3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002) 1993-2002 Discussion including performance modifications and Technical Support Sections.
Sponsored by:

Is a check valve needed to go between the MAP sensor and UIM?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 01:11 PM
  #1  
c00lduke's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Freak
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,360
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, KS
Is a check valve needed to go between the MAP sensor and UIM?

I havent been running one there for a while and i was told to put the fuel pulsation dampener there but the fpd is huge. In vacuum diagrams that I've looked at it as tophat check valve thing. I would just go put a check valve there but then the sensor wouldn't be able to sense either negitive or positive depending on which way i put it. So does anyone know what needs to go there and so forth.

Thanks
~Luke
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 01:30 PM
  #2  
Full Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: Tucson
Its actually a small air cleaner element to keep particles out.

Your right, if you put a check valve inline, there would be no pressure difference to regulate.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 01:43 PM
  #3  
c00lduke's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Freak
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,360
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, KS
is it needed though?
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 01:59 PM
  #4  
Mahjik's Avatar
Mr. Links
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 27,595
Likes: 43
From: Kansas City, MO
Originally posted by c00lduke
is it needed though?
It's there to protect the sensor from any non-air elements. I would recommend using it.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 02:00 PM
  #5  
XSTransAm's Avatar
Ee / Cpe
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,843
Likes: 2
From: Gaithersburg, MD / WVU
Mazda put it there to keep fuel and oil out of the map sensor, Ill keep mine
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 04:14 PM
  #6  
RTS3GEN's Avatar
The Man
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
From: Lee's Summit Mo.
It's actually designed to keep any fluctuations in air delivery stabilized to the map sensor. Much like in a dyno graph where you see minute peaks and valleys in the curve, these items are very sensitive to abrupt changes and since our computers(stock system) is quite slow, it cannot interpolate those changes quickly enough. Therefore, this valve is a buffeting chamber and smoothes the air flow, allowing the map sensor to input steady, smooth signal to the ecu, just like the fuel pulsation damper does for the fuel rail.
Art
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 04:21 PM
  #7  
jamesuncw's Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: nc
stupid q? the arrow is supposed to point down right?
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 04:28 PM
  #8  
XSTransAm's Avatar
Ee / Cpe
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,843
Likes: 2
From: Gaithersburg, MD / WVU
Originally posted by RTS3GEN
Therefore, this valve is a buffeting chamber and smoothes the air flow, allowing the map sensor to input steady, smooth signal to the ecu, just like the fuel pulsation damper does for the fuel rail.
Art
not according to this diagram

the arrow should point away from the map sensor as in this diagram too

Last edited by XSTransAm; Mar 27, 2004 at 04:32 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2004 | 04:32 PM
  #9  
saxyman990's Avatar
Place your ad here...
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 2
From: Dayton, OH
Originally posted by RTS3GEN
It's actually designed to keep any fluctuations in air delivery stabilized to the map sensor. Much like in a dyno graph where you see minute peaks and valleys in the curve, these items are very sensitive to abrupt changes and since our computers(stock system) is quite slow, it cannot interpolate those changes quickly enough. Therefore, this valve is a buffeting chamber and smoothes the air flow, allowing the map sensor to input steady, smooth signal to the ecu, just like the fuel pulsation damper does for the fuel rail.
Art
Interesting... i've never heard this before. What about those of us on standalone computers that use a higher bit-rate? Since the ECU can interpret more signals at a faster rate, would there be any benifit to removing this? I doubt it would make any noticible difference, but it provides for an interesting thought...

Rob
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
trickster
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
25
Jul 1, 2023 04:40 PM
sen2two
AEM EMS
9
Oct 23, 2015 07:51 PM
befarrer
Microtech
3
Aug 22, 2015 05:52 PM
Snook
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
12
Aug 15, 2015 08:18 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.