# 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes?



## Mongrel (May 15, 2000)

My MAF is finally dead. No amount of cleaning or coaxing seems to bring it back to life for more than 1 or 2 trips.
Searching archives, it appears that the cheaper 2.0 MAF will work in 1.8T AWD enignes. Is this true? I assume the pricing structure is still the same... that the 2.0 MAFs are significantly cheaper than 1.8T MAFs.


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

yes


----------



## pansyboy8 (May 20, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (BatiGol)*

are u sure? there was a post on the actual sensors and it shows taht it not the same


----------



## GoGTIGo (Aug 10, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (pansyboy8)*

using it rite now, works fine, tho i havetn done any test on it, but the car pulls hard and spikes at the usual


----------



## steez (Dec 2, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (GoGTIGo)*

part numba?


----------



## Mongrel (May 15, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (steez)*

2.0 MAF = Beetle 1.8T 2000-2001 MAF = 06A906461A


----------



## jude (Nov 9, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (steez)*

I could be wrong but I remember reading somewhere that the 2.0 MAF will not work on 2001+, only 2000. Then again, I could be wrong.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jude)*

Works for some not other. I tired it with my 2001 AWD and it ran HORRIBLE. it was reading way too high, 185 g/s. i got signal too high codes and it was spluttering like crazy.


----------



## Mongrel (May 15, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

Dealer wants $55.04 for a 2.0 MAF. Not bad. But they want a VIN number. Can I "borrow" a VIN number from any ol' 2.0 owner and go get one?


----------



## Mongrel (May 15, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

Nevermind. I figured out a "scheme" after another archive search.


----------



## jude (Nov 9, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

I'd bet money that if you searched everyone using a 2.0 MAF is running it on an AWD engine.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jude)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jude* »_I'd bet money that if you searched everyone using a 2.0 MAF is running it on an AWD engine.









this is true, but it didnt work on my AWD


----------



## MEDoc (Feb 7, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

Workes on my AWD. Cheap and perfect.


----------



## MEDoc (Feb 7, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

_sorry, double post _










_Modified by MEDoc at 9:48 AM 5-22-2003_


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jweltydotcom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jweltydotcom* »_
this is true, but it didnt work on my AWD

Weird, maybe cause you have a rare 2001 AWD? Just you swap the sensor, or the whole thing? was the housing the same diameter?



_Modified by BatiGol at 8:52 AM 5-22-2003_


----------



## 2OVTurboJetta (Apr 14, 2003)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

Why does the 2.slow MAF cost so much less than the 1.8t? Is it because they were failing like crazy?


----------



## Phishy (Jul 5, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (2OVTurboJetta)*

I've been using the 2.0 MAF for almost a year with no issues on my AWD. Housing is the same, its a direct swap. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Bootzilla (Dec 29, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Phishy)*

My Mileage went down with the 2.0 MAF, I think it was running a tad rich. I put the original MAF back in, and it WAS running great, but after one more cleaning, it is CEL'ing again - This time I think I will take the 2.0 sensor out and put it into the 1.8T housing.
The housing IS a little different....
T.
.


----------



## FlashRedGLS1.8T (Apr 17, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Phishy)*

Well I am at my wits end.
Just ordered the 461A MAF last night.
Will report on it's performance next week some time.


----------



## tropicorange20v (Jul 28, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (FlashRedGLS1.8T)*

When I originally put in the 2.0L MAF, I thought it worked great. It did work better than no MAF, but it definitely isn't the same as the stock AWD MAF sensor. 
I took the two sensors out of their housings, and they are definitely different. The 2.0 and VR6 use a temp sensor that is located in the MAF, the 1.8T uses a seperate sensor. The actual sensors are different part #'s too: F 00C 2G2 040 for the AWD and F 00C 2G2 032 for the 2.0L. The VR6 does however use the same exact sensor, F 00C 2G2 032. There must be something different. 
If you search, there is a very good post where someone logged timing with VAG-COM, and found that there was a difference between the AWD sensor and the 2.0l sensor. The AWD sensor allowed much more timing than the 2.0l.
So after all of that, I'm back to running a stock AWD sensor, and it feels much stronger than the 2.0L.
This is in an AWD.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (BatiGol)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BatiGol* »_
Weird, maybe cause you have a rare 2001 AWD? Just you swap the sensor, or the whole thing? was the housing the same diameter? 

Maybe... i swapped the whole thing. it was throwing me into limp mode all day and the EPC light was coming on, i could only drive the thing if i babied it and stayed out of boost


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jweltydotcom)*

OK...check this out. It pretty well explains it to me. The "Sensor" numbers are the same. It is just that the 2.0 uses what I would think is a pull up resistor for different voltage levels. That would be my opinion on how they calibrate it to the different ECU's. My opinion is that you NEED to cut the resistor out of the circuit. Or else you are going to get different voltage readings. Just a hunch at this pont. I am in the same boat and just had mine go. I will be receiving my 2.0 MAF next week. I will take pictures, compare the part numbers, take VAG readings with and without the resistor. I am "Determined" to get to the bottom of this. 
http://lccci-1.commonsensecc.c...=2865
Having an electronics degree, a process control degree and working in an industrial atmosphere I am very familiar with hot wire annomometers. I will put the sensor on a meter and scope and see if there is any difference. Voltage in voltage out. Should be simple enough. Stay tuned for my report............








http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by CuStOm at 12:13 PM 5-23-2003_


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (CuStOm)*

very interesting post!
definately keep us posted... i might just hold onto this 2.0L MAF to see if maybe it will out


----------



## dbrowne1 (Oct 31, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_OK...check this out. It pretty well explains it to me. The "Sensor" numbers are the same. It is just that the 2.0 uses what I would think is a pull up resistor for different voltage levels. That would be my opinion on how they calibrate it to the different ECU's. My opinion is that you NEED to cut the resistor out of the circuit. Or else you are going to get different voltage readings. Just a hunch at this pont. I am in the same boat and just had mine go. I will be receiving my 2.0 MAF next week. I will take pictures, compare the part numbers, take VAG readings with and without the resistor. I am "Determined" to get to the bottom of this. 
http://lccci-1.commonsensecc.c...=2865
Having an electronics degree, a process control degree and working in an industrial atmosphere I am very familiar with hot wire annomometers. I will put the sensor on a meter and scope and see if there is any difference. Voltage in voltage out. Should be simple enough. Stay tuned for my report............








http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by CuStOm at 12:13 PM 5-23-2003_

Very interested in these results.


----------



## johntorg (Oct 30, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (dbrowne1)*

Using a 2.0 MAF in My GIAC Chipped AWD, with no problems so far.


----------



## johnAWD (Aug 13, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Phishy)*

Phishy - what year is your car?

_Quote, originally posted by *Phishy* »_I've been using the 2.0 MAF for almost a year with no issues on my AWD. Housing is the same, its a direct swap. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Phishy (Jul 5, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (johnAWD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *johnAWD* »_Phishy - what year is your car?


2000
It seems to be fine on my car.. I've dyno'd with it and made good looking pulls, car never throws maf codes or anything..


----------



## Andy (1.8)T (Aug 1, 2000)

yes it will work.

2000.5 AWD, been using it for a year...not a single problem...


----------



## FlashRedGLS1.8T (Apr 17, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (FlashRedGLS1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FlashRedGLS1.8T* »_Well I am at my wits end.
Just ordered the 461A MAF last night.
Will report on it's performance next week some time.

