I believe they still support EEC-4. The SCT software is now $950, a bit more than what I paid for it several years ago. Nowadays, quaterhorse would be a better/cheaper option for many street driven applications. I like the fact that you can make tuning changes and load them on the fly with QH. I can do this with SCT, but the programs have to be loaded on the chip first then I can switch from one program to another, but I can't change anything unless I remove the chip and reprogram it. SCT does has a very detailed set of help files that give definitions and tuning strategies to nearly every parameter, and there are a bunch. I've not used QH but it seems to be catching on and those that have it are pleased with it.

As for the transmission, there really is no need to used a stand-alone controller if you're using the factory ECU and aftermarket tuning. Simple transmission functions can be tuned with nearly any type of software.

 

I can't recall right off if the HUG1 is equipped for 4r70w, but my '95 5.0 MAF has a Bug2 Catch Code (CBAZO) strategy, similar to CBAZA in '94-'95 Mustangs and it is programmed from 4r70w. I'm not sure about running a 5.8, but it would definitely not run a speed density setup.

 

I'm not Blurry, but I will vouch to the power of the Moates QH and Binary Editor. Very user friendly and easy to use if your definition is supported. I also tried the SCT custom tuned chip and the truck was not drivable. I finally decided to go my own route....and man....I am so glad I did. The QH worked on the first try and worked good. It will do all that you are looking for if you can get your hands on a fully supported definition. I am guessing it will be CBAZ0 which is what my Bug2 runs. If it is CBAZO, then you have to pay $25 from Derek (def. developer), but it works good. Let us know which route you take.

 

Moates QH is The TOOL. I think if you do thorough research you will find the QH is the way to go at a much more reasonable price. It has much more flexibility and there are many definitions that are free without having to pay for a license. With QH and a license for Binary Editor you can do much more than half the cost of the comparable Tweecer. The Tweecer has been around longer so there is more support out there, although the QH tuning crowd is growing daily. Many that have the Tweecer have now converted to the Binary Editor because of it's user friendly interfaces and capabilities. The QH is capable of tuning EEC IV and EECV through 2004.

Here are some differences that I pulled from a reliable reference on one of the tuning sites....

Pros of the QH

Price. You can buy a QH, licensed copy of BinaryEditor &EEC Analyzer software, and an LC-1 Controller with WB sensor costs about the same as the cost of just a new TwEECer RT.
Datalogging limits are much higher than the TwEECer.
Datalogging speed is much greater
Engine is unaffected by tune/payload updates
Small form factor that resides mostly inside the EEC's case
Not as limited to the host EEC's strategy. As long as the host EEC can physically support the capabilities of the tune, the tune can be run on it via the QH.
For example, GUFB-based tunes (e.g. A9L) can be run on a GUF1 EEC (e.g. A9P). However a CBAZA-based (e.g. J4J1) tune cannot run on a GUFx EEC because CBAZA EECs require more RAM than the GUFx EECs have available.

Another example is a GURE-based tune requires a knock sensor by default and won't run correctly on a GUFB EEC because the hardware needed to read a knock sensor doesn't exist on the GUFx processors. Ford simply never stuffed the circuit board with those components. In fact, you can set a GURE and GUFx EEC side-by-side and see that the circuit board itself is identical, but some chip pads on the GUFx EEC are not populated, but are populated on the GURE.
EEC processor overhead for datalogging is much lower as compared to the TwEECer. This means more processor time is spent running the engine which will improve the max RPM the EEC will support.
The QH communication protocol is well documented by Moates to allow softwares like BinaryEditor to support all of the hardware's capabilities. The TwEECer communication protocol was reverse-engineered.
The Quarterhorse's memory is Static RAM vs Flash. This means the memory will never wear out no matter how many times you write to it.
Because the QH keeps a record of all writes to memory, BE has access to read out the entire KAMRF table. With the TwEECer, your datalogs must hit all possible RPM/Load conditions to get the KAMRF values. Also, datalog accounts of KAMRF values are not always reliable and up to date. A direct read of the memory values as they exist gives the most up-to-date info about what the Adaptive Learning strategy has learned.
Excellent seller support from Moates

Cons of the QH

Installation on older EECs can be intimidating for the average Joe. But it's not impossible by any means. There is a step-by-step installation guide in the FAQ section here to help with this.
The memory the tune is held in is battery-backed RAM vs Flash. That in-and-of itself is no big deal, but the battery is soldered to the QH and is not user-serviceable unless you have soldering skills. Typical life expectancy of lithium batteries on Static RAM is ~7-10 year range.
Supported EEC strategies are limited to those that BinaryEditor supports. The BinaryEditor supported list is growing, but the list isn't nearly as extensive as the TwEECer. And some of the defs are independently licensed. (pay for defs).

