Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF  (Read 1415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 99533
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #15 on: 12 June 2019, 08:53:20 »

Are both banks showing a fair bit of LTFT?  What is the MAF reading (when plugged in), should be in region of 14kg/hr.

That is how you diagnose stuff, not willy nilly replacement ;)
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #16 on: 12 June 2019, 09:06:50 »

Are both banks showing a fair bit of LTFT?  What is the MAF reading (when plugged in), should be in region of 14kg/hr.

That is how you diagnose stuff, not willy nilly replacement ;)


I need more info for more revs and conditions to diagnose
Logged

biggriffin

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • huntingdon, Hoof'land
  • Posts: 8089
    • Vectra in a posh frock.
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #17 on: 12 June 2019, 09:42:28 »

I had this problem, after looking at maf, it turned out to be the. 135 coil pack.
Logged
Hoof'land storeman.

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #18 on: 12 June 2019, 09:55:59 »

I had this problem, after looking at maf, it turned out to be the. 135 coil pack.

Is the last option to cause a p0173 code. If it's not the MAF, I'll try it  :y
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 99533
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #19 on: 13 June 2019, 11:00:28 »

I had this problem, after looking at maf, it turned out to be the. 135 coil pack.

Is the last option to cause a p0173 code. If it's not the MAF, I'll try it  :y
Look at the live data readings. Not just randomly change parts. The codes are only a small part of the jigsaw in most cases, not the end diagnostic (unless you are a dealer or garage, and thus thick as two short planks)
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #20 on: 13 June 2019, 11:59:03 »

I had this problem, after looking at maf, it turned out to be the. 135 coil pack.

Is the last option to cause a p0173 code. If it's not the MAF, I'll try it  :y
Look at the live data readings. Not just randomly change parts. The codes are only a small part of the jigsaw in most cases, not the end diagnostic (unless you are a dealer or garage, and thus thick as two short planks)

You can see values, but if you do not have a sample to compare  at different rpm, load, etc... If you know where those values ​​are, I'd appreciate it if you told me
Logged

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 35375
    • 3.2 MV6 (LPG), Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #21 on: 13 June 2019, 13:06:51 »

I had this problem, after looking at maf, it turned out to be the. 135 coil pack.

Is the last option to cause a p0173 code. If it's not the MAF, I'll try it  :y
Look at the live data readings. Not just randomly change parts. The codes are only a small part of the jigsaw in most cases, not the end diagnostic (unless you are a dealer or garage, and thus thick as two short planks)

You can see values, but if you do not have a sample to compare  at different rpm, load, etc... If you know where those values ​​are, I'd appreciate it if you told me

Long term fuel trims are stored by the ECU over a period of time, so they don't depend on the current engine operating conditions. You can check them with the engine stopped or running and it makes no difference.

Nominally, the long term fuel trims should be zero. They start to depart from zero as the fuel delivery gets less accurate due to engine wear and changes in other items as they age. It's normal for them to wander a few percent from zero in a healthy car. What you're looking for is a value that has shifted more than, say, 10%.

You also need to compare the two banks. If the LTFT for both banks has drifted in the same direction, i.e. they are both at +15%, then the fault is something like the MAF sensor which is common to both banks. If only one has drifted off, or they have gone in different directions, then the diagonsis is very different (e.g. air leak that is affecting just one bank).
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #22 on: 13 June 2019, 13:45:59 »

I had this problem, after looking at maf, it turned out to be the. 135 coil pack.

Is the last option to cause a p0173 code. If it's not the MAF, I'll try it  :y
Look at the live data readings. Not just randomly change parts. The codes are only a small part of the jigsaw in most cases, not the end diagnostic (unless you are a dealer or garage, and thus thick as two short planks)

You can see values, but if you do not have a sample to compare  at different rpm, load, etc... If you know where those values ​​are, I'd appreciate it if you told me

Long term fuel trims are stored by the ECU over a period of time, so they don't depend on the current engine operating conditions. You can check them with the engine stopped or running and it makes no difference.

