Your def is probably already written by either Adam or Derek. You just need to contact them...preferably both of them to find out what the price is so you know how to budget.

 

Done did cgrey8 thanks for the info.

 

so what you are saying is a 95 stang computer with this CBAZO code is:
MAF (good)
4R70W (great)
can wire into the current EEC (awesome)
And many many people run 5.8 with the 5.0 computer...

SO...I am really liking your info now.

I really think a 4R in place of the E4, decent converter will save fuel!

 

This is why I like the older GM stuff. You cut off the eprom off the "carrier" and solder in a ZIF, then shove in your own eeproms with your own code and data, reprogramming as you wish using ordinary run of the mill eeprom programmers.

But I digress, I do want to dig into the EEC's as I have with the GM stuff.

---

Off the same EECtuning.org site, there's a fantastic spreadsheet for finding out what EEC strategy/code you are likely to have: http://eecanalyzer.net/tech/docs/Strategies.xls

 

Fords are easier than resoldering chips. Ford gives you and edge connector which allows a chip to disable the onboard ROM without removing it and the lines for the chip to 100% replace the onboard chip. So if you are savvy enough, you CAN run whatever you want on that EEC. At that point, the EEC is just a processor, RAM, and A/D converters with you supplying the ROM tune in the form of a Flash chip or in the case of a Quarterhorse, a CPLD and battery-backed RAM.

BTW, CBAZ0 is a truck strategy which controls E4OD trannys. I think it can be made to run a 4R70w, but I can't say that for sure.

CBAZA is the 94-95 Mustang strategy which is setup to control an AODE in stock form, but from what I understand can run a 4R70w that has been outfitted with AODE-style solenoids since the AODE and 4R70w are similar in design.

Neither CBAZA or CBAZ0 are SD. Both are MAF-based EECs.

And running a 5.8L is no big deal. There's a single scalar that is the CID scalar. Update it from 302 to 351, and voila! you got that taken care of. Now because a 5.8L and is not a 5.0L, you also need to be aware that spark tables will likely also change and a 1/2 dozen other things. But setting up spark tables is either a dyno-effort or a trial-n-error testing of spark values. Other things that might need touched are idle controls due to differences in the TB and intake volume.

 

Yes, you can run the 4R with the AODE EPC and TCC solenoids..however the shift points due to the wide ratio and the TCC control are all wrong...and from what I know, tunning the AODE computer for the 4R has not been going well for the stang guys.

If MAF controled, the 5.0 computer will run the 5.8 streetable with NO tuning whatsoever...if SD, then no.

MAF is not king, but is nice.

 

You have that backwards Chris. CBAZ0 controls 4R70W transmissions.

 

Admittedly, I'm not well versed on the CBAZx strats or their applications. I'm a GUFB user. What I know about the other strats is purely what I hear from others on the EECTuning forum, and since it doesn't relate to me, I probably don't pay enough close attention to even talk about them.

 

My 95 MAF truck is CBAZ0 strategy is similar to the CBAZA mustang strategy, but not exactly the same. My truck came with a Bug2 definition which is CBAZO (def purchased from SailorBob, Derek) and it controls my 4r70w. Derek gives you the option in the CBAZ0.cry def to change transmission for E4OD....so I am sure it would work an E4OD just the same. I also talked with Adam Marrer from PopsRacing and he has the def as well. I paid SailorBob $25 for mine and it is a nice comprehensive def.

 

Being he's got the option in there, I'm wondering if there is a CBAZ0 application out there that does come with an E4OD.

 

If it's that simple theoretically I have to dig into this a bit more and get my butt in gear with EEC tuning.

The first thing I want to do is convert from EEC-IV to EEC-V which will be somewhat easy with the ML1-441 EEC I have since it supports a distributor as well as MAF and came out of a truck.

Then from there, go from 5.8L to 7.5L, then to 7.5L with turbochargers.

I don't know why I kept putting this off... but as I said, I have the moates stuff (the j3 stuff) in a box sitting on the corner of my desk for several years now.

I think the turnoff for me was eeceditor. I found it rather cumbersome.

 

What benefit are you looking to get from an EEC-V that you believe you wouldn't get from an EEC-IV? The main things the EEC-V offered was more memory, faster processor speed, and more I/O. The faster processor speed is the main reason people want to upgrade. The older EEC-IVs are known for missing injection fires after RPMs get above about 6800-7000RPMs on a V8. The PIPs of a V8 are coming in faster than the processor can respond. Some people have overcome this by installing faster crystals and that works, but it's a hack at best because it throws off all other timing numbers in the tune. The A/D increase is only important if you have an application that needs the additional A/D. The most notable A/D usage was with the OBD-II port, trans controls (although late EEC-IVs got this too), emissions monitoring (secondary HEGOs, tank pressure monitor, etc), fuel pump pressure control, FlexFuel ethanol concentration monitoring, PATS, ABS interface, digital dash control, and cam timing control on VVT equipped OHC engines.

