Hi guys, Finally got my truck. It's a '95 351W/Auto, Speed Density.

Looks like I'm gonna TwEECer it for now since it's cheaper than a MAF conversion.

Just wondering if there's anyone else here that has used a TwEECer so I can get pointed in the right direction for the SD setup, IE what processor I should have and so on..

If all else fails I may start with a T4MO ('stang GT) 'puter and reprogram it to a ZAO (95 R) cal and go from there... I have a TwEECer on my '94 Cobra, so operating the software is no problem, I just gotta learn how to solid up the shifts and keep the low-end torqe curve in there...

 

I checked into TwEECer's and they seem fairly limited. Mainly Mustangs. Each EEC code needs to be read, interpreted and then an interface code can be developed. They didn't have anything for Explorers when I checked a couple months back and were not wiulling to develop anything either. Good luck.

 

They have support for our trucks now, I do know some guys are using them instead of a MAF conversion, I just wondered if anyone here was doing so. I may end up doing both. I'll definitely TwEECer it.

 

According to their website, it will support the C3P1 C3P2 C3P3 SD Lightning computer. P/N: F3TF-12A650-AB, AC, AD according to www.fordfuelinjection.com .

 

Tweecer does support certain speed density computers, and having used Tweecer in the past on Mustangs, I'll say it is a nice piece of software and the ability to make changes on the fly is very nice. Leave it hooked up, make changes in a parking lot, reboot the car and give it a try. Very slick.

If you're going a little nuts with the hardware of the engine (cam, port work, valves, etc) you might not be very happy with the Ford speed density. Ford SD relies heavily on the MAP sensor and the O2 sensor for input, weighing them more than other sensors. The MAP sensor measures vacuum, which with a lumpy cam can give false readings, which the computer will misinterpret and provide incorrect fuel. Then the O2 sensor will tell the computer "bad!" as things will go really rich or really lean, and you'll find that it's going to be difficult to tune. It can be done, I'm not saying that - just that it's a lot more work to tune more interesting cam's with the Ford speed density because of it's dependance on vacuum monitoring.

Mass air on the other hand is really more interested in how much air gets "sucked in", and by simultaniously measuring the density of the air, the computer then knows the mass of the air, hence the nickname of "mass air EFI". The advantage is, if you change your air intake through lumpy cams, port work, different throttle bodies and intakes, the mass air EFI system will to a point, compensate for such modifications. Mass Air fords actually have a Baro sensor, which is really just a MAP sensor that's connected to "free space" rather than the intake manifold, so the car can determine air density based on vertical distance from sea level, and such.

Anyway, converting to mass air can be expensive if you buy a $400-500 kit, or a real pain in the *** if you go the junkyard route, but having done the pain in the *** method, it is doable if you take your time and have some confidence in what you're doing. And, the benefit is things like Tweecer support the 'stang mass air stuff significantly better, AND because so many people have hacked into thier mustang's in the past, you'll find web pages and web forums with all sorts of useful information.

I chose instead of tweecer, to use Paul Booth's EEC Editor (free) and some electronic 'stuff' from www.moates.net. I've known Craig Moates for a long while and he's supportive of his products even though he's "a little guy". And he's not that little.. he's been selling EFI hacking tools for a very long time. And it's less expensive than tweecer by far.

Tweecer is nice, very nice, but the free Paul Booth software and the inexpensive Moates hardware allowed me to save about 200 bucks which you can use for other things. I spent my "savings" at the junkyard acquiring a mass air EEC from a 92 mustang, (A9P actually), and a full engine bay wiring harness out of ... shoot... I can't remember... but it was a similar year mass air harness that I just hacked up to make a new and improved harness to wrap around my soon to be installed 500cid stroker.

I am not a fan of buying products like "Superchips" unless one really doesn't want to get involved in any serious tuning. Most of the aftermarket chip companies do come close in their programming to what is required for a set of hardware, but they don't have the luxury of testing their chip in your specific vehicle, with your specific hardware in the engine. Driving style also effects how the chips satisfy the owner, too. Especially when moving shift points around. Not everyone mashes the throttle to the floor to accelerate, for example. Anyway, hacking in and doing it yourself with whatever tools one chooses is definately a ton of work as compared to a plug-and-play aftermarket chip, but as you change your hardware significantly, buying new chips over and over is the pits. It should be obvious that I speak form experience, and why I personally like the hack-it-yourself approach.

Just some random thoughts, feel free to ignore.

 

Frederic - Based on a previous post of yours, I checked into TwEECer and Moates. Ap is 93 CA Explorer, 4.0, maunual. TwEECer told nope sorry. Craig said well sure my hardware will help you but I have no way of deciphering your computer read. Paul Booth can do that for $150. Great! Give me the tools and I'll do the work. I like to be able to control my own tune just as you have mentioned. So 2 emails and no response from Paul. Craig was also delinquent in responding - 1-2 weeks - on email but at least he did get back to me. So far no one can help me with a custom chip for this. If you have any direct pulls or connections with Paul or Craig, let me know - please!

 

I have an A9P laying here, the problem is I have an E40D trans, the A9P was centered around the AOD. Same problem with the '94-95 GT Auto 'puter.

then again the J4J1 in my Cobra has Auto provisions in it when you read the EEC, so who knows, they may still work for me.

How much was involved with a JY MAF conversion? I'm lookin at getting the whole engine harness, since most of it will be off anyway for the head swap.

I'm not doing anything radical, just GT-40 heads, Roller rockers, maybe an Edelbrock intake, and probably either a stock cam or convert to roller and use either an explorer or the stock Cobra cam (once again going to the crap I have on hand), both were good torque cams, neither was lumpy at all.