Nominally, the long term fuel trims should be zero. They start to depart from zero as the fuel delivery gets less accurate due to engine wear and changes in other items as they age. It's normal for them to wander a few percent from zero in a healthy car. What you're looking for is a value that has shifted more than, say, 10%.

You also need to compare the two banks. If the LTFT for both banks has drifted in the same direction, i.e. they are both at +15%, then the fault is something like the MAF sensor which is common to both banks. If only one has drifted off, or they have gone in different directions, then the diagonsis is very different (e.g. air leak that is affecting just one bank).

The problem is I have a 3.0 block with 2.6 electronic....  :(
Logged

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 35375
    • 3.2 MV6 (LPG), Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #23 on: 13 June 2019, 17:02:01 »

That doesn't matter. It's the electronics that matters, not the oily bits! You should still get a sane LTFT reading if you use an OBDII code reader because the metered air into the engine should match the fuel required for the correct mixture.
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #24 on: 15 June 2019, 14:21:51 »

That doesn't matter. It's the electronics that matters, not the oily bits! You should still get a sane LTFT reading if you use an OBDII code reader because the metered air into the engine should match the fuel required for the correct mixture.

The failure looks like an air intake, but as much as I've reviewed everything, including o-rings to inatke manifold, everything looks good. Is there something that can escape me? Something common that usually fails?
Logged

Doctor Gollum

  • Omega Queen
  • ********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • In a colds and darks puddleses
  • Posts: 13849
  • If you can't eat them, join them...
    • Feetses.
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #25 on: 15 June 2019, 14:26:21 »

That doesn't matter. It's the electronics that matters, not the oily bits! You should still get a sane LTFT reading if you use an OBDII code reader because the metered air into the engine should match the fuel required for the correct mixture.

The failure looks like an air intake, but as much as I've reviewed everything, including o-rings to inatke manifold, everything looks good. Is there something that can escape me? Something common that usually fails?
Besides the MAF you mean?  ::)

When was the airfilter changed last? Anything in the intake plumbing... Leaves/rags etc :-\
Logged
Onanists always think outside the box.

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #26 on: 15 June 2019, 15:13:11 »

That doesn't matter. It's the electronics that matters, not the oily bits! You should still get a sane LTFT reading if you use an OBDII code reader because the metered air into the engine should match the fuel required for the correct mixture.

The failure looks like an air intake, but as much as I've reviewed everything, including o-rings to inatke manifold, everything looks good. Is there something that can escape me? Something common that usually fails?
Besides the MAF you mean?  ::)

When was the airfilter changed last? Anything in the intake plumbing... Leaves/rags etc :-\

The maf can make the banks work differently? The truth is that it's strange for me to go better with the MAF disconnected ...The air filter, spark plugs, oil, etc are new with around 3000 miles
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 99533
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #27 on: 15 June 2019, 15:41:53 »

I'll ask one more time before ignoring this thread.

Post up the live data readings for LTFTs and MAF
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

Nick W

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chatham, Kent
  • Posts: 7407
  • Rover Metro 1.8VVC
    • 3.0l Elite estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #28 on: 15 June 2019, 19:25:19 »



The maf can make the banks work differently? The truth is that it's strange for me to go better with the MAF disconnected ...The air filter, spark plugs, oil, etc are new with around 3000 miles


It's typical, not strange!


Even without the correct procedure of looking at the live data rather than just disconnecting the sensor, a good quality replacement MAF would be a sensible way of fixing the fault.
Logged

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 109
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: Omega 2.6 runs better without MAF
« Reply #29 on: 16 June 2019, 21:41:02 »



The maf can make the banks work differently? The truth is that it's strange for me to go better with the MAF disconnected ...The air filter, spark plugs, oil, etc are new with around 3000 miles


It's typical, not strange!


Even without the correct procedure of looking at the live data rather than just disconnecting the sensor, a good quality replacement MAF would be a sensible way of fixing the fault.

Really? You give me some hope!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.139 seconds with 21 queries.