Pros of the TwEECer

Easy Installation
Free software to tune (CalEdit) and datalog (CalCon) with
TwEECer "supports" most Ford EEC strategies. I say "supports" very loosely.
Includes hardware to flip between 1 of 4 custom tunes and the stock tune on the fly. However the TwEECer cannot datalog with the stock tune.


Cons of the TwEECer

It is expensive for the quality of the software, support, and lack of continued innovation
The CalEdit/CalCon software package is rarely updated with new features and bug fixes
The CalEdit/CalCon software package and many of its definitions have bugs that still are not fixed
The CalEdit/CalCon software package does not do datalog analysis. Users of the TwEECer still find they need to purchase EEC Analyzer to make heads or tails of their logs.
The TwEECer sits outside the EEC and sometimes causes fitment issues where the EEC will not fit completely into the stock location.
Tune writes cause the EEC to execute the stock tune. If your application can't run on the stock tune, this means the engine will most likely die if you write a tune/payload update.
You cannot run a tune of a different strategy than the host EEC with the TwEECer. For example you cannot run a GUFB-based tune on a GUF1 EEC.
Support from the developer is hit-n-miss when you have problems that can't be solved on the forum. Some users report no response. Others claim decent response.
The TwEECer uses Flash memory which means there is a finite number of times the memory can be written to. In the TwEECer's defense, nobody has ever reported that their TwEECer's Flash memory "wore out". But it is technically possible.

 

Alright 73MOFO I got the idea most likly the QH is a better product. A few questions for you tho.
How hard would it be to find a base Map for the 4.9L? I know most people feel the FI 4.9L is pointless to make power with....Im the one who thinks otherwise.
I take it the LC1 would be basicly a gauge on the A Pillar?
Does the QH plug directly into the ECU or is there a cable that runs between them?
Can the QH make changes to the E4OD?

Seems that somethings could seem complicated but your average user should be able to sort this out. Tweecer seems very straight forward. When you start throwing diffrent "codes" around is when I get lost LOL

 

73FOMO, that info you posted looks familiar...very familiar. In fact, I think I wrote it a few years ago.

Flareside13, to answer some of your questions, the QH does plug into the EEC. There's an edge-connector on the backside of most Ford EECs up to about 2004 that chips can connect to. The TwEECer is a box that fits outside the EEC. The QH is a circuit board that actually fits inside the stock EEC enclosure so there's little to no fitment issues. Here's a thread I wrote showing pictures of a QH installation on my EEC:
EECTuning.org • View topic - Installation of the Quarterhorse on an 89-93 Mustang EEC

There are cords that connect to either device. One cord is a USB cable. The other cord is optional, but most people install it and that's the tune selector cable that goes to a rotary dial. The TwEECer packages the selector dial in a nice box, but most people find that box cumbersome to locate and mount. The QH has the option to buy a dial separately. The dial looks cheaper than the TwEECer setup, but installers prefer it because it is much smaller than the TwEECer box and can be easily mounted behind a drilled hole. So you find a place on your dash, drill a hole and mount the dial in that hole. You can even get a push-on **** to go on the dial to add a little more polish to the installation.

As for your EEC not being a good platform to tune from...that's a matter of opinion. It can be used. There's no doubt about that. The question is whether it can be used cheaply. Depending on the EEC, some definition developers will charge upwards of $200 for their def file that matches your EEC. Others only charge a meager $25 for it. And some EECs have open source defs, like the 89-93 Mustang (GUFx) EECs. If you don't mind a bit of wiring, then it may be more economical for you to convert your wiring harness to work with one of the GUFx EECs. However if that doesn't sound like fun, then perhaps a potential $200 charge to continue using your existing EEC is not so bad.

