Agreed.....had several phone conversations with Adam before going with my QH....I just couldn't afford his def and Derek's I could. Derek has been great to deal with as well....kudos to both.

 

Love your info. Put together a 4.9 for my son with comp cams 260h,any info on where to start with FI mods would be appreciated.Can I break in motor with stock computer settings? Is this model a SD set up? What would you do? Thanks and will post results

 

Yep. 100% correct. My truck is OEM HOG1. And the AHACB_readonly.cry file uploaded is in fact the same strategy.

Apparently, the gents at EECTuning have just fixed the bugs on that def file too, to get the datalogging working.

I have been supremely impressed with the improvement with Moates QH over TWEEcer the past 3 years. They have really come a long way in providing definition files for the rather rare MAF F150's (and all the weird strategies- VEX1, WAY1, HOG1 BIO0 etc) even older flex fuel vehicle definitions.

The last time I dove into this realm was 2007, and at the time I could not get a straight answer from QH regarding MAF controlled pickups and well TWEECer help...still is what it is. Their customer support is horrid. You're lucky to get a response for a vehicle without the typical A9L or A9P pcm.

 

The fuel and spark tables are MAP vs RPM based and these tables can be modified the same way when tuning with mass air. What limits speed density, mainly with forced induction, is that it can't fuel the motor as accurately as mass air at WOT; 99.6% load is it. The only way to fuel SD above that is with WOT fuel multipliers, an FMU and/or boost activated pump(s), which works ok until the air density changes. That, and it also is a bit of an issue when it comes to off idle quality. Tip-in-lean conditions are a problem with SD with aftermarket parts and/or forced induction, some of which can still be reduced with a little tuning. I was able to control it somewhat, but I could never got rid of it completely. For most street driven applications, speed density can be tuned without too much trouble and without the need for a mass air swap.

As for compatibility, I use an AKC0 (GEN 1 mass air conversion ECU) database to tune a 94 F-150 with an HOG0. It responds well to changes, but the only fall back is that it is a 2wd drive database which disables 4-low in trucks equipped with 4wd. Something to keep in mind for those looking for an ECU to use with a mass air swap.

 

The way we did it in the GM world was to use a 2-bar or 3-bar map sensor and rescale the tables accordingly.

This of course reduced the accuracy of the data tables because the sensor now covered more range vaccum to 2bar or 2bar, instead of vaccum to ambient pressure.

Generally one could compensate that with a little nudging around idle to a point.

With Ford EEC and forced induction, are there 2-bar and 3-bar MAP sensors?

 

Using a GM 2 bar MAP would've been a step up, but unfortunately, they're not compatible. Ford used a MAP sensor that has a frequency based output instead of voltage.

 

I know people often use 3bar GM sensors on forced induction cars, but the sensor is used for boost monitoring only. It isn't tied to the EEC for actual engine control.

As for SD, I'm sure there are people out there that have gotten workable SD tunes with boosted applications. However the general consensus from DIY tuners on EECTuning.org is that MAF is just easier and more accurate to work with. There are numerous people that have attempted SD tuning, stuck with it for a VERY long time, but never got the results they felt like should've been possible. So they switched to MAF and every one of them had far better street manners in just a few days of tweaking than they ever had with SD. So while I don't argue that SD can't work...it can in the right hands. For DIY tuning people that are just learning, MAF is just easier to deal with.

Now in SD's defense, some of the issues people were running into might have been problems with the open source SD def files. It hasn't been until fairly recently that there's been assured-accurate SD CRY files available. So it is quite possible the headaches people had with SD were more related to the def file they were using than SD's ability to be tuned. Without actually doing the work myself, I couldn't say what the real story is. All I can do is relay the feedback I've always heard from other DIY tuners (not professional tuners) that have tried.

 

What do you guys think about the accel thruster efi management system , used one on a ranger pu with a 2.3 turbo , it replaces the computer , worked very well on the 2.3 used the accel 2 bar map , sd , with a radical crower custom grind cam with no problems....Lew

 

A lot of the aftermarket EEC replacement units are actually better than the stock EEC since they are specifically designed for what they do. The reason Ford's EECs are so complex is because they have more to worry about than just making the engine run. They have warranty periods to get through, emissions to meet, strict driveability requirements, and a wide range of climates that the vehicle must crank and run in. So while you can tune for wherever you are at for whatever engine you are running, you might find that your tune is less than adequate if you went to say Denver where the air is thinner or went to the desert or the freezing tundra. Cold cranks, idle, fuel economy, and all these sorts of things are things Ford has to make work flawlessly with a single tune as well as meet emission requirements in each of those climates and conditions. So to meet those needs makes the EEC complex...far more than the average DIY tuner needs it to be.

So which is really better between a stock EEC and an aftermarket replacement? That depends on who you ask. But I think most DIY tuners that have used aftermarket EEC replacements agree that they are easier.

 

Chris,
This is changing the subject altogether, but I have read some of your post on e85. Did you have to make any adjustments to you maf curve for e85? I have the z_afr scalar so the fuel tables are not a problem. I also have tuned up the spark tables. I have some e85 in my rear tank and looking to test with it today. On my latest e10 tune I was able to get 23mpg yesterday on my cruise home from work on my stroked 5.0. By far the best I have ever gotten. Looking to see what the difference is with e85...since I want to take advantage of the price, the cleaner burn, the cooling effect, not to mention the 105 octane. Also gas has jumped .50/gal in the last 4 days.

