Glad to hear you got another MAF sir. Did the MAF code return?
Perhaps it is running smoother, but only you can really tell. However the only way to reduce the fuel pressure at idle is to apply maximum vacuum to the FPR. You need to find those leaks and apply that vacuum. Nothing else in the entire injection system can compensate for that missing vacuum. So yes, until you can get 18 inHg to the FPR, you will be running rich.
While you are waiting, you may want to test the old CTS in hot water, it is simply a good practice to always prove your components when you can. Same with the new one, rather than just buy, install and wonder if the new one will function correctly, when you can prove both of them and know they should work. If the old one is fine, you can keep the new one new; as a spare. Because as others have mentioned above, both the wiring and connector itself (just like it says in the list of possible faults in the fault codes) for these components can also be at fault besides the component itself.
Trouble-shooting is a bit like solving a crime, in that one has to do all the dull leg-work to gather evidence, explore leads, eliminate false trails and finally prove your case. That is the "prove" in making an improvement.
Perhaps it is running smoother, but only you can really tell. However the only way to reduce the fuel pressure at idle is to apply maximum vacuum to the FPR. You need to find those leaks and apply that vacuum. Nothing else in the entire injection system can compensate for that missing vacuum. So yes, until you can get 18 inHg to the FPR, you will be running rich.
While you are waiting, you may want to test the old CTS in hot water, it is simply a good practice to always prove your components when you can. Same with the new one, rather than just buy, install and wonder if the new one will function correctly, when you can prove both of them and know they should work. If the old one is fine, you can keep the new one new; as a spare. Because as others have mentioned above, both the wiring and connector itself (just like it says in the list of possible faults in the fault codes) for these components can also be at fault besides the component itself.
Trouble-shooting is a bit like solving a crime, in that one has to do all the dull leg-work to gather evidence, explore leads, eliminate false trails and finally prove your case. That is the "prove" in making an improvement.
Comment