Close



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38
  1. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    You pay a massive premium for the option to learn.

    The Quarterhorse lets you tweak things while the engine is running if you want ... not sure I’ll ever do that.

    If it’s a do it once and forget it you need to know the difference between doing things the right way and getting by primarily


    All the stuff out there about “calibrated MAF” setups... complete bull****. The meter either returns the mass of the air delivered to the engine accurately or it is failing to do it’s one and only job. It’s broken.

    People do those because they want to run a 24 lb or 30lb injector in a motor while the ECU thinks it’s controlling a 19 lb/hr. Bs — tell the computer what is there!

    Another problem area is displacement. You add more cubes and you don’t tell the ECU it is now dealing with a bigger engine. 306, not a big deal as there is a margin of safety in the factory tunes. 327, 331, 347, 353, 363, 377 ...... problems. Tell the ECU what’s going on!

    Another spot where people get into trouble is on not understanding the way the MAF sensor and the housing work together. Obviously there are going to be differences in readings for a sensor in a 58MM housing vs a 70MM. There is generally a calibration detail that takes these differences into account. The MAF reading curve on a 70MM Cobra MAF housing is different than it is on a 58MM GT housing. Load the correct one into the MAF ECU or run the ECU that is matched to the MAF out of the box

    then there is mr stock motor with 255 lph fuel pump and stock fuel hanger. There are videos on YouTube about why this is horrible but the basic is the return line can’t flow enough fuel to allow the regulator to regulate fuel pressure. I’m sure you see the problem! A 190 is plenty for well over 400 HP and is near the limits of the stock return line. no reason to go bigger unless the car is showing signs of fuel starvation.

    Then there is bad tuning compensation via fuel pressure and base timing. Watch it or you can get into trouble really quickly

    Im not saying I’ve never went off the reservation — I have. My 86 GT has an A9L and a Cobra MAF and 13.5 degrees of base timing and runs like a bandit.. A clear mismatch. It went lean up top until I jacked up the fuel pressure for two reasons. One is the MAF curve of the cobra MAF. The other is because the motor combo is right at the limits of the 19’s. Jack up fuel pressure it runs like a top with my foot in it, but then it doesn’t like to start because the initial prime practically floods it.

    I’ll fix it with a stock fuel regulator setting and 24’s and a cobra ECU before I waste any more time messing with it. But I know the cobra ECU is a softer tune which in the long run I won’t tolerate giving up the power but short term it’s ok. when I know the car runs entirely right I’ll install my Quarterhorse in my A9L and build a tune that works properly with that too

    Anyway ..... I’ve mentioned the main things I get extremely annoyed by. There are other pet peeves too — especially once you get into injection with boosted engines, etc, but those are the big ones.

    Its amazing how well things run when the guy making the decisions separates the facts from the BS and makes informed decisions about how they want their car’s computer system to operate.

    Read 10x and buy parts once. That’s my best advice. A lot of guys tuning are of the make it work mindset and won’t say crap if their mouth is full about all the things they don’t like about what they see. It comes back to bite you — hard
    My current strategy to get the car to run well is largely thanks to advice from you, and some others. I have a C&L 73mm "calibrated" MAF for 24 lb (with blue top injectors) right now, but am expecting to need to change that when I go to have the car tuned. Do you think a Cobra MAF would be a better option or will they probably have me put the 19" sample tube back in there?

    My fuel pump is a 190 lph and my lines are -6 braided stainless. I hope that's okay. My fuel pressure regulator is stock. I swapped from an adjustable one to stock in an effort to confuse the computer less.

    Also, when I bought my short block, I stuck with a 306, rather than a stroker, for the same reason. I REALLY WANT THIS CAR TO RUN WELL.

    One guy I went to school with that tunes really thinks highly of himself, so maybe I'll be more likely to go to him then because he'll certainly tell me if he knows a better way.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  2. #27
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    The resulting problem you get from calibrated MAFs is mostly summed up as a crap load of timing being pulled. They seem to run ok, until you see how a given stack of parts can/should run......

    A tuner can load the cobra MAF strategy into the more common EEC-IV ECU setups and tell the ECU you have 24’s. A lot of guys love the A9L and A9P because they are among the most aggressive on timing and yield a bit more power as a result. Quick updates to tell the computer about a 70MM Cobra MAF and 24’s will get you in the ballpark.

    Non-tune options, lot of times you can buy a reman ECU from the parts store for a 93 Cobra. That ECU will know about the 24’s and know about the Cobra MAF straight out of the box. Generally most basic head and intake and even cam engines run well, no tuning required.

