15 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHNew MAF, ?'s
Leading reported evidence
Check oil cap
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I have looked for a crack billows but found none and checked the oil cap.
Leading evidence: 'Check oil cap' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check number 996.606.124.00 bosch #0280218009' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Do a search on K&N and read for an hour to get some feedback from those who have installed the filter.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Just a guess, but it's a Bosch DME so they can spec proper operation only when used with their MAF sensor.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
15 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T205155Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I have a 2000 C4 and I purchased a new MAF from AutohasaAZ. The MAF in the car was Bosch 996,606.124.00. When I ordered the part, I gave the gentleman this part #, but when I received the MAF today, the part # was 986.606.125.01. When I noticed this, I called them and they assured me this was a cross reference updated part and would work. Anyway, I installed it and no more PSM, antilock lights, as well as no cell lights. Has anyone else used the updated MAF. thanks
They are wrong. This has been discussed in a few places. The 986# is a newer/upgraded part, but it is not compatible. It gives different MAF readings, and you will be down on power. In order to use the 986#, you will need your ECU flashed to a program that works with those readings. There is a good thread on this over on the 996 TT board. One of the board sponsors (Kevin) has (by far) the best price on the 996# as Porsche has recently jacked the price up to over $600. If you are interested in a lightly used one (996,606.124.00 ~10K miles), PM me. Otherwise, I would get a refund or get your car flashed to the right program at your dealer. Pray your dealer doesn't bone you too hard for not buying the right MAF from them.
Yep. $621.36 for the 996# versus $387.36 for the 986#. I'm sure Porsche figured out that the $234 difference is for the programming
They get you either way. I guess there is no 986# program for the TTs. This MAF scenario is common to early 986/996 eGas cars before the MAF change.
That is better prices. I just looked on the MAF to double check the number 996.606.124.00 Bosch #0280218009. I keep getting a CEL with codes of 1128 and 1130. I have cleaned the MAF many times. Should I try a new MAF now? I have looked for a crack billows but found none and checked the oil cap.
Some here have had issues with the K&N filters causing problems with the MAF which will throw a CEL. However, others have not had any problems. Do a search on K&N and read for an hour to get some feedback from those who have installed the filter. Personally, I would not install one, but that's just me.
I'm not exactly Joe Mechanic and am a fairly new 996 owner so I didn't really know what people were talking about when they referred to a MAF. I just went to Pelican to see the part. It looks like it should cost about $20. But it sells for over $300? What's the secret sauce behind the epoxied cover on that thing?
Just a guess, but it's a Bosch DME so they can spec proper operation only when used with their MAF sensor. And then charge pretty much what they want for their sensors.
However, Auto Parts World has it a little cheaper than Pelican:
http://www.autopartsworld.com/2000_p...ter_parts.html