For more details on pricing and answers to other questions you might not have thought about yet, check out this thread:
EECTuning.org • View topic - Things to know BEFORE buying a TwEECer or Quarterhorse

I believe most of 73FOMO's post came from this thread:
EECTuning.org • View topic - TwEECer RT vs Quarterhorse


The bottom line is yes you can tune your setup with your EEC using the Quarterhorse. And here's a rough breakdown of what the investment will cost:

$350 for Quarterhorse (inc dial)
$130 for BinaryEditor and EEC Analyzer Software
$200 for an Innovate LC1 Wideband controller and sensor kit (the kit with the gauge is a little more)
$0-100 for install of Wideband sensor bung. If you own your own welder or have access to a MIG for free, then you save here.
$25-200 for the Def file for your strategy

Note this assumes you already have a laptop. If you don't then, invest in a decent $400 or more laptop. There are people using $200-300 netbooks but they admit the datalogging experience isn't nearly as smooth and crisp, but it does work an "real" laptop is going to serve you far better. It doesn't need to be anything fancy, but it should be something better than an Atom processor.

Hope that helps...

 

Yes you did!! Welcome to FTE! Hey guys...this new guy to FTE, CGREY8, knows his stuff when it comes to EEC tuning. I am glad you joined. I have studied many of your post from eectuning.org forum. I mostly read up and searched there, but I haven't posted much although I go by 73fomo there as well. I started this thread to get more people interested in tuning their trucks and discussing truck eec's in particular.


Also a bit further on pricing...you can get the QH without tune selector for $249 with free shipping from Chris Lazzaro at Power Adder Solutions...he is also has the LC1 Wideband on sale/without gauge for $169. You don't necessarily need a WB gauge unless you want to be able to view your AFR all the time. You can opt to just view your AFR when datalogging through BE. BE will run you $80....you don't necessarily have to have EA (EEC Analyzer, but it may help with your tuning)....and then there is the definition cost...unless like cgrey8 said...you have open source def, which I doubt you have on our less popular truck pcms.

 

1. You don't necessarily need the gauge. You can view AFR through BE when data logging.
2. There is a cable that plugs into the QH when installed in the EEC. It can be run under the dash. You will then plug it into your laptop when using BE to update your calibration.
3. Yes, depending on definition.

 

Yeah, I was searching for a HOG1 tune on the Internet when I found this thread. Someone over on the the EECTuning.org forum has a truck with a HOG1 EEC and wanted to know what it would take to tune. Since that's not a popular tune, there was some question as to what exactly it was. This thread mentioned a HOG1 somewhere so it showed up in the search. I wasn't originally planning on responding until I realized it was an active thread.

 

Others have already answered this in some detail; here's my view on it.

There's not much wrong with the Tweecer RT hardware, except that the newer QH does pretty much the same thing for half the price.

The problem in using a Tweecer RT is the software to use with it. Tweecer comes with its own software, and that software is not only buggy, isn't regularly updated, and can only adapt to a new and different ECU if the Tweecer vendors write a new file (def file) for it. They don't do that often, but when they do, it's frequently wrong, and not very complete. Even of you find the information that should go in this def file, you can't put it there yourself, and you can't see if the Tweecer people got it right.

Alternatively, you can use Binary Editor with a Tweecer RT. Sometimes it works. On some ECUs. On others it may work well.

Binary Editor works very well with QH. There are many def files available some free, some licensable, or you can build your own.

You can also use Tunerpro or EECEditor software with QH, although I believe that on neither of these can you build your own def files.

 

TunerPro you can write your own. But its worth saying that while technically you can write a def file for BE or TunerPro, you are in for one HELL of a learning curve unless you are intimately familiar with Intel assembly language programming and Ford's bizarre programing practices that obfuscate the code so that it doesn't disassemble cleanly at all. And once you have a 100% clean disassembly, there's the reading the code to figure out what's what, then entering it into a def file, associating a conversion to the data, and putting human readable words to the data so the user of the def file knows what they are adjusting.

There's a lot to know and suffice to say the average person is not going to write their own def.

 

When looking on eecanalyzer.net at the def. that are supported would ACAHA be correct for a 1993 4.9L? I looked threw the rest and didnt seem to find any other that would work. Also where can you go to find user made Def?

 

I'm not aware of any defs available for the 4.9L 6 cylinder. AHACA would not be correct.

 

Contact usernames POPSRACING, sailorbob, or mpaton on the EECTuning.org site. Those are the resident bin hackers that can answer your questions.

Sailorbob (Derek), I believe sells defs cheapest. Last I heard, he sells licenses for around $25.

POPSRACING (Adam) runs a dyno tuning shop and develops these things for his business. So for people looking to use them without coming to him with service, he charges a hefty premium...expect $200 for his.

mpaton, I'm not sure on. I just know he does help Adam out a good bit in developing these defs.

 

So another words the Def. will haft to be specially written. Thats all I need to know for now. Wont be getting the QH and Software for a few months. Gotta wait til money is coming in again. Thanks for the info.