Um nevermind because the dealer I ordered it from just emailed
me and wants me VIN.


----------



## tropicorange20v (Jul 28, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_OK...check this out. It pretty well explains it to me. The "Sensor" numbers are the same.

The actual sensors are different part #'s: F 00C 2G2 040 for the AWD and F 00C 2G2 032 for the 2.0L. The VR6 does however use the same exact sensor, F 00C 2G2 032. There must be something different. 
I'd be interested in the results of your testing.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (tropicorange20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tropicorange20v* »_
The actual sensors are different part #'s: F 00C 2G2 040 for the AWD and F 00C 2G2 032 for the 2.0L. The VR6 does however use the same exact sensor, F 00C 2G2 032. There must be something different. 


Probably only indicating the addition of the resistor. We will find out soon!








StevesVW got me one for $55 shipped. He said they are out till Tuesday and mine will ship then. Should have it in time to head to work and do some tests over the weekend. I called just about every VW dealer remotely close (3 states!) They all want VIN numbers. VW is requiring it. VW is having a hard time keeping up with demand. Your local Bosch dealer can get the sensor too. L8R


----------



## reflexiv (Jul 2, 2000)

That sounds awesome! I would love to be able to replace mine for $55 as opposed to $300+. Is it still working for you?


----------



## Bootzilla (Dec 29, 2000)

*Re: (reflexiv)*

I just had to put the 2.0 MAF back into my AWD - seems to work fine for the first day - pulls strong, no CEL's...


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (Bootzilla)*

Are you people cutting out the resistor on the 2.0L MAF???


----------



## reflexiv (Jul 2, 2000)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_Are you people cutting out the resistor on the 2.0L MAF???

Did you log any VAG-COM readings before cutting the resistor?


----------



## AxeAngel (Mar 28, 2001)

*Re: (reflexiv)*

might also want to add that if you are chipped or not and using the 2.0 MAF.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (AxeAngel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AxeAngel* »_might also want to add that if you are chipped or not and using the 2.0 MAF.

I agree. I am chipped and will include that in my info.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (reflexiv)*


_Quote, originally posted by *reflexiv* »_
Did you log any VAG-COM readings before cutting the resistor?

I have not done it yet. I will reveive my MAF this week and will hopefully get to it this weekend. I will log results before and after. Along with some lab data of the sensor with the resistor cut and inplace. L8R


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

i logged my MAF reading when i installed my 2.0L MAF. i'll try to get it posted here soon. i was getting max values of 185 g/s


----------



## reflexiv (Jul 2, 2000)

*Re: (jweltydotcom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jweltydotcom* »_i logged my MAF reading when i installed my 2.0L MAF. i'll try to get it posted here soon. i was getting max values of 185 g/s

185 g/s! Holy crap!!! 
Um, is that good, or bad?


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: (reflexiv)*


_Quote, originally posted by *reflexiv* »_
185 g/s! Holy crap!!! 
Um, is that good, or bad?









apparently.. i got a MAF signal too high code from it.


----------



## tropicorange20v (Jul 28, 2002)

*Re: (jweltydotcom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jweltydotcom* »_
apparently.. i got a MAF signal too high code from it.

I wonder if this could have been my reason for getting decreased gas mileage with the 2.0L MAF.


----------



## dbrowne1 (Oct 31, 2000)

*Re: (AxeAngel)*

I have a mods as listed in my signature (GIAC K04 software) and the 2.0 MAF. No problems so far, great gas mileage (33-34mpg today on the highway).


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (reflexiv)*


_Quote »_
I have not done it yet. I will reveive my MAF this week and will hopefully get to it this weekend. I will log results before and after. Along with some lab data of the sensor with the resistor cut and inplace. L8R
_______









OK, I have been having some BIG time problems with my boost, limp mode, surging, flutter, etc......I had a stock MAF 1.8T, it went bad (or is just dirty, so I am trying to clean it as we speak). I threw a 2.0 in there and at 1st it ran great, then it was giving me all kinds of troubles (I still am not 100% sure it is the MAF, but most likely a BIG contributor). see my post here http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=862712
so, I just went and unplugged my MAF, GUESS WHAT NO more limp mode on heavy accel and no more surging, fluttering, etc!!!!!!
I took out the 2.0 and looked at it VS the 1.8t, here is what I found, besides the screws used to attach the sensor to the housing being 5 sided VS 6 sided, the housings are the exact same and use same part #.
there is a resistor/capaciter of some sort, it MAY not even be one, but some other type of sensor, it is a red translusent color and it is visible that there are 2 wires with a gap between them (maybe under heat, or flow, or pressure, these connect and sense something or change a value-this is imprortant when reading below)
THERE ARE 5 MALE ENDED ELECTRONIC POSTS, COUNTING FROM THE SCREEN SIDE OF THE UNIT TO THE OTHER END (#1->#5)
here are the values in Ohms
1.8t-original..............................2.0
1. ZERO....................................21X100
2.7X1.........................................7X1
3.15X100..................................15X100
4.35X100..................................35X100
5.15X100..................................15X100
as you can see ALL values are the same EXePT the #1 post, this must be a "dummy" post in the 1.8t and that measurement (whatever it is), but be taken elsewhere in the car. So instead of JUST cutting the resistor (or whatever it is), I was going to outsmart it and cover the post with electical tape and bypass it. BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, I looked at the female end, and GUESS WHAT??? there is NO electrical/metal connector there for this post, so now I am confused, if there is NOTHING there to read, why would it be different than the 1.8t?????(this is where I HOPE to get someones educated opinion), my guess is that there is a sometype of loop, and as something changes (boost, flow, heat, whatever) that it NOT only effects that post/measurement, BUT effects others as well, THUS if it weren't there (or CUT) it would have NO effect?????
I used an analog meter, so I am NOT 100% sure these measurements are 100% accurate, and I out one end of the meter on a metal post that "holds" onto the resistor post, and the other on the male end of the connector.
ANY THOUGHTS???? (I don;t want to cut it yet, until I get more knowledgeble opinions here)


_Modified by rodH at 6:27 AM 5-28-2003_


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*

Your resistance values look a little weird to me. Is that suppused to be 15X100=1500 ohms?
Secondly...does the circuit continuity of the external resistor correspond to pin 1?
I would assume the 2.0L connector has a conductor on pin one.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_Your resistance values look a little weird to me. Is that suppused to be 15X100=1500 ohms?
Secondly...does the circuit continuity of the external resistor correspond to pin 1?
I would assume the 2.0L connector has a conductor on pin one.