 

There's a number of threads on the EECTuning.org forum where tuning for alternative fuels is discussed. But to answer your question, I did nothing with my MAF or Injector Slopes. The only thing I changed was the Z_AFR scalar to match my estimated ethanol concentration and I upped my spark tables a bit.

I also thought that since ethanol burns cooler that I wouldn't need EGR. However what I found is that the added mass of the EGR gasses increases the effective Dynamic Compression Ratio and dramatically improves my fuel economy with E85 as compared to without. So when I disabled EGR, I saw an immediate drop in fuel economy. I added EGR back and IMMEDIATELY (while driving down the road) my fuel economy jumped nearly 2 MPG. My engine is stock and very low compression (7.0 DCR). I noticed that without EGR using gasoline that my MPG would go down, but not NEARLY by as much as it did with higher concentrations of ethanol. So if you can run and maintain a working EGR, you may find you get better MPG with E85 as well. Although if you already have a fairly high compression engine, perhaps you won't need the EGR. I'd be interested to hear other people's experimentation on this.

Other things to note is BE has an AFR setting in the preferences that must be kept in sync with the Z_AFR scalar. If you don't keep them in sync, the MPG estimate from BE won't be even close. Another aspect that is still a mystery is that ethanol fuel weight is different than gasoline. And there's some theory that solubility can make mid-blend concentrations of ethanol (e.g. E40, E50, E60) heavier than gasoline, E10, or E85. If that's true, then BE's estimate of fuel weight/gallon will also need to be updated. Unfortunately I don't have any good values.

If you ASSUME gasoline is around 5.7-6.0lbs/gal and straight ethanol is about 6.60lbs/gal, then you can linearly extrapolate a weight for a blend. The problem is I've read a few scientific articles that insinuate the specific weight of gasoline/ethanol blends is NOT linear. What I cannot get any specifics as to what specific blends do weight/volume or even an indication if the curve it follows is S-shaped or if bell-shaped.

So what does that all mean? Well it means that if there is solubility condensing of molecules then the volume of a blend is different than the volume of the gasoline and ethanol you put in. For example, if you have 1 gal of gas and add another gal of gas, you should have 2 gal of gas. However if you have 1 gal of gas mix it with 1 gal of E85, you may end up with a volume LESS than 2 gallons. The weight will be the same, but the specific weight of the blend would be heavier than either of the additives you mixed. What leads me to believe this may be the case is there are other properties of gas/ethanol blends that do this such as Reid Vapor Pressure. Ethanol by itself has a very low RVP. Gasoline is higher. An E10 blend is higher than either gasoline or ethanol which could suggest that the resulting fluid is also heavier and possibly higher viscosity which would explain the higher RVP. Here's the article I'm quoting RVP info from:
Ethanol Challenges: E10 Blends (PDF doc)

The point is the estimated MPG from BE would be of the blend's volume, not of the volume as you added it to the tank. So BE would estimate a higher MPG than what you'd realize at the pump. But BE wouldn't be wrong. As long as you only test with E85, you should be OK in this area.

However in my studies and testing, there seems to be an optimal blend which is around E50. I suspect this is also the point where the blend is the heaviest. This really needs more study but there's just very little accurate information. So any info is better than what we have right now.

For more reading, here are some relevant threads over on EECTuning.org. I highly recommend before you dig further that you read the 1st thread here about WBs, and how they don't really measure AFR, but rather are measuring lambda. If that's news or confusing to you, then you DEFINITELY need to read that one 1st:
EECTuning.org • View topic - Widebands DO NOT measure AFR.
EECTuning.org • View topic - Setting up for alternate fuel types such as E85
EECTuning.org • View topic - Our fuel here is now E10....Change BE?
EECTuning.org • View topic - E85 for Open Loop

 

Yep....read up most of those....just curious is you made any other changes. I have read some say you will need to adjust and others not. Did you see any issues with injector duty cycle when running e85 with the 19#'s. Btw....my motor is 9:01 static comp. ratio.

 

Oh, I knew that. I was just curious if anyone makes a frequency-based 2 or 3 bar map sensor for the EEC. It would be a logical aftermarket thing I think..

"Guessing" under boost is risky.

 

In the GM world either works fine, mostly because everything is down to the source code level and publically available for the download. All of the GM ECM's within a wide year range use the same processor, same memory mapping, and only the various I/O bits are different for different vehicles for specific purposes - batch versus sequential injection, waste gate control, et al.

I talk about SD a lot because of my GM ECM experiences. I've personally done very little with MAF and even less with Ford EEC, and that's why I'm on this thread - I'd like to, and have for years. That's why I bought the Moates J3 stuff years ago and also acquired a ML2-441 EEC (I think that's the number - it came out of a MAF/Dizzy F-series truck vintage 96 I think). I can pull it out to be sure. I just have to make a harness to bench it and start playing with it.

 

Strategies that don't have the Z_AFR scalar require the tuner modify the injector slope/bp values to compensate for the E85 difference. But if you have the Z_AFR scalar, there's no good reason to mess with them.

Depending on your cam, 9:1 is either moderate or low. A stock cam and 9:1 is moderate. A radical cam, 9:1 is low. In either case, I predict you would benefit by running EGR.

As for the 19s, those are low for E85 even with a stock engine. When I ran high concentrations of ethanol (I was using winter blend E85 which is actually E70), I found I could max out my stock injectors on WOT. Cruising, the DCs were higher than gas, but well within capabilities. It's also worth note that often tuners find that richer AFRs are required for WOT when using ethanol to get max HP. You will NOT be able to attain the deeper richness with E85 using stock injectors sized for gasoline. Although I found my injectors worked just fine running E40.