    Tune options, some guys take Cobra ECUs and mod them to A9L style fuel maps and timing strategies. Not really any different than A9L’s updated to like the Cobra MAF and 24’s.

    All roads pretty much lead to the same place in the end

  3. #28
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Man we’ve hijacked the living crap out of this threads. Sorry.

  4. #29
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    Man we’ve hijacked the living crap out of this threads. Sorry.
    Of course, you wouldn't be informed unless there was a few side issues.


    With the 7.3 swap, same issues, although modern computer stratergies probably make it easier to "reflash" things, if you follow the rules.


    Going back to the difficulty of some CPU systems...There are about 293 common Maps for the basic EECIV Ford uses in its domestically made engines from 1984 to about 1996 or so. Only 42 to perhaps 49 that have been "cracked" and allow the binary codes to be editied for pulse width.

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post

    Just listed were Ryans 49 Kinds of updated EECIV strategy files that you can upload to remap only 42 or 43 existing Ford bin code EECIV ECM's. These update the kind of strategy to either Fords or Ryans, to suit modifications. If it goes haywire, it reverts back to the 43 stock box code settings, so its an easy, but much miss-understood update

    image AHACA
    image AHACB
    image ANY1
    image C1A1
    image CBAZ0
    image CBAZA
    image CCAQA
    image CDAN4
    image CDAN6
    image CQAB1
    image CRAI8
    image CRAIC
    image CRAJ0
    image CVAE7
    image CVAF1
    image CZAJL
    image CZAW0
    image D1L1
    image DC
    image ELK1
    image FBJR3
    image GHAJ0
    image GSALC
    image GSALI
    image GUF1
    image GUFA
    image GUFB
    image GURE
    image HWAD
    image KMAK6
    image LA
    image LA3
    image LB2
    image LHBH1
    image LHBL0
    image LHBL1
    image LHBL2
    image LUX0
    image NVMG8
    image PE
    image RVAF3
    image RVAFB
    image RYAF0
    image RYAK1
    image RYAL0
    image VET1
    image VEX1
    image VHAF7
    image VP1


    There is a little cross over with this, but not a huge amount. Mapping went to where the money and performance gains were greatest, the SHO, SVO, XR4Ti and any good Port EFI 5.0 or 5.8.

    3.8 and 5.0 CFi's just don't rate despite the wounderfull howl and rasp the twin Bosch injectors made at idle and under load.

    Ryan at RJM Technolgies got into a whole heap of trouble with his Ford EECIV circulation list of Note 1, Mapped cal code boxes. He had 42 or 43 J3 mapped box codes as of 2013, out of about 293 or so EECIV ECU's.

    PE 2.3 Mustang SVO turbo (See note 1)
    PC1 2.3 Mustang SVO turbo (See note 1)
    PF2 2.3 Merkur Turbo (See note 1)
    PF3 2.3 Merkur Turbo (See note 1)
    PK 2.3 Mustang SVO turbo (See note 1)
    PK1 2.3 Mustang SVO turbo (See note 1)
    LA2 2.3 T-Bird Turbo (See note 1)
    LA3 2.3 T-Bird Turbo (See note 1)
    LB2 2.3 T-Bird Turbo (See note 1)
    D4U1 3 Taurus SHO Auto (see note 1)
    X2J 3 Taurus SHO Manual (see note 1)
    T4M0 5 94-95 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    J4J1 5 94-95 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    U4P0 5 94-95 Mustang MAF / AODE (see note 1)
    W4H0 5 94-95 Mustang MAF / AODE (see note 1)
    X3Z 5 93 Cobra MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    A9L 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    A3M 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    A3M1 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    S0Z 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    D3D 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    D3D1 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    A9M 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    A9P 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    C3W 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    C3W1 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    A9T 5 89-93 Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    A9S 5 88-93 CA Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    8LD 5 88-93 CA Mustang MAF / Manual (see note 1)
    8LF 5 88-93 CA Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    8LG 5 88-93 CA Mustang MAF / Auto (see note 1)
    DA1 5 87 Mustang SD-SFI / Manual (see note 1)
    D9S 5 88 Mark VII SD-SFI (see note 1)
    U4X0 5 Bronco, F-x50 E-x50 MAF / E4OD / F4PF-12A650-AA (see note 1)
    VEX1 5 Bronco, F-x50 E-x50 MAF / E4OD / F5TF-12A650-HB (see note 1)
    WAY1 5 Bronco, F-x50 E-x50 MAF / E4OD / F5TF-12A650-JB (see note 1)
    BIO0 5.8 Bronco, F-x50 E-x50 MAF / E4OD / F5TF-12A650-BYA (see note 1)
    AKC0 5.8 93-95 Lightning MAF / E4OD / F8TF-12A650-NA (see note 1)
    C3P1 5.8 93-95 Lightning SD-Bank / E4OD / F3TF-12A650-AB (see note 1)
    C3P2 5.8 93-95 Lightning SD-Bank / E4OD / F3TF-12A650-AC (see note 1)
    C3P3 5.8 93-95 Lightning SD-Bank / E4OD / F3TF-12A650-AD (see note 1)
    ICY1 5.8 93-95 Lightning SD-Bank / E4OD / F5TF-12A650-XB (see note 1)
    ZA0 5.8 95 Cobra-R MAF / 6speed (see note 1)