I don't know the exact values, but that is the #s given on the meter. Yes, it corresponds with pin #1, and sure it could be a conductor (I don't know how they differ in appearence). Sorry I don;t have more info, I am not an electrition or an EE.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_Your resistance values look a little weird to me. Is that suppused to be 15X100=1500 ohms?
Secondly...does the circuit continuity of the external resistor correspond to pin 1?
I would assume the 2.0L connector has a conductor on pin one.

let us know when you get yours and CUT the extra part, so I (we) can know to to do and not to do. THANX


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*

I am at the mercy of UPS! StevesVW has sent it out. As soon as it gets here I will do all of my test. I would hope it gets here by Friday. If so expect results by Monday. L8R







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## eurojet (Jan 4, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

I've been following this post about the MAf, and i think mine went bad on my 2002 awp so iwas searching and found this post, cause you had mentioned about a small red resisitor this guy says it is the intake air temp, does'nt the 1.8t have this sensor on the IC

"5 MAFs? Now #6? That's amazing! My first one lasted 132,000 miles and I only replaced it because the intake air temp sensor (small red resistor on the side of the MAF sensor) went and was throwing a CEL. The air flow part of the MAF still worked fine. I could still use it, but wanted to get rid of the CEL. Maybe you have the MAF harness problem that has been discussed at length in some of the TDIClub MAF threads. Something has to be causing the incredibly frequent MAF failures in your car."


----------



## mums (Jan 9, 2003)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mongrel* »_Dealer wants $55.04 for a 2.0 MAF. Not bad. But they want a VIN number. Can I "borrow" a VIN number from any ol' 2.0 owner and go get one?


Um, excuse me can someone purchase on my behalf one of these 55 dollar MAF. My dealer wants $376.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (mums)*

i got mine from http://www.vwparts.com for $80 no questions asked... even though i have to return it cuz it didnt work


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (eurojet)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eurojet* »_I've been following this post about the MAf, and i think mine went bad on my 2002 awp so iwas searching and found this post, cause you had mentioned about a small red resisitor this guy says it is the intake air temp, does'nt the 1.8t have this sensor on the IC

"5 MAFs? Now #6? That's amazing! My first one lasted 132,000 miles and I only replaced it because the intake air temp sensor (small red resistor on the side of the MAF sensor) went and was throwing a CEL. The air flow part of the MAF still worked fine. I could still use it, but wanted to get rid of the CEL. Maybe you have the MAF harness problem that has been discussed at length in some of the TDIClub MAF threads. Something has to be causing the incredibly frequent MAF failures in your car."


the theory behind it being a temperature sensor of some sort might be accurate, b/c the car was running much worse as it got hotter, and almost ran (almost) normal when it was cooler.
as soon as custom gets his and works with it, I will likely cut that red sensor out and give it a try.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*

Update....
Wont get the MAF untill monday. 
I have gotta give props to StevesVW. They are awesome and have some of the best service in the auto industry I have received. 
Till then..................


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

just put back in my old (cleaned) 1.8t version, drives like crap, waiting to hear about yours custom, on what to do with the 2.0. Thanx!!!


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_Update....
Wont get the MAF untill monday. 
I have gotta give props to StevesVW. They are awesome and have some of the best service in the auto industry I have received. 
Till then..................
















any news??


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*

It is Tuesday. The MAF got delayed. Friggin UPS. The webpage said Yesterday, yesterday. Today it says today. Its 5:15 and I am sitting here waiting for it. This is what I had planned for my evening, and now I am getting screwed by the man in brown.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_It is Tuesday. The MAF got delayed. Friggin UPS. The webpage said Yesterday, yesterday. Today it says today. Its 5:15 and I am sitting here waiting for it. This is what I had planned for my evening, and now I am getting screwed by the man in brown.
















sorry to here, so typical ha, I was supposed to move into a new house on Sat, then the BANK screwed it up, got delayed a couple days, I know how you feel, keep us updated!!!


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*

OK. Got the MAF. 
This is my preliminary information. All this information is for the sensor only. 
I have the 2.0L MAF. 
Part Number 06A906461A
The sensor number of the 2.0L MAF is F00C2G2032
The sensor number of the AWD MAF is F00C2G2040
On the resistor side of BOTH sensors is the numbers "PBT-GF30"
When I refer to pin numbers hold your maf in your hand with the round side of the connector on the left and the square on the right. The far left pin is 1, the far right is 5. That is what they are labeled as on the sensor itself.
So the 2.0L MAF has a resistor soldered in on one side. This is a 1.5Kohm resistor. This connects pins 1 to 3. With this resistor in place you now have continuity to pins 1&3, 1&4, 1&5. On the AWD MAF there is no continuity at pin1 in relation to any other pins. This proves a very valid point in cutting out the resistor in itself. As on the 1.8T there are no electrical connections to pin1. 
Here is the best part (w/o flooding you with a ton of technical information and numbers, if someone needs something in particular just ask). On the osciliscope and on my digital meter there is absolutely NO differences electrically between the two sensors when the resistor is cut. Now I know you dont know me from jack but I do know what I am doing and am very educated in this department. I am very anal and I would not run this on my car if I was not 100% sure it was compatible. After I am done moving I will get a technical white paper together on my findings. 
Now the stories of it worked for some but not others. Dunno. But without removing the resistor from the circuit you do indeed have a different acting sensor. It does affect the relationship between various pins. 3&5 and 4&5 to be exact. So unless this person cut the resistor I think their findings on whether or not the 2.0L MAF will work in an AWD are inconclusive due to bad data.
After the sun goes down so I can see johhny law on his way, I will go out and do a couple VAG runs. Right now in the garage at idle (800RPM) the reading is 2.8G/S off of the MAF. I reset faults and let the car come up to temp and idle for about 5 minutes. After shutting the car off and then back on the bock 32 compensation numbers are both zero. Once the sensor has proven itself to be totally functional like I anticipate it to be then I will tear apart the original one so I can get a circuit diagram of it. 
So stay tuned and later tonight or tomorrow I will post some vag runs. 
Got questions? Ask. 



_Modified by CuStOm at 9:55 PM 6-3-2003_


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

Well the Vag logs look awesome. Just like my old MAF used to. With the BCS at max and doing a 3rd gear pull from 2k to redline the max reading on the MAF was 169G/S. Looks awesome too. Very linear and smooth. I have pics if anyone wants them, just holler and I will e-mail one of the graph. I am in the process of moving and I dont have a webserver right now so I can not post for an in thread image.
After coming back the the garage my trim values in block 32 were +1.1/-2.3. So that is pretty damn good. I will update my readings in a week. If anyone has questions, just ask. L8R


_Modified by CuStOm at 9:56 PM 6-3-2003_


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_Well the Vag logs look awesome. Just like my old MAF used to. With the BCS at max and doing a 3rd gear pull from 2k to redline the max reading on the MAF was 169G/S. Looks awesome too. Very linear and smooth. I have pics if anyone wants them, just holler and I will e-mail one of the graph. I am in the process of moving and I dont have a webserver right now so I can not post for an in thread image.
After coming back the the garage my trim values in block 32 were +1.1/-2.3. So that is pretty damn good. I will update my readings in a week. If anyone has questions, just ask. L8R

_Modified by CuStOm at 9:56 PM 6-3-2003_

this is GREAT news, I really felt like after looking at the part VERY VERY close and measuring the Ohms of EACH pin, that if you did indead CUT the resistor out, it would be the EXACT (or close to) same sensor as the origional, and that pin #1 is only a "dumby" pin in the 1.8t version (interesting, this is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of supply and demand, the 2.0 MAF actually uses MORE parts and it is MUCH MUCH cheaper, ummmmmm??? no wonder why they require a VIN when ordering from a dealer now)
keep up the good work, I am in the middle of moving to, and just have my MAF disconnected for the time being, as soon as you provide more DATA and more runs, I will follow and cut the resistor out.
THANKS!!!!!!!


