URD MAF Sensor Calibrator

[mo_mo]

Finally warmed up enough to install and wanted to share initial impressions. No Dyno, but based on driving observations and MPG.

1. Very easy to install, basically plug in and go.
2. In preparation, filled my fuel tank and zeroed out all fuel/MPG indicators.
3. Disconnected Ground battery connection overnight.
4. Cleaned AFE Dry Filter (Running a TRD CAI)
5. Install took about 15 minutes. Longest part of install was anchoring wires with zip ties.
6. URD Pre-set settings based on Data for TRD CAI and Borla Cat.

First ride, took it on a 50 mile loop of mixed town and Interstate. Runner settled down in about five minutes from slightly higher idle at 1200 RPM to what is normal. I noted better throttle response and less downshifting from OD on grades. My Winter MPG with Winter fuel generally around 16.5 mixed driving. First fill up was at 18MPG calculated. So far, after a week, very pleased with this addition. As stated, no dyno, but for sure, MPG slightly better and the engine/peddle response is much better. No WOT yet, but downshifting to pass is definitely better.

I have a 17Pro with TRD CAI, AFE Dry Filter and Borla Cat-Back.

What does the URD MAF Sensor Calibrator plug into? The webpage claims there are two versions, one that plugs in and corrects MAF readings, and one that plugs in and corrects RPM.
"We offer two basic URD MAF Sensor Calibrator versions. One is primarily for normally aspirated vehicles that use the signal from the throttle position sensor as the load scale indicator and one with a Manifold Absolute Pressure Sensor (MAP Sensor). The unit with the MAP sensor senses the manifold pressure and is primarily for engines that have forced induction."

I can understand scaling the throttle position, but I would be dubious of the MAP version due to our ECU having narrow and wideband O2 sensors to adjust 'trim'.

What sensors did you un-plug/plug with this? :rockon:

 

[Hadelson]

Have you switched octane since installing the calibrator. That alone will give a huge boost whether you have mods or not.

Aligned with that. Here is Northeast, we have the dreaded winter fuel. That said, run premium.

I can immediately tell the difference if I fuel with regular gas.

 

[Hadelson]

What does the URD MAF Sensor Calibrator plug into? The webpage claims there are two versions, one that plugs in and corrects MAF readings, and one that plugs in and corrects RPM.
"We offer two basic URD MAF Sensor Calibrator versions. One is primarily for normally aspirated vehicles that use the signal from the throttle position sensor as the load scale indicator and one with a Manifold Absolute Pressure Sensor (MAP Sensor). The unit with the MAP sensor senses the manifold pressure and is primarily for engines that have forced induction."

I can understand scaling the throttle position, but I would be dubious of the MAP version due to our ECU having narrow and wideband O2 sensors to adjust 'trim'.

What sensors did you un-plug/plug with this? :rockon:

No Sensors unplugged. This is plug and play into the MAF and Middle cylinder passenger side. You advise URD what mods and they pre-program based on research. Optimizes fuel and timing.

https://www.urdusa.com/urd-maf-sensor-calibrator-pnp-2010-4runner-v6-4-0l/

 

[Jetboy]

Have you looked at timing advance? My understanding is that on 87 fuel the timing is significantly retarded as a result of knock sensor input. If the MAF sensor adjustment is leaning the fuel mix are you getting timing retard with premium fuel also? Any idea how much and how often?

I assume the MAF tune only changes the performance in open loop operation. Closed loop fuel mix being driven by the o2 sensors. Is that accurate? If not - how does the MAF tune keep the ECU from correcting fuel mix to OEM targets? Is that based on how the %load is calculated as a flow through of the data from the MAF or something else? I seriously don't understand how MAF signal modification in isolation would solve all the other sensor inputs that used for closed loop operation.

 

[Hadelson]

Have you looked at timing advance? My understanding is that on 87 fuel the timing is significantly retarded as a result of knock sensor input. If the MAF sensor adjustment is leaning the fuel mix are you getting timing retard with premium fuel also? Any idea how much and how often?

I assume the MAF tune only changes the performance in open loop operation. Closed loop fuel mix being driven by the o2 sensors. Is that accurate? If not - how does the MAF tune keep the ECU from correcting fuel mix to OEM targets? Is that based on how the %load is calculated as a flow through of the data from the MAF or something else? I seriously don't understand how MAF signal modification in isolation would solve all the other sensor inputs that used for closed loop operation.

