Is the Boxster MAF compatible with the 996 turbo?
some used th eboxter maf b4 but it looks like everyone went back to the 996 tt maf.
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,306
From: Madison, WI
Rep Power: 82
Well shoot.........I can't keep up with these fads 
Honestly I can't recall but I think I was getting 172s or 175s.....had alot of time on it and along with doing a few other things, the 986 solved my problems.
I'm far from stock.........but thought I recalled comments that unless you were north of 650 or 700 that the 986 was good....even a more 'robust' MAF.
Whatever.
Honestly I can't recall but I think I was getting 172s or 175s.....had alot of time on it and along with doing a few other things, the 986 solved my problems.
I'm far from stock.........but thought I recalled comments that unless you were north of 650 or 700 that the 986 was good....even a more 'robust' MAF.
Whatever.
Ask ur tuner for solutions... after all they should be resposible for delling you a kit that may not be 100%. that is, if u have a full xxx tuner kit. I see things screwing up when guys mismatch stuff and do not do the recomended parts....
markski
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,787
From: Edmonton, Alberta
Rep Power: 209
Originally Posted by GreggT
Well shoot.........I can't keep up with these fads
Honestly I can't recall but I think I was getting 172s or 175s.....had alot of time on it and along with doing a few other things, the 986 solved my problems.
I'm far from stock.........but thought I recalled comments that unless you were north of 650 or 700 that the 986 was good....even a more 'robust' MAF.
Whatever.
Honestly I can't recall but I think I was getting 172s or 175s.....had alot of time on it and along with doing a few other things, the 986 solved my problems.
I'm far from stock.........but thought I recalled comments that unless you were north of 650 or 700 that the 986 was good....even a more 'robust' MAF.
Whatever.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,306
From: Madison, WI
Rep Power: 82
Originally Posted by Zippy
Greg, that was in fact the recommendation 2 years ago (?). After using the 986 MAF(s) for a year I was told to go back to the 996 MAF as it was better. I now use the Hitachi MAF.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,787
From: Edmonton, Alberta
Rep Power: 209
I believe the 986 MAF makes the TT run richer -> less power. I know what you mean re: cave. The decision to move away from the 986 MAF was not communicated well. The Hitachi MAF looks like it may be the ticket.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,660
Rep Power: 254
Originally Posted by GreggT
thought I recalled comments that unless you were north of 650 or 700 that the 986 was good....even a more 'robust' MAF.
