COBRA MAF--INJ. SIZE? - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum > Windsor Tech Forums > 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech

Corral.net is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-03-2009, 10:38 AM   #1
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 21

COBRA MAF--INJ. SIZE?

Bought a '93 Cobra maf for my '93 LX E-eng. from a jobber--to get some more size over my stock unit--contacted Blue Streak & they could not give me any info. on the calibration of the MAF. for inj. size. What inj. should I run--have a set of 24#--currently running 19#

'93 LX 5 sp.--cold air--cobra maf--70mm th & egr--cobra upper & lower-- p/p lower--GT-40P heads p/p--stock valves with crane springs--19# inj.--1.7s r/r pedistal--stock cam--stock bottom end--mac P-headers--stock h with cats--flow master cat back--3.55 gears--electric fan
93mustang73 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-03-2009, 11:40 AM   #2
Registered User
 
2cammer97's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,137

I am using a '93 Cobra 70mm MAF. You will be able to run it with 19 lb injectors with no problems. If you run the 24 lb injectors with it you will need a tuned chip to get it to work.

Marcus
__________________
'86 Ford Mustang GT - restoration project
'99 Jeep Wrangler Sport 4.0L - offroad toy
2cammer97 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-03-2009, 06:06 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,113

The adjustment to use 24's like the Cobra's did occurs in the Cobra ECU, not in the maf 'calibration'; so you can't use 24's with the Cobra maf and an HO ECU - you must use 19's. However, the 93 Cobra maf transfer function is different than the HO maf transfer function. The result is that the mixture gets leaner and leaner at w.o.t. and high flow rates -- as much as 20% lean at higher rpm/load. This is more than the adaptive strategies that the stock HO ECU can adjust for. You won't notice a thing at idle and under normal driving.

Consequently - you shouldn't use the 93 Cobra maf with a stock HO ECU even though many folks do. A better match on the transfer function is to use a stock 94/5 HO 70mm maf.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-03-2009, 09:45 PM   #4
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SPARTANBURG SC
Posts: 142

hmmmm i did not know that...i have a 93 cobra MAF on my 89 GT using a A9L and 19lb injectors....i bought it being told it was "calbrated" for 19lb injectors...so in reality the 93 cobra X3Z (think thats right ) ECU compensates for the 24lb ers ?? if so why do most cobra owners who want to make power swap to a A9L and then larger MAF and T body? is the X3Z junk in most ways except the ability to adapt to larger injectors...i gues sim a bit confused on the technology....and yes i know fox cars , just the 1st im hearing of this ....
__________________
TO BE THE MAN, YOU GOT TO BEAT THE MAN..........WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
HALLSRESTO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-03-2009, 09:47 PM   #5
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SPARTANBURG SC
Posts: 142

and also on the other hand could i go to a X3Z ecm , keep the mass air i have and up grade to 24lb injectors??? sorry to hijack this thread, but im intrigued by this info
__________________
TO BE THE MAN, YOU GOT TO BEAT THE MAN..........WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
HALLSRESTO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-03-2009, 10:35 PM   #6
Registered User
 
liljoe07's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (16)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CARTERSVILLE,GA
Posts: 3,258

Quote:
Originally Posted by HALLSRESTO View Post
and also on the other hand could i go to a X3Z ecm , keep the mass air i have and up grade to 24lb injectors??? sorry to hijack this thread, but im intrigued by this info
You sure can.
__________________
89 Coupe: POS
Tuner: QuarterHorse, BE & EA, AEM Wideband
liljoe07 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-04-2009, 01:02 AM   #7
Banned

Trader Feedback: (-1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,229

Quote:
Originally Posted by HALLSRESTO View Post
if so why do most cobra owners who want to make power swap to a A9L and then larger MAF and T body?
because nobody produces a "calibrated" maf for the 93 cobra... so if you do anything that requires a larger injector, the smart move is an A9X (L, P.. w/e) and a larger "calibrated" maf
AdderMk2 is banned  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-04-2009, 09:52 PM   #8
Registered User
 
vristang's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (9)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdderMk2 View Post
because nobody produces a "calibrated" maf for the 93 cobra... so if you do anything that requires a larger injector, the smart move is an A9X (L, P.. w/e) and a larger "calibrated" maf
C&L does...
http://www.cnlperformance.com/calibration.html

Not sure of the others.

There are a ton of myths surrounding which ecu is 'more aggressive' compared to the others. In my opinion, these myths are what motivates people to swap ecu's....
Just my opinion though.
__________________
SeattleBlueOvals.com

1990 GT - something 351w based... some day
1987 LX - n/a 2.3 daily driver, using an EDIS v8 ecu/QH
vristang is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-04-2009, 10:00 PM   #9
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton PA
Posts: 341

My question if you use a bigger OEM ford housing shouldnt you be able to use the stock electronics from the old sensor assuming the same size sample tube?