In over my head on your questions. Give Steve Doppler at URD a call. I emailed and he was quick to respond

 

[wfo9]

Have you looked at timing advance? My understanding is that on 87 fuel the timing is significantly retarded as a result of knock sensor input. If the MAF sensor adjustment is leaning the fuel mix are you getting timing retard with premium fuel also? Any idea how much and how often?

I assume the MAF tune only changes the performance in open loop operation. Closed loop fuel mix being driven by the o2 sensors. Is that accurate? If not - how does the MAF tune keep the ECU from correcting fuel mix to OEM targets? Is that based on how the %load is calculated as a flow through of the data from the MAF or something else? I seriously don't understand how MAF signal modification in isolation would solve all the other sensor inputs that used for closed loop operation.

Assuming this is just the MAF...

I'm sort of confused about this also (in terms of MPG). In steady states... the fueling is going to adjust to the target 1.0 lambda. It's the transient and WOT open loop stuff where MAF curve adjustment really has impact.

Now the maf is also obviously part of the load calc. So even in closed loop you could tweak it to report a lower load and therefore increase timing.. However, this would be an odd way to go as your fuel trims would get all jacked up....

 

[1jzgte]

Have you looked at timing advance? My understanding is that on 87 fuel the timing is significantly retarded as a result of knock sensor input. If the MAF sensor adjustment is leaning the fuel mix are you getting timing retard with premium fuel also? Any idea how much and how often?

I assume the MAF tune only changes the performance in open loop operation. Closed loop fuel mix being driven by the o2 sensors. Is that accurate? If not - how does the MAF tune keep the ECU from correcting fuel mix to OEM targets? Is that based on how the %load is calculated as a flow through of the data from the MAF or something else? I seriously don't understand how MAF signal modification in isolation would solve all the other sensor inputs that used for closed loop operation.

my assumption is that this device doesnt do squat... the only thing felt is from the premium fuel that theyre probably recommending.

 

[rayofsi]

the URD MAF Cal is from https://splitsec.com/ it is a PSC-1

I have one, that i haven't had the time to put in yet. But if someone knows something about how this stuff works and can look into it.

 

[wfo9]

my assumption is that this device doesnt do squat... the only thing felt is from the premium fuel that theyre probably recommending.

It does plenty on heavy throttle "open loop" and transitions. These engines are pretty much 100% run by the MAF. There is not even a MAP sensor. to fall back on

The only mystery to me and many others with these ECUs is how much AFR feedback is used outside of 1.0 lambda targets.... In theory They could be in closed loop constantly, but we just don't know.

It's pretty easy to see your AFR real time with a simple hard wire scanner. I like the ultra gauge. I originally thought my ultragauge was too slow, but then realized you can up the refresh interval and get a pretty decent view of what is going on in terms of fueling.... It's a great investment for multiple reasons.....

 

[Hadelson]

my assumption is that this device doesnt do squat... the only thing felt is from the premium fuel that theyre probably recommending.

I run Premium all the time. Here is what I did.

1. Disconnected (-) terminal for several hours.
2. Installed device
3. Connected battery and took vehicle on long loop drive.

I am seeing better MPG (documented), better pedal response and less downshifting when pulling grades. No WOT yet but that will happen sometime soon. Long road trip planned this weekend so will compare results.

Your call.

Regards

 

[wfo9]

the URD MAF Cal is from https://splitsec.com/ it is a PSC-1

I have one, that i haven't had the time to put in yet. But if someone knows something about how this stuff works and can look into it.

I can explain exactly how it works.. but the key is in the calibration of it based on logging data in the real world with the modifications in place...

The device itself just takes the RPM signal and current reported MAF voltage as input.. Looks up and adjustment value in the cal and reports that to the ECU instead of the normal value.

 

[sandcrawler]

sorry to resurrect this thread-drift, but i was thinking about it some more...

Just an fyi the afe filter will void your engine warranty. Toyota has rejected a Tacoma I'm aware of with internal damage based on the AFE filter. 3rd pty testing of therm shows that they're bad at filtering dust. Like 99.7 percent effective with oem vs 86 with the AFE.

that is, of course, startling. can you provide any more details on the Taco? i'd sincerely like to know.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw1Q3gxJOE3N1TEATIYMtWmQ

Paper filter 99.86. AFE 86.80. Percent of dust captured in ISO5011 air filtration standard test.