----------



## howi (Apr 16, 2000)

*Success story: 2.0 MAF works with 1.8T AWD*

Folks,
Thanks to the informative posts by many members like VgRt6 and CuSt0m, I have put in the relatively less expensive "A" model MAF into my AWD engine with the red air temp. sensor / resistor cut out. I have cleared the DTCs and nothing has come back.
So far, the only unusual thing I have been experienced was the "sudden slag" behaviour at 2800rpm during acceleration. And, the fuel economy has been remaining the same as before. However, ever since I have performed the Throttle Body Adaptation with the VAG-COM about a weeks later, it consistently improved by 10 to 12%. I do not know why since the DTCs has been cleared since the "A" MAF was installed. The car should be out of the "limp mode" and the fuel consumption should remain the same.
I have also taken the faulty "D" MAF sensor apart. Check out the pictures (thanks vgRt6 again). Please note that there is NO visual damage to the circuit that I have found on the faulty MAF. Any damage would be microscopic level. The whole PCB is embedded in a layer of silicone. The type of silicone gel Bosch use is one of a kind. A friend of mine in the Chemistry industry told me, it is relatively more "gooey" than average harder silicone. It will be better in dampening external shock. For your reference, I can send you the original 1600x1200 300-pixels-per-inch pictures.
























*The pictures may look like there is broken connection but it is actually lighting condition, fingerprint, fine dust on the surface of the silicone gel.*



_Modified by howi at 11:43 AM 6-4-2003_


----------



## howi (Apr 16, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (tropicorange20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tropicorange20v* »_
The actual sensors are different part #'s: F 00C 2G2 040 for the AWD and F 00C 2G2 032 for the 2.0L. The VR6 does however use the same exact sensor, F 00C 2G2 032. There must be something different. 
I'd be interested in the results of your testing. 


tropicorange20v,
The VR6 MAF sensor itself is same as 2.0L but the barrel is different in diameter.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (howi)*

custom,
do you have any pics of the MAF with the resistor cut out?? i'm curious exactly where it was cut out. i've got a 2.0L MAF that i was about to return cuz it didnt work in my car. so i want to cut that thing out and hopefully it will be all good!!


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jweltydotcom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jweltydotcom* »_custom,
do you have any pics of the MAF with the resistor cut out?? i'm curious exactly where it was cut out. i've got a 2.0L MAF that i was about to return cuz it didnt work in my car. so i want to cut that thing out and hopefully it will be all good!!

take the MAF out and look down the barrel, it is fairly easy to see if you look careful enough.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: Success story: 2.0 MAF works with 1.8T AWD (howi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *howi* »_Folks,
Thanks to the informative posts by many members like VgRt6 and CuSt0m, I have put in the relatively less expensive "A" model MAF into my AWD engine with the red air temp. sensor / resistor cut out. I have cleared the DTCs and nothing has come back.
So far, the only unusual thing I have been experienced was the "sudden slag" behaviour at 2800rpm during acceleration. And, the fuel economy has been remaining the same as before. However, ever since I have performed the Throttle Body Adaptation with the VAG-COM about a weeks later, it consistently improved by 10 to 12%. I do not know why since the DTCs has been cleared since the "A" MAF was installed. The car should be out of the "limp mode" and the fuel consumption should remain the same.
I have also taken the faulty "D" MAF sensor apart. Check out the pictures (thanks vgRt6 again). Please note that there is NO visual damage to the circuit that I have found on the faulty MAF. Any damage would be microscopic level. The whole PCB is embedded in a layer of silicone. The type of silicone gel Bosch use is one of a kind. A friend of mine in the Chemistry industry told me, it is relatively more "gooey" than average harder silicone. It will be better in dampening external shock. For your reference, I can send you the original 1600x1200 300-pixels-per-inch pictures.
























*The pictures may look like there is broken connection but it is actually lighting condition, fingerprint, fine dust on the surface of the silicone gel.*

_Modified by howi at 1:53 AM 6-4-2003_

did the "sudden sag" decrease after you re-set your Throttle body??


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (rodH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rodH* »_
take the MAF out and look down the barrel, it is fairly easy to see if you look careful enough.

i understand where it is, i'm just curious exactly where it was cut out... the lead going to the resistor??


----------



## water&air (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (2OVTurboJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2OVTurboJetta* »_Why does the 2.slow MAF cost so much less than the 1.8t? Is it because they were failing like crazy?

EXACTLY. v.o.a. lowers prices on parts that they keep having to replace under warranty. as soon as the part is out of warranty they jack the price back up.
as to the ever popular "will a 2.0 maf woork in my 1.8t" :
the only 1.8t that correctly accepts the 2.0 maf is engine code aph(early beetle 1.8t).
awd owners have given mixed results...some good some bad.
one of the reasons a maf will go bad is CAI ( over oiling causes the maf to fail, in addition even if it's a k&n it is a smaller filter area and it can't clean as fast as a stock filter alowing small paricals to pass through a high rpms, the long intake tubes that come stock allow for alot of those small particles to fall out of suspension which is another reason to just put k&n in the air box instead of a CAI)
just my .02 based on expeirience.


----------



## dbrowne1 (Oct 31, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (water&air)*


_Quote, originally posted by *water&air* »_
one of the reasons a maf will go bad is CAI ( over oiling causes the maf to fail, in addition even if it's a k&n it is a smaller filter area and it can't clean as fast as a stock filter alowing small paricals to pass through a high rpms, the long intake tubes that come stock allow for alot of those small particles to fall out of suspension which is another reason to just put k&n in the air box instead of a CAI)


Nope. Wrong. First of all, an oiled panel filter in the stock box is much closer to the MAF than one at the end of a CAI...which one is more of an "oil risk"? Second, even on the closer stock box/K&N setup, you will not find any oil on the top half of the airbox. It doesn't get to the MAF. If anything, oil from the PCV system is more of an issue.
More simply, the MAFs fail at random. They fail on stock filter cars at a rate that cannot be distinguished from CAI cars.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (dbrowne1)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I second that.
The oiling thing I think is an urban legend. Cruise the scooby or honda/acura boards and there have been plenty of test done on over oiling oil-reqd filters. There was even a test done at Audiworld where the tried to make the MAF read incorrectly by over-saturating the MAF with oil and it was a no go. The sensors are of the most upmost "elements" protected. Oil would if anything, make it read innacurately, not fail. K&N even did a test to simulate the "Oil will kill your MAF" phenominom. They released some white papers and independent test results on the studies they had done by ISO certified labs and it was a no go. If I can find a link to that thread on whatever board I will post it. Too much rumor passing. L8R

_Quote, originally posted by *dbrowne1* »_
Nope. Wrong. First of all, an oiled panel filter in the stock box is much closer to the MAF than one at the end of a CAI...which one is more of an "oil risk"? Second, even on the closer stock box/K&N setup, you will not find any oil on the top half of the airbox. It doesn't get to the MAF. If anything, oil from the PCV system is more of an issue.
More simply, the MAFs fail at random. They fail on stock filter cars at a rate that cannot be distinguished from CAI cars.


----------



## howi (Apr 16, 2000)

*Re: Success story: 2.0 MAF works with 1.8T AWD (rodH)*

rodH,

_Quote, originally posted by *rodH* »_did the "sudden slag" decrease after you re-set your Throttle body??