I did it and the car seems to run perfect. I measured the sample tubes in both housings and the were the same so i switched my electronics to the new housing and used it
__________________
2011 5.0 Grabber Blue Whipple Power
2004 Mach 1 Screaming Yellow
01 Cobra 40k miles Zinc Yellow Traded on 11' GT
93 LX 4.6 DOHC SOLD teksid block, 01 cobra head/cams
jaa55 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2009, 09:10 AM   #10
Banned

Trader Feedback: (-1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,229

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaa55 View Post
My question if you use a bigger OEM ford housing shouldnt you be able to use the stock electronics from the old sensor assuming the same size sample tube?

I did it and the car seems to run perfect. I measured the sample tubes in both housings and the were the same so i switched my electronics to the new housing and used it
no
AdderMk2 is banned  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-06-2009, 11:42 PM   #11
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton PA
Posts: 341

and why not exactly
I'm an mechanical engineering student and I'm making an educated decision based on what i know of fluid dynamics
same size tube would mean the same mass of air or so close its not going to affect the performance
__________________
2011 5.0 Grabber Blue Whipple Power
2004 Mach 1 Screaming Yellow
01 Cobra 40k miles Zinc Yellow Traded on 11' GT
93 LX 4.6 DOHC SOLD teksid block, 01 cobra head/cams

Last edited by jaa55; 10-06-2009 at 11:45 PM.
jaa55 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-06-2009, 11:56 PM   #12
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton PA
Posts: 341

I mean i can see that the MAF housing is larger that a slightly lower amount of air will pass through the sample tube assuming the same CFM flowing through both sensors.
Im half tempted to flow them and plot the voltage to see how much of a difference really occurs due to the larger housing
__________________
2011 5.0 Grabber Blue Whipple Power
2004 Mach 1 Screaming Yellow
01 Cobra 40k miles Zinc Yellow Traded on 11' GT
93 LX 4.6 DOHC SOLD teksid block, 01 cobra head/cams
jaa55 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 03:51 AM   #13
Registered User
 
HYBRED's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Rustburg, Va
Posts: 3,160

Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaa55 View Post
and why not exactly
I'm an mechanical engineering student and I'm making an educated decision based on what i know of fluid dynamics
same size tube would mean the same mass of air or so close its not going to affect the performance

Because the electronics are Trimmed to the housing they were installed on. Any change in diameter of the housing, removing the bar, or change in flow characteristics will toss that calibration out the window.
__________________
87 coupe 5.0EFI conversion, SN95 5lug,
95 GT, V1$-Trim, NoSlow5.0's Motorsports intake, TwEECer RT & etc...

Xbox Live = TwoRockTwo
HYBRED is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 06:08 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,113

jaa55 - have you had a wide band air/fuel ratio on the car to see what it's doing across the rpm/load spectrum? Unless you have, then 'seems to run perfect' and actually running perfect may be two different things. It may be that the change you made affected things within the computer's adaptive strategy range to 'fix' different maf readings it's seeing.

Plotting voltage vs. flow would be a great thing to do. Then you'll know what's going on. The ecu is expecting certain voltages proportional to certain flows - it's called the transfer function. Hopefully you can see that moving the electronics to a different sized housing, even with the same sample tube, is going to alter the flows that move across the hot wire --- and that results in a different transfer function. Now, if the change is small enough for the ecu to adapt - things may 'seem' perfect. This is what happens when one uses a 70mm maf (housing and electronics) from a 94/5 HO Stang on a fox body A9L processor - it's close enough to work. If you use the 93 Cobra maf - and look at the transfer function, you'll see that there's as much as a 20% difference (engine goes lean) in the voltage vs. flow numbers at high rpm/high flow. Idle, around town, cruise - everything 'seems' perfect. But at higher rpm, the motor's going to run lean because the adaptive strategies can't compensate for that 20% difference. Unless you flow it/measure voltage - you really don't know what's happening when you start moving electronics around.

But ideally - you don't move electronics around, and you try to give the ecu the transfer function it's expecting.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 09:52 AM   #15
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mich
Posts: 1,052

Quote:
Originally Posted by HALLSRESTO View Post
hmmmm i did not know that...i have a 93 cobra MAF on my 89 GT using a A9L and 19lb injectors....i bought it being told it was "calbrated" for 19lb injectors...so in reality the 93 cobra X3Z (think thats right ) ECU compensates for the 24lb ers ?? if so why do most cobra owners who want to make power swap to a A9L and then larger MAF and T body? is the X3Z junk in most ways except the ability to adapt to larger injectors...i gues sim a bit confused on the technology....and yes i know fox cars , just the 1st im hearing of this ....