Completed some research after seeing your post. Interesting data but noted it was completed by S&B that is a direct competitor. Please note I also found other independent testing supporting the AFE Claim of 99.2% filtration.

in looking more closely at the test, the specific parts it compares are complete CAIs for diesel motors — pitting an S&B CAI with both oiled and dry media filters -vs- an aFe intake with a dry filter. it's not a pure comparison of filter -vs- filter in the same intake... there's no accounting for discrepancies in the designs of the intakes themselves. also, while i understand the "dusting" issue is far more prevalent with domestic diesels, the fact that this is one manufacturer's paid study in order to one-up its competitor is not without a worthwhile mention.

Ask yourself which result passes the smell test. Can you have equally fine passages in the filter media and also reduce air restriction by 45% ? I don't need a test to tell me something's fishy.

There are so many factors surrounding Toyota not honoring the warranty. ... TRD provides similar oiled filter in the TRD CAI. 99+% efficiency while providing increased flow. Toyota also warrants this without question.

further on this, TRD oil filters also use a 100% synthetic filtration media and tout improved filtration -vs- OE paper filter elements. that claim could equally be construed as "fishy", but Toyota sells and guarantees them just the same. just another point to consider...

finally, as it happens (and prior to this thread) i recently cleaned my aFe Pro Dry filter and disassembled my TRD CAI, cleaning everything, including my throttle body and MAF, while it was all apart. there was not much to clean downstream of the filter, to be honest. the TRD tubing from the airbox to the TB was spotless, as was the MAF, and although i cleaned the TB for good measure, even after 8 years in service without cleaning there was not much elbow grease to be expended. the only thing there really was to clean was some sand in the bottom of the intake box (normal for me; only now plugged that gap along the rubber grommet in the TRD lower airbox's driver side mounting point) and the filter itself. both were in normal condition according to my experience with this vehicle and the environment in which i run it.

i also did another UOA just 2 months ago and my silicon readings were exactly where they've always been; normal. based on this thread, i reached out to Blackstone and asked them for comment... their response:

"We use silicon to gauge air filtration effectiveness, using a spectrometer to look for extremely small particles. Microscopic pieces of dirt will add to silicon, and a silicon reading close to average is what we look for. That's been the case with your Toyota so far, so the air filter you're using appears to be working well. Poor cylinder-area wear is a common outcome of dirt ingestion. That is metals like aluminum and chrome from piston and ring wear, or iron from the cylinder walls. We more often find dirt from improper filter installation, or an intake leak downstream of the filter, than we do from an issue with the filter itself."
​

i'd genuinely like to hear more about the Taco whose engine Toyota claims was destroyed solely by an aFe filter. my hands-on, empirically-supported experience seems to suggest that there may be something more to that story—something fishy—but i remain curious and always eager to learn.

 

[wfo9]

sorry to resurrect this thread-drift, but i was thinking about it some more...


that is, of course, startling. can you provide any more details on the Taco? i'd sincerely like to know.



in looking more closely at the test, the specific parts it compares are complete CAIs for diesel motors — pitting an S&B CAI with both oiled and dry media filters -vs- an aFe intake with a dry filter. it's not a pure comparison of filter -vs- filter in the same intake... there's no accounting for discrepancies in the designs of the intakes themselves. also, while i understand the "dusting" issue is far more prevalent with domestic diesels, the fact that this is one manufacturer's paid study in order to one-up its competitor is not without a worthwhile mention.



further on this, TRD oil filters also use a 100% synthetic filtration media and tout improved filtration -vs- OE paper filter elements. that claim could equally be construed as "fishy", but Toyota sells and guarantees them just the same. just another point to consider...

finally, as it happens (and prior to this thread) i recently cleaned my aFe Pro Dry filter and disassembled my TRD CAI, cleaning everything, including my throttle body and MAF, while it was all apart. there was not much to clean downstream of the filter, to be honest. the TRD tubing from the airbox to the TB was spotless, as was the MAF, and although i cleaned the TB for good measure, even after 8 years in service without cleaning there was not much elbow grease to be expended. the only thing there really was to clean was some sand in the bottom of the intake box (normal for me; only now plugged that gap along the rubber grommet in the TRD lower airbox's driver side mounting point) and the filter itself. both were in normal condition according to my experience with this vehicle and the environment in which i run it.