It improves and less obvious after I have done the Throttle Body Adaptation. Thanks to my tuner friends here in town (PG / Hyperformance / HotH2O), I have also put in a working "D" model MAF and compare. At first, it did feel more "kicks and pulls" and no slag whatsoever. However, I did not have the time to do more scientific investigation like logging the numbers with the VAG-COM and comparing them. Anyway, many friends of mine suggested it could be psychological factors.
Until I can find a significant ill effect on my car or huge price drops for the "D" model MAF, I will just call it a success swap for now.


----------



## howi (Apr 16, 2000)

*I third then...*

CuStOm,

_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I second that.
The oiling thing I think is an urban legend. Cruise the scooby or honda/acura boards and there have been plenty of test done on over oiling oil-reqd filters. There was even a test done at Audiworld where the tried to make the MAF read incorrectly by over-saturating the MAF with oil and it was a no go. The sensors are of the most upmost "elements" protected. Oil would if anything, make it read innacurately, not fail. K&N even did a test to simulate the "Oil will kill your MAF" phenominom. They released some white papers and independent test results on the studies they had done by ISO certified labs and it was a no go. If I can find a link to that thread on whatever board I will post it. Too much rumor passing. L8R


Please also note that the sensor will heat up the platinum wire briefly to very high temp. just to clean up any contaminant during shut-off. Unless the sensor is completely soaked in the oil, I do not think the impact to the operation of the MAF is significant in reality. A faulty / on-the-way-out PCV could be even more a damaging contributor than an over-oiled air filter. 
However, I am more concern the other parts of the engine along the air-way path. In my old 16V GTX, I have found the throttle body, the air duct had a thin film of oil on the surface if I use the K&N even I have not over-oiled it. 
In my last message, I mentioned the comparison between a "D" model and a "A" model. When I got the "D" MAF, it was like has been soaking in the motor oil for a while. Of course, I have been taught it is big no-no by the general consensus. So I carefully cleaned it first before I put into my car. 90% Ethanol + Electronic Cleaner Spary is used... It was jsut fine.


----------



## tropicorange20v (Jul 28, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (howi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *howi* »_
tropicorange20v,
The VR6 MAF sensor itself is same as 2.0L but the barrel is different in diameter.


Yeah thats exactly what I said, that the VR6 and 2.0L use the same sensor. I was refering to the AWD sensor vs. the 2.0L/VR6 being different.
Quote, originally posted by tropicorange20v » 
The actual sensors are different part #'s: F 00C 2G2 040 for the AWD and F 00C 2G2 032 for the 2.0L. The VR6 does however use the same exact sensor, F 00C 2G2 032. There must be something different.


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (tropicorange20v)*

Custom
Good job. When you are finished testing, please write up in detail on how to cut the resistors and everything. I would appreciate it.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## tropicorange20v (Jul 28, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (BatiGol)*

Nice to get some hard facts on this. Way to go Custom








Sensor with resistor:








Snip the resistor:








_Modified by tropicorange20v at 6:24 PM 6-4-2003_

_Modified by tropicorange20v at 6:25 PM 6-4-2003_

_Modified by tropicorange20v at 6:26 PM 6-4-2003_


_Modified by tropicorange20v at 7:54 PM 6-4-2003_


----------



## dbrowne1 (Oct 31, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (tropicorange20v)*

I just "snipped mine" (ouch...that brings back repressed memories of when I was a little baby) this afternoon. Cleared codes and ran a TBA. Took it for a spin and noticed no difference, except...
I used to overboost (27psi+...my 25psi VDO gauge gets pegged at about 27) when I would floor it at low rpms. This would not throw a code, but would cause the ECU to quickly pull boost down to 20-22psi. We're talking 27+ to 21 in a nanosecond here. Now it seems more reluctant to pull boost, and will stay at 25psi+ more frequently. When it does pull it, now it goes down to about 23.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (tropicorange20v)*

why did u snip it in those spots?? why not snip it closer and remove that red thing...
cant you snip here and here instead??


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jweltydotcom)*

Hummmm...maybe snip it all?? Leaving that one piece out there cantilevered could eventually cause flutter, because of airflow and then separation and ingestion into the turbo.


----------



## tropicorange20v (Jul 28, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (MRP2001GTi)*

Good point. I just randomly snipped it.
I hate this place.


----------



## jweltydotcom (Jul 22, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (MRP2001GTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MRP2001GTi* »_Hummmm...maybe snip it all?? Leaving that one piece out there cantilevered could eventually cause flutter, because of airflow and then separation and ingestion into the turbo.

thats exactly what i'm thinking!! i'll have to give this a try and see how it works. when i installed the 2.0L MAF before it ran like crap... so if snipping this off makes it work that would be awesome!!


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (jweltydotcom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jweltydotcom* »_why did u snip it in those spots?? why not snip it closer and remove that red thing...
cant you snip here and here instead??









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Snip it on both sides of holders. Then pull out the resistor. Makes sure there is no debris left. The holders have solder on them, that will keep the rest of the resistor legs from falling off.


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

Just snipped mine, going for a long test drive (with tools and spare MAF in hand).


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (MRP2001GTi)*

Kuhl.........share your results. Did you clear faults before putting it in? If you did and have a vag, share your trim values and maybe a g/s reading. Thanks.


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (CuStOm)*

All I have right now is the butt dyno and EAR Com but it sure seems different. Originally I went from a totally wiped out OEM AWD MAF to the 2.0 A MAF so instantly the car felt mucho better but, there always seem to be something not quite 100% . For example, once she was warmed up she would pop and fart if I rev-ed her a little or while downshifting. Also the gas mileage was not as good as when the AWD MAF was working.
During the drive tonight she felt much more consistent. Even after she was warmed up the pull was nice and smooth, almost crisp. And it sounds different when down shifting, no popping, no farting, bla bla. 
I will get a hold of UKAUSSI and do a VAG run when he is available. But so far this seems like a positive thing. I want to get a base line for this MAF sensor anyway because I have a gutted housing I want to try it in at another time.


----------



## spoolin turbo s (Mar 8, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (MRP2001GTi)*

what about for us aww and awp guys?
any cheap solutions for the bad MAF


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (MRP2001GTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MRP2001GTi* »_All I have right now is the butt dyno and EAR Com but it sure seems different. Originally I went from a totally wiped out OEM AWD MAF to the 2.0 A MAF so instantly the car felt mucho better but, there always seem to be something not quite 100% . For example, once she was warmed up she would pop and fart if I rev-ed her a little or while downshifting. Also the gas mileage was not as good as when the AWD MAF was working.
During the drive tonight she felt much more consistent. Even after she was warmed up the pull was nice and smooth, almost crisp. And it sounds different when down shifting, no popping, no farting, bla bla. 
I will get a hold of UKAUSSI and do a VAG run when he is available. But so far this seems like a positive thing. I want to get a base line for this MAF sensor anyway because I have a gutted housing I want to try it in at another time.


that would be GREAT!!


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

any updates??


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

*Re: (rodH)*

No I have been out of town since I snipped her, she is not my daily driver anymore so nothing new to report.


----------



## FlashRedGLS1.8T (Apr 17, 2001)

I sissed out and bought the 1.8T one instead.
Sick of f'ing with my car.


----------



## whizbang18T (Nov 17, 2000)

gawd this thread is still going?!


