTFT is solidly at zero). I wonder if the STFT is not keeping up with the realtime data fast enough? Or maybe it's in fact dead set at zero, which would be awesome!

 

To be honest I don’t know the sampling rate,
I did the 3 different rpm ranges and used my son to hold the throttle cable because it was hard to keep the throttle steady with my foot for 30 seconds.

Either way my zero trims numbers were confirmed by the dealer that cost me 75.00 and now with the scanguage info it confirms it again.

I had a state emissions test 3 months ago and the truck passed with flying colors too.
The test was a tread mill simulating stress on the engine that ran high RPMs and low RPMs with loads applied.

 

I think your setup is working well for you! Mine is too, now that I went back to the bullet MAF .

 

Did you by chance use a new DENSO MAF sensor when you did the swap?

I read a bad or dirty MAF sensor and a vacuum leak will give you bad fuel trims