    The non mapped CFi's are:-


    FA 3.8 Mustang/T-Bird/LTD CFi for sure, with ISC/IAC/IAB for idle

    The 10 5.0 CFi questionables are:

    GJ1 5.0 Mustang
    VJ1 5.0 Mustang
    AB2 5.0 T-Bird
    D2L 5.0 T-Bird
    E1X 5.0 T-Bird
    H2M 5.0 T-Bird
    H2M1 5.0 T-Bird
    KF 5.0 T-Bird
    MC2 5.0 T-Bird
    MN 5.0 G. Marquis

    '83 Grand Marquis, 83-84 Cougar XR7 and 83-84 T birds were EECIII in CA, so the box codes could have issues.

    A potential new unpack stratergy requires about 1 U$ grand of time minmum to map as the info is stored different with different Batch Code CPU's....., and then you can recalibrate it with a J3 port. You can only recalibrate a mapped Box Code set. The only computers that are mapped happen to be the common ones people like to futz with.

    Pretty small list for 12 years of EECIV'd and 36 years since it was first devised...but that shows you that they are all Fords basic EFi performance vehicles, and you can go nuts with them from the 43 base calibrations.


    Its not any different to an enrichened or a leaned out hanger or a metering rod in a Carter, Qjet... or an Autolite or Motorcraft Spreadbore. Some modifications require other things to go with things....

    For example, some things don't take rich rods if the jets are too small. Its the same process, but with Zeros and Ones, it'll take us there.

  5. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    The resulting problem you get from calibrated MAFs is mostly summed up as a crap load of timing being pulled. They seem to run ok, until you see how a given stack of parts can/should run......

    A tuner can load the cobra MAF strategy into the more common EEC-IV ECU setups and tell the ECU you have 24’s. A lot of guys love the A9L and A9P because they are among the most aggressive on timing and yield a bit more power as a result. Quick updates to tell the computer about a 70MM Cobra MAF and 24’s will get you in the ballpark.

    Non-tune options, lot of times you can buy a reman ECU from the parts store for a 93 Cobra. That ECU will know about the 24’s and know about the Cobra MAF straight out of the box. Generally most basic head and intake and even cam engines run well, no tuning required.

    Tune options, some guys take Cobra ECUs and mod them to A9L style fuel maps and timing strategies. Not really any different than A9L’s updated to like the Cobra MAF and 24’s.

    All roads pretty much lead to the same place in the end
    Mine is an A9P with manual swap. That all sounds reasonable though.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  6. #31
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    The easiest move if you have a manual is a 93 cobra ECU, 93 Cobra MAF, and 24’s. There are a ton of combos that live happy and run like factory with that setup. The only down side is ..... some claim when the VSS seem more than 85 MPH in 5th it kills timing like nobody’s business. I havent verified this myself. Looks easy to hack out or one may argue to just disconnect the VSS
    Last edited by erratic50; 02-17-2019 at 05:29 PM.

  7. #32

    Default

    I'm slightly concerned going to the Cobra computer since I don't have 1.7 rockers and my cam is aftermarket, Flowtech. I do have 24 lb injectors though.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  8. #33
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Injectors, MAF, and ECU calibration of what it thinks it’s connected to are really by far the most important.

    If you go nuts on overlap you run into problems with cam/EFI incompatibility. (Less than 110 lsa if I remember right). Beyond that the MAF ECUs don’t really care.

    Base timing and fuel pressure may need a minor tweak if things lean out or get too fat from there but in part throttle closed loop operation the O2 sensors and MAF and such should be able to sort it out.

    You won’t get ideal without dyno tuning or spending hours data logging and tuning but you can get to where they run good —usually.

    The cobra ECU with a proper 70MM Cobra style MAF housing and a good factory MAF sensor will usually vastly outperform the “calibrated” (broken) MAF bs needed to run 24’s with an A9L/P

    get the injector size adjusted and MAF meter calibrationloaded in the A9L or A9P, whole new deal entirely. Magazine articles Shortly after they were released suggested to 93 Cobra owners that doing a swap to an HO cam instead then moving to a tuned A9L and dropping 0.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile. Output on the engine jumped from 235 (a BS figure in the first place) to over 300.
    Last edited by erratic50; 02-18-2019 at 01:51 AM.