i also did another UOA just 2 months ago and my silicon readings were exactly where they've always been; normal. based on this thread, i reached out to Blackstone and asked them for comment... their response:

"We use silicon to gauge air filtration effectiveness, using a spectrometer to look for extremely small particles. Microscopic pieces of dirt will add to silicon, and a silicon reading close to average is what we look for. That's been the case with your Toyota so far, so the air filter you're using appears to be working well. Poor cylinder-area wear is a common outcome of dirt ingestion. That is metals like aluminum and chrome from piston and ring wear, or iron from the cylinder walls. We more often find dirt from improper filter installation, or an intake leak downstream of the filter, than we do from an issue with the filter itself."
​

i'd genuinely like to hear more about the Taco whose engine Toyota claims was destroyed solely by an aFe filter. my hands-on, empirically-supported experience seems to suggest that there may be something more to that story—something fishy—but i remain curious and always eager to learn.

Agree 100% these cases are almost always something where the airbox coupler was loose or the airbox was literally full of dirt. I really doubt it had anything to do with the filter not filtering properly when used as recommended by mfg.

 

[Jetboy]

sorry to resurrect this thread-drift, but i was thinking about it some more...


that is, of course, startling. can you provide any more details on the Taco? i'd sincerely like to know.



in looking more closely at the test, the specific parts it compares are complete CAIs for diesel motors — pitting an S&B CAI with both oiled and dry media filters -vs- an aFe intake with a dry filter. it's not a pure comparison of filter -vs- filter in the same intake... there's no accounting for discrepancies in the designs of the intakes themselves. also, while i understand the "dusting" issue is far more prevalent with domestic diesels, the fact that this is one manufacturer's paid study in order to one-up its competitor is not without a worthwhile mention.



further on this, TRD oil filters also use a 100% synthetic filtration media and tout improved filtration -vs- OE paper filter elements. that claim could equally be construed as "fishy", but Toyota sells and guarantees them just the same. just another point to consider...

finally, as it happens (and prior to this thread) i recently cleaned my aFe Pro Dry filter and disassembled my TRD CAI, cleaning everything, including my throttle body and MAF, while it was all apart. there was not much to clean downstream of the filter, to be honest. the TRD tubing from the airbox to the TB was spotless, as was the MAF, and although i cleaned the TB for good measure, even after 8 years in service without cleaning there was not much elbow grease to be expended. the only thing there really was to clean was some sand in the bottom of the intake box (normal for me; only now plugged that gap along the rubber grommet in the TRD lower airbox's driver side mounting point) and the filter itself. both were in normal condition according to my experience with this vehicle and the environment in which i run it.

i also did another UOA just 2 months ago and my silicon readings were exactly where they've always been; normal. based on this thread, i reached out to Blackstone and asked them for comment... their response:

"We use silicon to gauge air filtration effectiveness, using a spectrometer to look for extremely small particles. Microscopic pieces of dirt will add to silicon, and a silicon reading close to average is what we look for. That's been the case with your Toyota so far, so the air filter you're using appears to be working well. Poor cylinder-area wear is a common outcome of dirt ingestion. That is metals like aluminum and chrome from piston and ring wear, or iron from the cylinder walls. We more often find dirt from improper filter installation, or an intake leak downstream of the filter, than we do from an issue with the filter itself."
​

i'd genuinely like to hear more about the Taco whose engine Toyota claims was destroyed solely by an aFe filter. my hands-on, empirically-supported experience seems to suggest that there may be something more to that story—something fishy—but i remain curious and always eager to learn.

I don't have a ton of details. But the basics are; engine failure on cyl 5. iirc. Tacoma has 55k miles. No explanation of visible dirt in intake. Dealership backed up by Toyota corporate voids warranty due to AFE filter. There's more on Tacomaworld.

I don't think it should be a surprise that a filter with less fine filtration media allows more dust and to go by. it's kinda basic physics of fluid dynamics. The only way to make small holes flow more air is to either put more of them in (more surface area of filter media - unlikely given the pleat size and spacing is already optimized), make them shorter in tube length - thinner sheet of filter media, or make them bigger. My money is on the last one. K&N are the same way. They void your warranty too. (Yeah, they say they don't - unless you go off road... then they do.)