----------



## FlashRedGLS1.8T (Apr 17, 2001)

*Re: (whizbang18T)*

Um, apparently.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (whizbang18T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *whizbang18T* »_gawd this thread is still going?!

actually it is pretty productive thread if the problem applies to you, actually answers a lot of questions and could provide a fix, unlike so many of the repeat posts out there.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rodH* »_
actually it is pretty productive thread if the problem applies to you, actually answers a lot of questions and could provide a fix, unlike so many of the repeat posts out there.

Amen to that my friend. I just hope more people post their experiences with the cut resistor so we can keep the info in one thread. L8R


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

Drove the car to my hockey game tonight. Did a few 4th gear pulls from 45 to 85 and I still say its running closer to normal than it has in a while. Its definitely running better than when the resistor was in place.
Also did a few WFO 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear runs. Its pulling as hard as it ever has. Im just use to it and want more!!










_Modified by MRP2001GTi at 9:48 PM 6-9-2003_


----------



## MastaVR6 (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (Mongrel)*

goto:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=773176


----------



## spoolin turbo s (Mar 8, 2002)

*Re: 2.0 MAF for 1.8T AWD will work, yes? (MastaVR6)*

ok and how does that help us here


----------



## mikes (Dec 31, 2000)

*Info on "resistor."*

The "resistor," is actually a thermistor, and is used on non-turbo applications to sense the intake air temperature (IAT). On a turbo engine, IAT is sensed after the intercooler (or turbo, if no intercooler), so there is no need for an IAT sensor at the MAF. Snipping it does nothing, it is simply ignored on a 1.8T (hence the lack of the corresponding contact in the connector).


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 5, 2003)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_Snipping it does nothing, it is simply ignored on a 1.8T (hence the lack of the corresponding contact in the connector).

How can that be?? Custom tested it out and found there to be differences..


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_The "resistor," is actually a thermistor, and is used on non-turbo applications to sense the intake air temperature (IAT). On a turbo engine, IAT is sensed after the intercooler (or turbo, if no intercooler), so there is no need for an IAT sensor at the MAF. Snipping it does nothing, it is simply ignored on a 1.8T (hence the lack of the corresponding contact in the connector).


Is this an educated guess or did you actually test it? Yes it does correspond to pin one. There is no connection at pin one on our cars. BUT it also affects the circuit in other ways. Read my initial posting in this thread and let me know if you disagree. If you do I would like you to enlighten me on what I have missed.


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_The "resistor," is actually a thermistor, and is used on non-turbo applications to sense the intake air temperature (IAT). On a turbo engine, IAT is sensed after the intercooler (or turbo, if no intercooler), so there is no need for an IAT sensor at the MAF. Snipping it does nothing, it is simply ignored on a 1.8T (hence the lack of the corresponding contact in the connector).


Bump for Proof







???


----------



## nsingh9 (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (BatiGol)*

Gonna try picking up a 2.0 MAF tonite, aswell as a new green top coolant sensor. Question for the MAF... If i don't have a VAG, is it OK to install this prior to trying to get it VAGGED? My car isn't running too great at the moment, and i hope this two fixes should help out.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (nsingh9)*

Unplug your battery while working on your car. THis will reset your fault codes and reset your trim values. Then drive it around for a while before having it Vagged. That way your car has some time to learn the new fuel values. L8R


----------



## CashmoneyUKR1 (Nov 11, 2001)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (CuStOm)*

Well i tried it, the 2.0 MAF and cut the crap thing. Put it in my AWP and boom everything works perfect. Only got soft limp once in 4th gear at 5000rpm. Other wise i ike seeing 1.4 car of boost. So far so good i will see how long it works







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mikes (Dec 31, 2000)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (BatiGol)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BatiGol* »_
Bump for Proof???

Proof of what? That the placebo effect isn't real? 
Look at a wiring diagram. Put a meter on the damn thing and see for yourself that one pin on the connector goes directly to one end of the thermistor, therefore showing that breaking a connection which doesn't exist in the first place changes nothing.
This is just another typical vortex thread, and again reminds me of why I don't hang out here much - full of half truths, guesses, poor logic, group mentality and just plain old incorrect info.
Believe me or not...










_Modified by mikes at 6:22 PM 6-10-2003_


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_
Proof of what? That the placebo effect isn't real? 
Look at a wiring diagram. Put a meter on the damn thing and see for yourself that one pin on the connector goes directly to one end of the thermistor, therefore showing that breaking a connection which doesn't exist in the first place changes nothing.
This is just another typical vortex thread, and again reminds me of why I don't hang out here much - full of half truths, guesses, poor logic, group mentality and just plain old incorrect info.
Believe me or not...

SOMEBODY CALL THE WHAAAAHHHHMBULANCE! Mr. 43posts didnt get loved enough by his mom. I personally am glad that you dont frequent here often. Cant speak for everyone but I am willing to say everyone is.
So why dont you practice what you preach whineypants? Do some readings in reference to 3&5 and 4&5 and tell me that the readings are the same with and without the resistors. Dont just ohm the thing out either. Put it on a scope and get back to me. Thank you drive through. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## TTschwing (Jun 23, 2002)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (CuStOm)*

Uh.....It's a Thermister, Not a resistor.
Works fine in my TT because that pin is not used. Don't sweat the details man, plug it in and see if it works


----------



## nsingh9 (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Info on "resistor." (CuStOm)*

Thanks for the info. I went to the dealership today and they didn't have any more 2.0MAFs they had to order more from Germany... I did get the Coolant sensor though, i already had a green-top one in my car? I replaced it anyways...


----------



## mikes (Dec 31, 2000)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_
The sensor number of the 2.0L MAF is F00C2G2032
The sensor number of the AWD MAF is F00C2G2040
On the resistor side of BOTH sensors is the numbers "PBT-GF30"
With this resistor in place you now have continuity to pins 1&3, 1&4, 1&5...On the osciliscope and on my digital meter there is absolutely NO differences electrically between the two sensors when the resistor is cut.

Did you do this on a flow bench? Can we see the charts showing airflow vs. output voltage? It's not clear what you were using an o-scope for, but the MAF is a DC component, there is nothing time related to measure. I suppose if you have a calibrated reference airflow meter inline with the VW MAF, you could do an X-Y plot on a storage o-scope, but simply taking voltage readings with a good VOM across a range of airflows would be much simpler and less prone to setup error. Obviously, taking static measurements of a dynamic device is worthless for comparing devices, but you're the electronics expert who instantly recognized the rare glass encapsulated resistor, so you already know that.
The thermistor connects between pin 1 (not connected on 1.8T engines) and pin 3 (ground). Pin 2 is +12v supply, pin 4 is +5v reference, pin 5 is sensor output to the ECU. You did provide proper signals to both MAFs when comparing them, didn't you? It would be meaningless to simply measure resistances between the pins of unpowered devices and call it good.