Point is, if you don't need an upgrade, there's little benefit in performing it. Although if there's some known limitation or flaw with your EEC's strategy, then that might be a compelling reason to do the upgrade. Otherwise, I'd tune what you got. I run an 89-era GUFB tune on my engine and it does OK. There are a few advanced things I wish I had control over, but I don't believe even the newer EEC-Vs have what I'm looking for. To get the advanced Closed Loop functionality I want, I'm going to have to hack the code. I just haven't been that motivated to bother.

And someone else mentioned that the 5.0L tune will run a 5.8L unmodified. While true, there's usually places in the tune that can be enhanced to optimize the tune for any mod you do. Heck even the stock tune on a stock 5.0L can be modified for fuel economy and performance benefits. So while you probably will start with a "stock" tune which will likely run any engine you have, you'll work from there to enhance and optimize it for whatever your engine needs are. The two most common complaints people have with their tunes on heavily modified engines is lean tip-ins that cause hesitation & bucking and idle issues.

Going from NA to supercharged will force you to make some fairly sweeping changes to the tune. The main one being you'll need to rescale all your tables that are based on Load. Load you can think of as the calculated instantaneous volumetric efficiency. The theoretical max on a N/A engine is 100%. Most don't make it up that high although with the right combination of heads/cam/intake/exhaust, you can actually hit 100% or a tad higher thanks to scavenging in the exhaust and intake pulses forcing more air into the intake than you'd get otherwise. Stock tunes usually set the top row of tables to around 80% since that's about as high as most stock engines get. The difference between 80 and 100 isn't that big of a deal. However when you go boosted, the Load values can go well above 100%. A mild 5-6PSI boost can have you in the 120s. A 10-15PSI boost can have you way up in the 160s and 170s. Add an inter-cooler and you can be pushing 190s (pumping nearly double the engine's CID amount of air through the engine). Point is, values in those tables in stock form assume 80%, but what's good for 80% is not going to be good for boost levels of any type. So you'll need to rescale the tune so that the tune can command different values as the boost levels rise. To explain it further, I wrote a thread on how exactly scaling is done in a Ford EEC and more details...some of which I've already elaborated on.
EECTuning.org • View topic - Changing Table Scaling using Scaling Functions

Also keep in mind that the term Load Scaling and Table Scaling are different. They sound similar, but they are not. In most EECs, there's two different Load values, one called Load and the other called Load% (aka LoadX thanks to CalEdit/CalCon). Search the EECTuning.org forum for threads entitled Load vs Load% or Load vs LoadX.

For those that are curious but not enough to actually go look, this is the Cliffs notes explanation.
Load is the instantaneous volumetric efficiency calculated based mainly on airflow (as measured by the MAF), RPMs, and CID. In other words the amount of air going into the engine relative to the engine's CID. The torque curve and Load curve should mimic each other. Since Load is based on MAF-measured airflow, SD systems don't usually use Load, and instead use something else. I can't remember exactly what it is called.

Load% is the engine's max capability at a given RPM. If the highest Load an engine can produce at a given RPM is 80%, then Load% should be 100% for that RPM. While spark is adjusted based on engine Load, Fuel AFRs are generally adjusted based on Load%.

BTW, there's a scalar in most all strats with Load% to make Load% = Load and thus remove the confusion. I've run my tune that way your years and I find it simplifies things. There are others that feel different.

 

CGREY8....found out HOG1 runs on AHACB strategy...or at least that is the word from Derek. Not sure what's out there for AHACB.

 

Frederic,

Go to Clint Garrity's EEC Analyzer site and download EEC Analyzer and Binary Editor. Then download a free open source definition and calibration data from the same site. Once you do that play around with it for free....I think you will be surprised with the advancments in tuning capability and ease of tuning with BE. There is absolutely no cost in doing so.......of course once you get ready to tune you will need the Quarterhorse (don't mess with the chips when you can get the QH which will datalog) and then you will need to buy a licensed copy of BE from Clint.

 

I think Derek has defs for both AHACA and AHACB, but I'm not 100% on that. He doesn't advertise his offerings well. He also doesn't have that many defs. But then engine tuning isn't his day job. It's just what he does on the side for fun.

Adam, on the other hand, is a professional dyno tuner. He has a very vested interest in making defs so he can offer his customers cheaper options that his competition can't. And because of this, he has taken to def development with a passion. He's written software tools that help him to develop the defs much faster than the traditional ways. As a result, he's got hundreds of defs now available for BE although he charges a premium for them. Adam is currently an SCT dealer and if I had to guess, he's arming himself with enough defs that he can ditch SCT and use BE and the Quarterhorse exclusively for Fords. I do know he's been working very closely with Clint Garrity to streamline the user experience and the licensing method which makes sense. The more Adam developes defs, the more people will purchase BE. So there's a natural synergy for them to work together.