The Oldsmobile Connection

Hans · Joined: 28 Aug 2003 Posts: 156 Location: Pocatello, Idaho

I found out tonight that the L27 motors at least benifit more than most from a MAF replacement or a careful clean.

I thought I was having ignition problems. I posted my problem on another forum dedicated towards my engine and got the response to clean the MAF....

I did it on my 87 olds 98 but just fried it so I was scared.

Hell just read my post.

Hans wrote: 1994 Olds 88 L27

I have had a problem at 40 or 45mph for a while now but NEVER from a stop. right now if you JUST start the car up and go drive (like you should not do) it goes into gear but when you give it throttle it "chokes/hesitates/studders/shakes" but it is minor and only with light throttle from a stop...Usually when the engine is cold, but I can faintly feel it when the car is warmed up at an intersection...but enough for me to feel it. If you give it throttle it hauls off.

No problem at above 1500rpm I dont think.

then....

Hans wrote: willwren wrote: Try cleaning your TB and MAF sensor. Especially the IAC passage.

Holy Censored

Got done cleaning the MAF...which for some reason I had not cleaned..ever. I cleaned up the IAC when I did the intake but was too parinoid as with my 87 I sorta fried the MAF when I tried cleaning it.

I just gone done with a 20 minute cleaning session of the MAF with 70% rubbing alcohol deluted with 50% distilled water being VERY careful I used a piece of cloth (pretty much best lint free you can get -- used for cleaning drums in copiers)...

I took it for a test drive and the 2.84 screeched when I gave it gas :shock:. Seems like I restored about 20lb of torque. I cannot tell about the hesitation yet since I need to wait for the car to get cold overnight but I am SHOCKED that the gunk on the two thermistors or whatever could affect the torque and performance that much.

I was always under the impression that MAF problems never affected actual WOT performance THAT MUCH.

I will get back to see if it fixed the hesitiation. I think the 38-45 studder/shake is still there like before but that is only in 3rd gear. I have a feeling I fixed more than just the power drop.

here are some pics of what the MAF should look like.

88delta88 · Joined: 09 Jun 2003 Posts: 2400 Location: Canada

I replaced the MAF on my beast a few months back. It made a world of different aswell. Like you, I tried cleaning the original, but only made it worse. So I ended up buying a "new rebuild" from napa and it was good to go again. But I didnt get the power jump like you did, it just fixed hesitation and bucking like you described. I think though, I am going to rip my intake apart and do the IAC and all that crap. That would be a good idea I think.

abbike18 · Joined: 17 Oct 2004 Posts: 30

I cleaned my MAF and did not get any improvements. I did wipe black 'soot' off of the MAF though. I used the alcohol diluted with water and a cotton cloth. Would I benefit form replacing my MAF? it is almost 20 years old....

88 Coupe · Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:24 am Post subject:

Hi abbike18, hello All,

Quote: ............ Would I benefit form replacing my MAF? it is almost 20 years old....
There is no reason to to replace it, unless it is defective.

Regards, Norm

speedy266 · Joined: 25 Jun 2003 Posts: 347 Location: Ontario, Canada

It could provide improvements but youd be losing some money because ur replacing a part that still providing adaquet performance.

88 Coupe · Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:22 pm Post subject:

Hi speedy266, All,

Quote: It could provide improvements

It is either defective or it's not.

Your statement would lead one of a lower skill/experience level, to change it, without testing, because, he/she thinks there is a possible performance gain.

Regards, Norm

abbike18 · Joined: 17 Oct 2004 Posts: 30

i take back my previous statements...i have noticed increased gas mileage since cleaning my MAF. usually i would need to fill me tank right now but i still have some gas left. I will post the exact numbers in a few days when I fill her up.

Alex

Hans · Joined: 28 Aug 2003 Posts: 156 Location: Pocatello, Idaho

norm is right.

Well mostly.

Most of the times maf fail completely or just get dirty. It is rare that a maf will be partially defective.

88 Coupe · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject:

Hi Hans, All

88 Coupe wrote: abbike18 wrote: ............ Would I benefit from replacing my MAF? it is almost 20 years old....
There is no reason to to replace it, unless it is defective.

speedy266 wrote: It could provide improvements but youd be losing some money because ur replacing a part that still providing adequate performance.

88 Coupe wrote: speedy266 wrote: It could provide improvements
It is either defective or it's not.

Your statement would lead one of a lower skill/experience level, to change it, without testing, because, he/she thinks there is a possible performance gain.

Hans wrote: norm is right.

Well mostly.

Most of the times maf fail completely or just get dirty. It is rare that a maf will be partially defective.
Please explain your statement, its accuracy, and how it relates to my posts.

Before you respond, please reread this entire post so you fully understand it.

When you do respond, you might want to keep in mind that I read the GM tech bulletin on this subject when it was released.

Regards, Norm

andrewk · Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 1233 Location: Ames, IA

Norm, I havent read the tech bulletin, but wouldnt a dirty MAF perform worse than a clean one? And if it has 20 years of crap on it, wouldn't it be almost impossible to get it completely clean? I would think that it would be kind of the same as cleaning carbon off an EGR valve, it makes it work better, but it doesnt work as well a new one would.

speedy266 · Joined: 25 Jun 2003 Posts: 347 Location: Ontario, Canada

Newer cars that are so very high tech, so many sensors, switches, and electronics compared to back in the day when there were so few wires. Well they can pick up slight changes and usually inturn will provide better or worse performance. As for a MAF, many years of dust, dirt, build up of watever, electrical components deteroiating and not providing electron transfer as when new will change signal inputs, therefore affecting final performance. You can clean it real good and u'll notice a difference, unless u can build MAF sensors urself, no way to replace 20 years of wear and tear on the electrical internals of a maf. Just because you dont get a check engine light doesnt mean ur MAF is working like it was when it was brand new, the computer and sensors are not that high tech yet, might never be because owners will think the car is junk of so many check engine lights. Though id like to have a car where it pretty much talked to me and told me little things were it made even a half horsepower difference.

88 Coupe · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:03 am Post subject:

Hi andrewk, speedy266, All,

Thanks for the help. Question was to Hans and concerned his post only.

My reference to the tech bulletin was to advise him that I do know this subject.

Somewhere he got the idea I know nothing about newer cars with electronics and/or FI, and he can consider me fair game.

He still hasn't figured out that when I post, it's a good indication I know the subject.

Still waiting for Hans to reply.

Regards, Norm

88 Coupe · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:27 am Post subject:

88 Coupe wrote: Still waiting for Hans to reply.
:laughing:

88 Coupe · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:12 am Post subject:

Hi andrewk, speedy266, All,

I've decided Hans is not capable of cleaning up his own mess.

I intended to post only once and move on. Speedys statement caused my clarifier. Then Hans wrote (without even reading my 2) that I was partially wrong, then included some DrJay style doubletalk to justify his statement. That post is why I'm still here.

When I get corrected, I prefer it to be when I'm actually wrong and my error can be explained to all, it's how we learn.

Anyone: First, reread my first two and hans last post.

Then tell us how anything in mine might be wrong and why Hans last post might be right. Or if you prefer, why mine might be right and his wrong.

Regards, Norm

andrewk · Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 1233 Location: Ames, IA

Hmmm...Stalemate? I agree norm... you are correct in this situation.