_Modified by mikes at 8:04 PM 6-10-2003_


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (mikes)*

OK. Where to start. 
I started of by ohming out the circuit. 
Secondly I hooked up a tone generator and scope to the sensor in various ways to get a basic feeling for the sensor. Yes you are correct saying there is nothing time related to measure. But as you probably know scopes are much more useful than just measuring amplitude vs time. IM me if you care to go into this more. 
Now for my crude methodology of air flow. BUT it works well. I used a Rosemont Mass flow meter. If you are unfamiliar with this then IM me and I will send you information. I am an industrial tech and we use these to precisely measure gas flow, to a very anal degree. These are smart networked devices. I then used what could be compared to dryer hose, zip ties and a muffin fan. I hooked up the inlet of the Mass flow meter to the outlet of the hose. Measured the flow, turned it off, back on, measured the flow. I did this several times to gauge the consistincy of the flow of my crude ass fan. I then hooked up the 2.0L MAF. And yes I did know it was a thermister. I just do not see the need to elaborate specifications unless someone asks. Its not in my nature. I really dont give a **** what anyone thinks. I just wanted to share my findings. I am a tinkerer. I do this for me. I use RTD's, thermisters, and laser temperature devices weekly. Anyways, I hooked up the 2.0 with and without the thermister and measured the output voltage of the sensor. Obviously this was at only one flow, but they did seem to climb linearly when recorded with my Fluke process meter. In my opinion there is no difference between the two. The world can do what they want with it but I totally beleive it will do the job. I think the differences in part numbers just represents the addition of this thermister. But like I said, just my 2cents. My car has been running just fine, the 3rd gear pulls look great on the VAG and my trim adjustments look beautiful. Timing looks kuhl too. Case closed, all of the above on my bench at work and with my VAG convinced me. TTFN


----------



## spoolin turbo s (Mar 8, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

custom it looks like you know your **it 
what about for the AWW and AWP guys? you think it would work CashmoneyUKR1 said its working for him so far 
give me your input on this


----------



## mikes (Dec 31, 2000)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_Anyways, I hooked up the 2.0 with and without the thermister and measured the output voltage of the sensor. Obviously this was at only one flow, but they did seem to climb linearly when recorded with my Fluke process meter. In my opinion there is no difference between the two.

So, you didn't get data before/after cutting the thermister, and therefore have no basis to claim it makes a difference in the readings.







As I said, it doesn't, and simply isn't relevent to 1.8T applications.
You also didn't take dynamic measurements. No, the output isn't linear to flow. No, the two do not have identical curves. I doubt you even had it hooked up correctly - since you didn't know how the thermister was wired/used, there is no reason to believe you knew that there is a 5V reference signal, against which the sensor output must be referenced in order to get a proper reading (some ECUs do this to a 10 bit resolution). I was waiting for your explanation of how you did a Ch.1 + Ch.2 (inverted) vertical to accomodate that requirement, but it never came. Heck, there's no reason to believe you even provided power to the things, and yes, I would expect them to produce identical outputs in that state.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_
So, you didn't get data before/after cutting the thermister, and therefore have no basis to claim it makes a difference in the readings.







As I said, it doesn't, and simply isn't relevent to 1.8T applications.
You also didn't take dynamic measurements. No, the output isn't linear to flow. No, the two do not have identical curves. I doubt you even had it hooked up correctly - since you didn't know how the thermister was wired/used, there is no reason to believe you knew that there is a 5V reference signal, against which the sensor output must be referenced in order to get a proper reading (some ECUs do this to a 10 bit resolution). I was waiting for your explanation of how you did a Ch.1 + Ch.2 (inverted) vertical to accomodate that requirement, but it never came. Heck, there's no reason to believe you even provided power to the things, and yes, I would expect them to produce identical outputs in that state.









dude, chill bro!
I am not sure why you are being so critical here, you are asking for more accurate info and more real world measurements, is that what the VAG and butt-dyno do??? how about when you have one that works like crap, replace it with a 2.0 with a cut Thermestat and it drives better?? don't those things account for anything??
you act like custom has something the sell or gain by sharing his findings, i am not sure why.
if the info is USELESS to you, why do you even bother?? why even bother looking at the thread in the 1st place??


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

guys, should i change the 1.8t housing and put it on my 2.0 MAF, will there be a difference??


----------



## reflexiv (Jul 2, 2000)

*Re: (rodH)*

mikes, thanks for the input. Knowledgeable people are the Vortex's most valuable resource, and I think a lot of people recognize that, so keep coming back, please.


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: (mikes)*

mikes, 
why dont you buy one and test it using your testing procedures?


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_
So, you didn't get data before/after cutting the thermister, and therefore have no basis to claim it makes a difference in the readings. 
You also didn't take dynamic measurements. No, the output isn't linear to flow. No, the two do not have identical curves. I doubt you even had it hooked up correctly - since you didn't know how the thermister was wired/used, there is no reason to believe you knew that there is a 5V reference signal, against which the sensor output must be referenced in order to get a proper reading (some ECUs do this to a 10 bit resolution). I was waiting for your explanation of how you did a Ch.1 + Ch.2 (inverted) vertical to accomodate that requirement, but it never came. Heck, there's no reason to believe you even provided power to the things, and yes, I would expect them to produce identical outputs in that state.









I did take before and after readings. Read closer and quite trying to jump the gun and flex your brain. Now why would I need to compare the reference to the output? When the reference is set on the bench with a lab grade powersupply. The output is all I care about and therefor that is what I trended. I compared the output trends of before and after the "thermister" cutting. Are you done?


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (rodH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rodH* »_guys, should i change the 1.8t housing and put it on my 2.0 MAF, will there be a difference??

My tests were done with just the 2.0L sensor in the 1.8T housing. That is the way it is running in my car also.


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (BatiGol)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BatiGol* »_mikes, 
why dont you buy one and test it using your testing procedures?

YES! Please do!


----------



## mikes (Dec 31, 2000)

*Re: (BatiGol)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BatiGol* »_mikes, 
why dont you buy one and test it using your testing procedures?

I'm not the one making claims that they are identical. Prima facae evidence (different part numbers, both VW and Bosch) already supports my claim that they are not.
I have never said that a 2.0 MAF won't work on a 1.8T, but it may not be optimal. Clipping the resistor makes zero difference to it's operation. Go ahead, clip it, then measure all you want between pin 1 (the end of the thermistor which connects to the ECU on a 2.0) and every other pin. There's no relationship.


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

*Re: (CuStOm)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CuStOm* »_BUT it works well. I used a *Rosemont* Mass flow meter. If you are unfamiliar with this then IM me and I will send you information.

Would that be from this company?
http://www.emersonprocess.com/proanalytic/
Guess where I work.








http://www.emersonprocess.com/raihome/liquid/


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (mikes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikes* »_
Go ahead, clip it, then measure all you want between pin 1 (the end of the thermistor which connects to the ECU on a 2.0) and every other pin. There's no relationship.









Did you test this?? Yourself??


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (MRP2001GTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MRP2001GTi* »_
Guess where I work.








/

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Yeah I am a technician at Eastman Kodak. We have a very nice corporate handshake with Rosemont. Man did Emerson have to pony up some serious cash to purchase Rosemont? Thats quite the name in industrial control to be "sold". We have wondered what happened. Care to share?


----------



## Kevbelz (Dec 27, 1999)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

man I just read this whole thread and am asleep, somebody wake me.
Why the f would a dealer ask for a vin number when ordering parts? would they really not sell the part if you didn't provide the proper vin?