The X3Z calibration is different from all other Mustang ECMs. A big majority of "tuners" are familiar with the A9L strategy and find it easier to use the A9L. The way the X3Z does the injector slope is one of the biggest issues when tunig for larger injectors and other upgrades. I have used one for almost a year now with major tuning and harware upgrades ... cam, heads, LT headers, MAF, intake, TB, injectors, Tweecer RT, to name a few. Wasnt realy any worse than an A9L just different.
turbo2256 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 11:37 AM   #16
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton PA
Posts: 341

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
jaa55 - have you had a wide band air/fuel ratio on the car to see what it's doing across the rpm/load spectrum? Unless you have, then 'seems to run perfect' and actually running perfect may be two different things. It may be that the change you made affected things within the computer's adaptive strategy range to 'fix' different maf readings it's seeing.

Plotting voltage vs. flow would be a great thing to do. Then you'll know what's going on. The ecu is expecting certain voltages proportional to certain flows - it's called the transfer function. Hopefully you can see that moving the electronics to a different sized housing, even with the same sample tube, is going to alter the flows that move across the hot wire --- and that results in a different transfer function. Now, if the change is small enough for the ecu to adapt - things may 'seem' perfect. This is what happens when one uses a 70mm maf (housing and electronics) from a 94/5 HO Stang on a fox body A9L processor - it's close enough to work. If you use the 93 Cobra maf - and look at the transfer function, you'll see that there's as much as a 20% difference (engine goes lean) in the voltage vs. flow numbers at high rpm/high flow. Idle, around town, cruise - everything 'seems' perfect. But at higher rpm, the motor's going to run lean because the adaptive strategies can't compensate for that 20% difference. Unless you flow it/measure voltage - you really don't know what's happening when you start moving electronics around.

But ideally - you don't move electronics around, and you try to give the ecu the transfer function it's expecting.
Got ya, I have all the stuff to plot it here at school. I imagine I'll see a constant drop in the voltage curve because obviously the larger housing will mean less air flow through the sample tube compared to the smaller housing at the same CFM. I just want to know how much the constant is, what percent of flow difference the sensor is reading from housing to housing. If i get some spare time here in the near future I will test both sensors. I'll report back on what the percent change was moving the stock electronics to a different housing. Do you know what the tolerance is on the A9L?
__________________
2011 5.0 Grabber Blue Whipple Power
2004 Mach 1 Screaming Yellow
01 Cobra 40k miles Zinc Yellow Traded on 11' GT
93 LX 4.6 DOHC SOLD teksid block, 01 cobra head/cams
jaa55 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 03:42 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,113

My understanding is that the adaptive strategies can handle changes up into the 10-12% range -- but the amount the Cobra unit is off on the high end is in the 20% range. If you search around out there someone has posted the transfer functions already -- in essence, what you're proposing to do has been done already. But -- you'll learn a ton if you do it yourself. And who knows - perhaps there are big enough variations housing to housing that some combos will actually work.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 09:12 PM   #18
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mich
Posts: 1,052

As long as you plot the voltage and air flows correctly load it into MAF transfer function in the ECM it should work. Also most tuning softwear its in Kilograms not CFM.
turbo2256 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 09:31 PM   #19
Registered User
 
5.0 CHERO's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: central coast ca!
Posts: 885

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
jaa55 - have you had a wide band air/fuel ratio on the car to see what it's doing across the rpm/load spectrum? Unless you have, then 'seems to run perfect' and actually running perfect may be two different things. It may be that the change you made affected things within the computer's adaptive strategy range to 'fix' different maf readings it's seeing.

Plotting voltage vs. flow would be a great thing to do. Then you'll know what's going on. The ecu is expecting certain voltages proportional to certain flows - it's called the transfer function. Hopefully you can see that moving the electronics to a different sized housing, even with the same sample tube, is going to alter the flows that move across the hot wire --- and that results in a different transfer function. Now, if the change is small enough for the ecu to adapt - things may 'seem' perfect. This is what happens when one uses a 70mm maf (housing and electronics) from a 94/5 HO Stang on a fox body A9L processor - it's close enough to work. If you use the 93 Cobra maf - and look at the transfer function, you'll see that there's as much as a 20% difference (engine goes lean) in the voltage vs. flow numbers at high rpm/high flow. Idle, around town, cruise - everything 'seems' perfect. But at higher rpm, the motor's going to run lean because the adaptive strategies can't compensate for that 20% difference. Unless you flow it/measure voltage - you really don't know what's happening when you start moving electronics around.