  9. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    Injectors, MAF, and ECU calibration of what it thinks it’s connected to are really by far the most important.

    If you go nuts on overlap you run into problems with cam/EFI incompatibility. (Less than 110 lsa if I remember right). Beyond that the MAF ECUs don’t really care.

    Base timing and fuel pressure may need a minor tweak if things lean out or get too fat from there but in part throttle closed loop operation the O2 sensors and MAF and such should be able to sort it out.

    You won’t get ideal without dyno tuning or spending hours data logging and tuning but you can get to where they run good —usually.

    The cobra ECU with a proper 70MM Cobra style MAF housing and a good factory MAF sensor will usually vastly outperform the “calibrated” (broken) MAF bs needed to run 24’s with an A9L/P

    get the injector size adjusted and MAF meter calibrationloaded in the A9L or A9P, whole new deal entirely. Magazine articles Shortly after they were released suggested to 93 Cobra owners that doing a swap to an HO cam instead then moving to a tuned A9L and dropping 0.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile. Output on the engine jumped from 235 (a BS figure in the first place) to over 300.
    Damn! That's got me excited to see what this engine can do! I just grabbed a Cobra MAF on ebay for $40, much to my surprise. "Cobra" = $$$$$ after all right?

    I can't find my cam info right now. I'll post it if i can find it.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  10. #35

    Default

    Alright, so I guess my cam LSA is right at 110.0. I guess I probably won't post the rest of the specs since this is a custom grind and they might be proprietary or something.

    I talked to my tuner friend, and he says he likes to use SCT. Any experience with them?
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  11. #36
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Should probably move this to another thread honestly ..... hijackers we are

    No experience with SCT on my end.

    Most of the stuff I’ve read says you should be fine at 110. One caveat is proper throttle body idle adjustment and TPS adjustment so there is enough engine speed at idle. steady (possibly even a bit low but sufficient) vacuum at the idle is a bigger factor than a particular RPM. Just make sure the power brakes get what they need or they will screw with you big time.

    Personally I like the time in the pipe from a little extra base advance but am careful that I don’t go too far. Around 13.5 degrees base is what both of our 86’s like the most. They run better at 13.5 than 14, better at 11.5 than 14 too as far as that goes. A little too much is way too much, etc.

  12. #37

    Default

    Okay. New thread here:

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...85#post1901185

    I'll say this though. If I swapped a 7.3 into a Cyclone, I would certainly endeavor to give it the airflow, fuel pressure, and whatever else it's used to so that the computer would not get confused. That would absolutely be a priority for me.
    Last edited by ZephyrEFI; 02-18-2019 at 09:17 PM.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  13. #38
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Oh dear. New details on the 7.3. Capitals mine....

    7291 cc, and 444.91 cubic inches.


    Even though its got fully unencapsulated, full water flow cylinder bore castings ITS ONLY GOT 310 "THOU" BETWEEN EACH NEIGBOURING CYLINDER.

    4.53" Bore centers minus 4.22" bores.

    There was a general thought with the 400ci SBC, when they are overbored by more than .030" (30 thou), you start running into overheating issues due to the Siamesed bores. Based on 40 years of evidence, this is not true. Its probaly just a rumour that the siamese bore 1970-1980 400 Chev small block was distortion prone at over bores of 30 thou. Its between cylinders measurement was 275 thou. 4.40" Bore centers minus 4.125" bores.


    https://www.hotrod.com/articles/insi...3l-pushrod-v8/

    As Ramey stated, the 7.3L utilizes an iron block featuring four-bolt main caps with cross bolts in each main, and the block is fully skirted, which adds rigidity. Bore and stroke comes in at 4.22-inches x 3.976-inches, respectively, to produce 445 cubic inches of displacement........

    Unlike the 4.6L Two-, Three- and Four-Valve modular and DOHC 5.0 Coyote engines, this is a big incher in a relatively small package. We don’t have specs yet, but it appears to be no larger than a typical small-block Ford. And with engine swaps being all the rage, it will only be a matter of time before we see one in a classic Ford, late-model Mustang, a street rod or dare we say, in a GM product.

    Of course, there will be obstacles, and one we see is the extra-deep oil pan. Normally, this wouldn’t present an issue, but the integrated oil pump and pick-up may present a challenge if you plan to set the engine in a low car. The off-road market would simply eat this thing up, especially the classic truck crowd.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •