 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > MAF Sensor Replacement search |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
|
|
|
| andy63 Member Since: 30 Jun 2023 Location: north east Posts: 814  
|
I cant be sure but I believe they could be different types.. the 2.2tdci sensor definitely outputs a square wave..ie digital...and its the frequency of that signal that the ecu uses..
I think the 2.4 sensor may be an analogue output and may well be its amplitude that matters.. Try using one of those AI platforms with the question..they can be quite good .. |
||
13th Aug 2025 7:09pm |
|
| andy63 Member Since: 30 Jun 2023 Location: north east Posts: 814
|
I gave it a go..not sure if it helps..
You're asking whether the MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor for the Ford Puma 2.4 TDCi and the 2.2 TDCi engines is the same part. Here's what reliable sources indicate: --- Key Findings 1. Different Part Numbers Across Versions For the 2.4 Puma (earlier chassis) — up to chassis number BA999999 — the Ford OEM part is 6C11-12B579-AA; Land Rover equivalent: MHK501040 . For the 2.2 Puma (later chassis, CA series and onwards), the Ford OEM part is 8V21-12B579-AA, matching the LR part number LR 019830 . 2. Physical Differences These parts are similar in appearance but not identical. The earlier 2.4 sensor (6C11-12B579-AA) features a square end, whereas the later 2.2 sensor (8V21-12B579-AA) has a curved end . A forum member confirms: “Many are quoting the wrong MAF sensor… Mine was… 8V21 12B579 AA… matches LR part number LR 019830. … The earlier one up to Chassis BA999999 was… 6C11 12B579 AA… They look similar but the earlier one has a square end and the later one has a curved end.” --- Summary No, the MAF sensors for the 2.4 TDCi and the 2.2 TDCi are not the same part. They differ in design (square vs curved end) and have distinct Ford and Land Rover part numbers. Choosing the wrong one could lead to fitment issues or sensor errors. --- What You Should Do 1. Confirm your vehicle's chassis number series: If it's BA-series, you need part 6C11-12B579-AA (Land Rover: MHK501040). If it's CA-series or later, the correct part is 8V21-12B579-AA (Land Rover: LR 019830). 2. Match this to your engine configuration (2.4 vs 2.2) and check with your supplier. 3. When ordering, double-check both chassis range and part number to avoid errors. --- Let me know if you'd like help tracing your chassis number, sourcing the correct sensor, or checking compatibility with aftermarket alternatives! |
||
|
13th Aug 2025 7:43pm |
|
| Dalvin Member Since: 13 Aug 2025 Location: Waasmunster Posts: 3  
|
Hi thanks for the help so far.
Hopefully this will provide the needed information to determine the correct MAF sensor part  . |
||
|
13th Aug 2025 7:54pm |
|
| Dalvin Member Since: 13 Aug 2025 Location: Waasmunster Posts: 3
|
I just checked the numbers on the old MAF sensor and now it makes sense, it has the number 6C11-12B579-AA on it meaning its a MHK501040 part!
Thank you very much for guiding me trough this, I now know for sure which one to buy. |
||
|
13th Aug 2025 8:01pm |
|
| Johan_B Member Since: 20 Sep 2024 Location: Gothenburg Posts: 128  
|
Check page 6 on this thread:
https://www.defender2.net/forum/post1063311.html#1063311 MatLandy has traced the manufacturer to Hitachi and has the correct Hitachi part number, giving you the option to buy that one. |
||
|
13th Aug 2025 8:27pm |
|
| Ianh Member Since: 17 Sep 2018 Location: Essex Posts: 2457
|
Dalvin , I would edit your post and remove the VIN as this can be used for criminal activities such as cloning.
|
||
|
13th Aug 2025 8:50pm |
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20937
|
When I got mine I used the Ford PN and used Ford Gen parts.
As Andy very articulately explained, that is indeed correct that the 2.2 and 2.4 parts are different, and cannot be interchanged. Regards the MAP sensor, I used the Bosch PN, as it’s a Bosch part anyway should that be of interest. The PN is printed on it as well. This info is on here posted by myself previously inc PN’s, if you use the ‘search’ function in the bar above, you should be able to find it. ____\We|Will|Win/___ ____/🇬🇧🇺🇸\____ _//*⛽️🛢️⚙️🧰*\\_ |
||
|
13th Aug 2025 9:17pm |
|
| BrunoJ Member Since: 14 Sep 2019 Location: Stavanger Posts: 81  
|
In another topic related to MAF issues, I described the case, having 2.4 MAF installed by mistake in 2.2. Number of unobvious issues with engine, EGR behaviour etc. So, they are different and shouldn't be mixed. I believe one of the main difference is a physical shape of the part, unfortunately some of vendors/shops provides incorrect information.
|
||
|
13th Aug 2025 9:30pm |
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20937
|
Yes, they often will get the part numbers mixed up.
 Unfortunately.
The MAF has a significant impact on performance too, and other things as mentioned like the EGR. And can bring about phantom DTC’s if incorrect part, as the parameters are different as well. ____\We|Will|Win/___ ____/🇬🇧🇺🇸\____ _//*⛽️🛢️⚙️🧰*\\_ |
||
|
13th Aug 2025 9:37pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