But ideally - you don't move electronics around, and you try to give the ecu the transfer function it's expecting.
Damn Michael you still fighting this battle years later...
__________________
73 ranchero
89 5.0 HO/AOD combo
X pipe w/flowmasters
3.50 posi 9in
4 wheel disc brakes
slamed w/air bags in the rear
THE PYL !
5.0 CHERO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-07-2009, 10:14 PM   #20
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,113

Not a battle - just a young M.E. student trying to figure it out for himself - a good thing. Besides, a few years back (or decades) I managed to earn a degree in Mech. Eng. from Ga. Tech - so I can appreciate where he's coming from.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2009, 01:00 PM   #21
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton PA
Posts: 341

I'll be doing this comparison in a couple weeks. I'll even get a grade for doing for my Measurements lab . Only thing im concerned about is I'm going to plot a stock MAF and I'm going to call it my ideal curve that computer wants. I know there can be some error in doing it this way..... as the stock meter is more than likely not a perfect fit either. If someone could provide a curve that is from the A9L it would be greatly appreciated!
__________________
2011 5.0 Grabber Blue Whipple Power
2004 Mach 1 Screaming Yellow
01 Cobra 40k miles Zinc Yellow Traded on 11' GT
93 LX 4.6 DOHC SOLD teksid block, 01 cobra head/cams
jaa55 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2009, 01:33 PM   #22
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Montana
Posts: 648

stock A9L
Volts KG/HR
16.000 857.027
4.768 857.027
4.443 713.186
4.177 611.166
3.886 512.632
3.544 409.345
3.355 356.434
3.149 303.207
2.910 249.663
2.694 206.890
2.582 187.247
2.450 165.386
2.316 146.059
2.154 123.247
1.989 102.653
1.890 92.515
1.803 84.277
1.691 74.772
1.574 64.000
1.468 55.445
1.321 45.940
1.182 37.703
1.091 33.584
.884 24.396
.750 19.327
.571 13.941
.000 13.941
.000 13.941
.000 13.941
.000 13.941
bender4601 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2009, 01:40 PM   #23
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Montana
Posts: 648

Stock X3Z

15.9998 869.700
4.4539 869.700
4.1001 709.384
3.8999 626.374
3.7000 549.384
3.5000 477.781
3.3000 411.880
3.1001 351.682
2.9021 296.870
2.7058 248.078
2.4109 185.346
2.3137 166.970
2.2156 150.178
2.1187 134.653
2.0198 120.396
1.9214 107.722
1.8191 95.683
1.7183 84.911
1.6172 75.089
1.5166 65.901
1.4177 57.980
1.3174 50.376
1.2158 43.723
1.1140 37.386
0.9128 26.931
0.7087 18.376
0.6055 14.574
0.4993 11.406
0.0000 11.406
0.0000 11.406
bender4601 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-09-2009, 03:56 PM   #24
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dayton PA
Posts: 341

thanks!!!
__________________
2011 5.0 Grabber Blue Whipple Power
2004 Mach 1 Screaming Yellow
01 Cobra 40k miles Zinc Yellow Traded on 11' GT
93 LX 4.6 DOHC SOLD teksid block, 01 cobra head/cams
jaa55 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-09-2009, 05:19 PM   #25
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 782

Quote:
The adjustment to use 24's like the Cobra's did occurs in the Cobra ECU, not in the maf 'calibration'; so you can't use 24's with the Cobra maf and an HO ECU - you must use 19's. However, the 93 Cobra maf transfer function is different than the HO maf transfer function. The result is that the mixture gets leaner and leaner at w.o.t. and high flow rates -- as much as 20% lean at higher rpm/load. This is more than the adaptive strategies that the stock HO ECU can adjust for. You won't notice a thing at idle and under normal driving.
I found when I made the swap to the cobra meter, I had the opposite with my A/F. I noticed a very nice SOTP difference between the stock MAF and the Cobra unit, but my car was very rich with the cobra meter. I was in the 10.5XX range (cobra) with no other changes than the meter / electronics. (stock 19# injectors) I'm not trying to flame but I had a different experience with my meter.

Either way, I agree with the SN95 70mm being an easier\cheaper swap when you consider the cost to tune the cobra meter to the mustang computer.
__________________
Her name is white lightning. She's loaded with some Griggs stuff, and a plant woody built for me.

Last edited by onefastsvt; 11-09-2009 at 05:20 PM. Reason: added injector size
onefastsvt is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-10-2009, 09:57 AM   #26
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Manteca, CA
Posts: 1,929

Isn't the 70mm meter off a newer 4.6 4v motor the one to use with 24lb injectors on an A9L car?
slo5oh is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
© 2010-2011 Corral.net

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.