Thread: MAF - 2AM vs 3AM vs 5AM

You might try this link for a suitable MAF.

ONLY MAF items - Get great deals on Nissan, Vw items on eBay Stores!

Is this ?AM thing relevant? Is it some kind of air flow unit of measure? Is
getting a 5AM to replace my 2AM going to cause damage?

NO
Regards Philip A

Thanks Philip - I love a simple answer!

In case anyone finds this thread in future and has a similar question, I bought e wrong one. And effectively wasted my money.

The key question I needed to ask was whether I had a flapper AFM (Lucas L) or a hotwire (Lucas Hotwire) fuel injection system. I have the former, as was common pre'90. Couldn't buy a new one for love nor money it seems. But I had it reconditioned no probs. cost me a few hundred more though.

Anyway, that's the update. (I am still having problems getting it running smoothly but that's another thread entirely).

Originally Posted by guye777

Hi all.

Read all the threads and looking to grab a copy MAF from a UK fleaBayer for ~$110 delivered which seems OK.


Guy.
RRC 1989 3.9 HiLine. Red!

just to let you know Mafs are no longer a servicable items from Land rover, all these bargain mafs come from china.
Since they are all chinese knockoffs, cut out the middle man and get them from China direct.

Thanks roverlord, good advice. Although I hopefully won't need a new maf now, but good for anyone else checking this thread.

Guye777 I apologise if I misled you as I just looked on Ebay and a 2AM is a flapper.

Are you sure you have a 3.9 as AFAIK all 3.9s had a MAF ( 3AM on to 5AM) and 14CUX injection.

Seeing you said you had a 1989 3.9 I assumed that it would have a MAF not a flapper. The only real differences in the MAFS is that the later ones 5AM had gold plated terminals to stop the errors caused by poor contacts in the plug.

The 3.5 had the flapper , cold start timer , extra injector blah blah, and no IAC valve.

Regards Philip A

You are quite correct Phillip, it is a 3.5. And I notice my early sig has it as a 3.9!

I can only blame my advisors who probably assumed it was 3.9. Or perhaps the year confused me (89 sounds like 3.9?).

Nevertheless, that may well have been the cause for some of the early confusion between versions and parts - I might have been saying it was a 3.9 to people all the time! I've been claiming it is a 3.5 for a while, but not sure when I deduced that or changed my tune :-)