This is something pretty easy to test yourself if you're really wanting to compare them. All you need is the stock intake housing lid removed from the vehicle, a shop vac, some fine dust, and some duct tape. To do an accurate measurement you'd also want a very high precision scale. But you don't need one. Just put a secondary filter in before the shop vac and watch how much goes through. It'll give a pretty good idea of the relative effectiveness. I'd try very fine powders - like flour or Portland cement would be a good choice to test. Ideally if it is colored will make it easier to see in the secondary filtration. A dyson type vacuum would probably do a pretty good job too if you clean it really well before each use to see how much flows through.

 

[Taco04]

Since I am a regular on TW I can say that thread was a he said she said my cousin said my former dog owner said.... In fact the thread was closed because there was zero proof this even happened. It was just someone posting that it happened and no one backed it up.

As far as URD maf cal it only works when in open loop. Lot's of info on XRunner underground as it's been around a long time with some dyno's to support it.... Still waiting to see what OVT will offer for these trucks if they ever get caught up.

 

[wfo9]

I don't have a ton of details. But the basics are; engine failure on cyl 5. iirc. Tacoma has 55k miles. No explanation of visible dirt in intake. Dealership backed up by Toyota corporate voids warranty due to AFE filter. There's more on Tacomaworld.

I don't think it should be a surprise that a filter with less fine filtration media allows more dust and to go by. it's kinda basic physics of fluid dynamics. The only way to make small holes flow more air is to either put more of them in (more surface area of filter media - unlikely given the pleat size and spacing is already optimized), make them shorter in tube length - thinner sheet of filter media, or make them bigger. My money is on the last one. K&N are the same way. They void your warranty too. (Yeah, they say they don't - unless you go off road... then they do.)

This is something pretty easy to test yourself if you're really wanting to compare them. All you need is the stock intake housing lid removed from the vehicle, a shop vac, some fine dust, and some duct tape. To do an accurate measurement you'd also want a very high precision scale. But you don't need one. Just put a secondary filter in before the shop vac and watch how much goes through. It'll give a pretty good idea of the relative effectiveness. I'd try very fine powders - like flour or Portland cement would be a good choice to test. Ideally if it is colored will make it easier to see in the secondary filtration. A dyson type vacuum would probably do a pretty good job too if you clean it really well before each use to see how much flows through.

Can you provide links. I could not find anything but did not try hard.

I've heard these claims in the past about filters many times, but for some reason they can never be backed up with facts. Its always some guy....or saw it somewhere...

I think it is more than just restriction = better filtration. The the type of media is a big factor. Comparing paper to paper.. this may be true.. But synthetic materials and oiled filters behave very differently in how they trap particles. It's more of a cling effect. You have to keep them clean to have proper filtration, and the oiled ones have to have the "right" amount of oil to work.

Now if the Tacoma guy put in a dry AFE filter and never cleaned it... and had an aftermarket bumper and ran in dust all the time... I can see it dusting the engine. Not syaing it can't happen, but just using a little common sense and care usually prevents it. There is clearly some information missing from this story.

 

[sandcrawler]

Can you provide links. I could not find anything but did not try hard.

the original thread was apparently a dumpster fire so mods closed and deleted it. this thread here was inspired by it, and references the original throughout... https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads...uld-you-run-an-aftermarket-air-filter.526401/

according to it, the Taco that was denied warranty was already on its second motor? (it's unclear to me if the second was a rebuild on the original or a new crate motor or what...) and he presented the Taco for another major warranty claim with an "engine bay full of mud" at 55k miles... Toyota denied the repair and pointed at the air filter as the cause.

it certainly seems as though there's more to this story than an incredible tale of an aftermarket air filter detonating an engine. if someone "was there at the time" please chime in and flesh out the details of this incident for those of us who weren't.

 

[sandcrawler]

and apparently the owner had taken and posted photos of the same Taco perched on a rock in the middle of a lake?

 

[wfo9]

and apparently the owner had taken and posted photos of the same Taco perched on a rock in the middle of a lake?

LOL, there is always a backstory on these denied engine warranty claims.... but this is how the internet legends get started.

 

[Hadelson]

Just a thought as all of use would like to know the facts. Perhaps we can have the TACO owner post here with details of what happened?