----------



## 1 of 1500 (Oct 2, 2002)

*Re: (rodH)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif bump http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## CuStOm (Feb 15, 2001)

*Re: (Kevbelz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kevbelz* »_man I just read this whole thread and am asleep, somebody wake me.
Why the f would a dealer ask for a vin number when ordering parts? would they really not sell the part if you didn't provide the proper vin?









The story I got was they are tracking which cars it goes bad on. I think they know that the 2.0L MAF will work in other applications and dont want to take it in the shorts. VW makes parts that are under a mass warranty replacement cheaper, that way their internal numbers look better. Why sell it to a 1.8T or VR6 guy for the cheaper price when you can fluck them? I called several dealers and not a one would sell it to me w/o a VIN. http://www.stevesvw.com would. They rokk.


----------



## kamil (Aug 26, 2002)

*Re: (CuStOm)*

there is the same thread in the 12v vr6 forum which is better organized. there are links there on how to get your 2.0 maf for 41 dollars shipped. I ordered two from two different dealers so i have a few spare ones for my vr6.







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## kamil (Aug 26, 2002)

*Re: (mikes)*

look up this guy and all his threads... do recent and archived ( VgRt6 )
he has alot of info on where to get good deals etc etc..


----------



## spoolin turbo s (Mar 8, 2002)

*Re: (kamil)*

once again








do you think there are any cheap solutions for us AWW and AWP guys?


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: (spoolin turbo s)*


_Quote, originally posted by *spoolin turbo s* »_once again








do you think there are any cheap solutions for us AWW and AWP guys?

from what I know it only applies to AWD engines


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

updates???


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 5, 2003)

*Re: (rodH)*

i've been meaning to do mine, but i'm getting married next week!! and havent had any time to get it done.... maybe when i get back from Jamaica i'll pop it in. when i do i will have VAG-com graphs and everything comparing when i put it in before when it didnt work and hopefully once i clip that thermistor it WILL work


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 5, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

well i had some spare time to get mine done yesterday and the results were AWFUL. the car stumbled immediately and i the EPC light came on. unplugged the MAF and everything was back to normal again. 
SO, i dont get why my car doesnt like the 2.0L MAF, i'm beginning to think that maybe my MAF connector is bad. the plastic in it moves around but i dont see how that can cause problems as the metal contact are fixed.
If anyone wants my 2.0L MAF i'll sell it for $50 shipped. i paid over $80 to get it from vwparts.com


----------



## sheetone (Mar 2, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

here's a question for you all. My MAF crapped out for the first time last spring/summer, when it did go, I found it odd that the ASR stayed off and couldn't be toggled back on. I swapped in the nice cheap 2.slow maf and everything was perfect. About ~40000 miles later, I just got a CEL yesterday and the same ASR staying off crap. So I assume it's my MAF. don't have a vag com, but pretty sure it's the MAF. My question, why does the ASR behave this way? i.e., why is the ASR affected by the MAF failure?


----------



## VgRt6 (Mar 8, 2002)

*Re: (sheetone)*

Bump to the top and into my recent topic list.


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: (VgRt6)*

Got the 2.0 MAF yesterday and it is throwing me into limp mode. Error 17743 Engine Torque Exceeded comtrol limit.
I am gonna snip tonight and see how it goes. Will report back...
oh yeah,
2000 AWD with GIAC CLGL12 and AWW turbo.


----------



## rodH (Aug 23, 2002)

BAT, let us know results


----------



## johnny5gti (Nov 17, 2002)

*Re: (rodH)*

sorry to bring this from the dead..but it seems that the only AWD'ers getting the luck on this is the 00 AWD motors and the 2001 AWD is having problems with it


----------



## MRP2001GTi (Oct 6, 2000)

*Re: (mk4 turbo gti)*

Mine is still working perfect!


----------



## Wakaru (May 4, 2000)

*Re: (mk4 turbo gti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4 turbo gti* »_sorry to bring this from the dead..but it seems that the only AWD'ers getting the luck on this is the 00 AWD motors and the 2001 AWD is having problems with it

Yeah. I posted a comprehensive thread about a year ago that it wasn't working on my car. Guess what, 00 AWD w/ Upsolute. Some claim it's the AWD engine not liking, others claim it's the Upsolute. Timing was weird and car felt anemic although it had the right boost. I remember Chris86VW's argument was that the problem arise from ecu software and not the engine type.
EDIT: Here's the thread I posted A Maf vs. D Maf for those who don't remember seeing it. http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=588874 


_Modified by Wakaru at 11:42 AM 8-21-2003_


----------



## BatiGol (Apr 1, 2003)

*Re: (rodH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rodH* »_BAT, let us know results

So yeah, sorry.
It did not work with the snip either. I ended up going with the stock replacement D MAF, it works perfect. My car has power again!
D maf for 170 shipped from http://www.1stvwparts.com


----------



## 20V1.8Tnut (Dec 31, 2000)

*Re: (BatiGol)*

2.0 MAF that I bought a month ago from 1stvwparts died yesturday.


----------



## mldhab (Aug 7, 2003)

Went to Dealer to get a MAF for my early 2001 APH beetle and they are now selling the 2.0L MAF as the standard VWOA replacement for my car - $57. didn't require a Vehicle #. Kewl.


----------



## j0nx (Jul 21, 2003)

2.0 maf has been working like champ on 2000 TT for 3 months.


----------



## johnny5gti (Nov 17, 2002)

*Re: (j0nx)*

looks like some mixed results out oon the field..i guess ill have to try it for myself


----------



## gt2437 (Jul 29, 2000)

*Re: (mldhab)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mldhab* »_Went to Dealer to get a MAF for my early 2001 APH beetle and they are now selling the 2.0L MAF as the standard VWOA replacement for my car - $57. didn't require a Vehicle #. Kewl.

That's cause the 'A' 2.0L MAF is what came in your APH engine code 1.8t New Beetle stock. I'm still running my stock 'A' MAF sensor.


----------



## ECS Tuning-Tom (Oct 2, 2001)

*Re: (gt2437)*

We just got a few 2liter mafs in the other day, they will be back on the backorder list before the weekend is up I'm sure
http://www.ecstuning.com/stage...ngine


----------



## MatchStick Red (Aug 29, 2002)

*Re: (reflexiv)*

the maf on a 2.0 will work on a 1.8t aww and if so what does this do for me?


----------



## lsc2g (Feb 9, 2003)

will it work on a 03 AWP? just wondering if my stock maf ever dies


----------



## Charles Devine (Aug 22, 2007)

*Re: (20V1.8Tnut)*

hate to bump a really old thread but I just bought a 1.8t swap and want to double check if I can use the 2.0 MAF..
1.8t is awp so far I have heard only earlier 1.8t's can use the 2.0 MAF.
so any info would be great because I'm strapped for cash after buying the swap lol


----------



## water&air (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: (tiggo)*

lol at a 5 year old thread, but to answer your question NO 100% NO.
will run like poop on an AWP. the only 1.8t's it worked on was pre 2001 awd's and aph's.


----------



## Charles Devine (Aug 22, 2007)

*Re: (water&air)*


_Quote, originally posted by *water&air* »_lol at a 5 year old thread, but to answer your question NO 100% NO.
will run like poop on an AWP. the only 1.8t's it worked on was pre 2001 awd's and aph's.








I know but why start a new one you know? well, I'll have to borrow a buddies for a couple of days and get the ecu to learn one then order one when I can afford it haha


----------

