i shoved a 4.6 dohc from a 94 mark 8 into a 62 falcon with a cobra intake and there are a few things nagging to be tuned out of it, mostly trans stuff and idle control.

the computer is a z4h0 with a czajl stategy. i have downloaded all software i could find for quarter horse and tweecer. and it actually looks like the tweecer is better supported and cheaper.

from what i understand to use the czajl strategy i need a qh($250), be2012 dongle($160) and pops racing definition($195) for a total of $605 add another 50 for eecanylize. way too much to just tune an engine, id be more comfortable with a megasquirt and trans controller.

the tweecer rt supports czajl and costs $450. or i could fly blind and get the tweecer for $300. is the better software worth the $200 premium?

_________________
62 falcon 4.6dohc czajl z4h0
85capri mild 347 ms3 low 13's 25mpg highway, mid 12's when not running 4 mufflers
83capri ms3 384w s475 e85 mid 9's
2000 malibu 3.4 swap
97 f150 4.6

I've never tuned CZAJL, but there are some flaws in your comparison between the QH and TwEECer.

First off, you can tune without EEC Analyzer on either TwEECer or QH. But I would not recommend it unless EEC Tuning is something you've done dozens of times over and are VERY familiar with it. The help and benefits EA gives you are worth the money you spend for it to get the Injector Slopes and MAF curve dialed in. Can it be done without EA? Sure, but the amount of time you'd spend learning and "visualizing" your datalogs without EA just wouldn't be worth the saving.

TwEECer RT vs Base? It's TwEECer RT or just tune via chip. The only convenience the TwEECer base gives you is the ability to write tunes without having to remove the chip to do the burning.

Next, CalEdit/Calcon are very proprietary. You can't take a CalEdit tune and burn it to a chip so you can use the TwEECer somewhere else. To do that, you need BinaryEditor. Add to this, the datalog is in Borland database format instead of in a much more usable flat-text and human readable format. Back when laptops were P2s and P3s, using a database was far more efficient and faster than flat text. But today, the speed of processors, memory, and harddrives is PLENTY fast enough to store the data coming in on the HD in flat text. Point being, you'll need a tool to open the database file. EA can do it. Do you know of anything else that can? If not then datalogs become rather meaningless. So don't associate EA with only BE and the QH. EA was around helping people tune their TwEECers long before BE or the QH came about. It was worth the money then. It still is.

Of greater importance, few of the things in CalEdit/CalCon are to be trusted as far as values, conversions, and exposure of all available tune info. Being I've never tuned with CalEdit or CZAJL in general, I couldn't say one way or the other on what CalEdit's support level is. But based on experience with other "supported" strategies in CalEdit (mainly the GUFx stuff), I wouldn't trust it. So even if I was tuning with a TwEECer, I'd still prefer to use BE & POPSRACING's def. Given that, I wouldn't even consider the TwEECer over the QH.

As for the BE dongle, that's an option not a requirement. The Dongle is for people that want the freedom of knowing that if their computer crashes, tears up, whatever that their license is not lost on the computer that died. The license IS the key. But to license BE via software license is still an option...and the cheaper option to avoid the dongle cost.

And finally, I haven't seen you mention Wideband. Were you just considering not getting one? I wouldn't recommend that. I tuned for ~2 years without a WB trying to convince myself that I didn't need it. Having been down that road, I can say You need it.

If the cost of tuning is just too much for you, then as you said, there are other options. If you decide to go those routes, let us know how that works out for you. I'm always interested in hearing feedback from MegaSquirt users. Very few people express regret for that choice or are disappointed with the user experience making it a very compelling alternative.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Quarter Horse is head and shoulders above TwEECer. I've had both. TwEECer has half-assed support for more vehicles but they are rarely updated. Seems that one individual will get a fix when he asks but it doesn't get updated so everyone else can get it too. There are still bugs in it from back in the alpha days as far as I can tell. Clint, OTOH, is always on top of the updates for BE and EA. By the time you get everything you need for both tuners, they are about the same but if you have the Tweeccer, you are stuck with the inferior product. GET the QH, BE and EECAnalyzer. You'll be way better off.

_________________
'86 Mustang Coupe, MegaSquirt 2 extra, 2.3T w/ Holset HX35, T-5, 3.73 gears

'94 Ranger extended cab beater truck, 2.3T stock swap, T-5, Moates QH

DrDirt,
Based on your signature, you have experience with both Ford EEC Tuning as well as MegaSquirt. What is your take on MS as it compares to BE/EA/QH? Pros, cons, differences, personal preferences, etc.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

as for wideband i have an unsupported unit to use but i don't know how be utilizes the supported ones. say you have an lc1 does it pull serial from the pc at the same time as it is connected to the tuning device, or is it hooked physically to the tuning device or is it hooked to an unused(egr) input of the eec then translated from a 0-5v signal to afr?

what are the main differences between be 2009, 2010 and 2012?

what held me back from using a megasquirt is the electronic trans, i have done 7 ms installs and am comfortabe with it. if you have questions ask away.

also i am mostly a linux user, does be function in a virtual machine? thats why i was more interested in a dongle, oses change often with me.

_________________
62 falcon 4.6dohc czajl z4h0
85capri mild 347 ms3 low 13's 25mpg highway, mid 12's when not running 4 mufflers
83capri ms3 384w s475 e85 mid 9's
2000 malibu 3.4 swap
97 f150 4.6

If you are using a "supported" WB, then BE can poll the controller simultaniously with the QH. However if the WB is connected to the EEC through the EGR position sensor input, then it doesn't matter what WB you use. Datalogging it is no different than datalogging any other parameter available in your def file.

For details, refer to each ones release notes. But in a nutshell, the biggest differences are the OSs they support and features that each has been implemented with. I believe each one updates which version of .NET they use as well for added performance and efficiency.

There was LONG debate as to whether BE/EA should be allowed to run in a VM mainly because when registered in a VM, you could theoretically share the VM without relicensing BE/EA and evidently there was some of that going on that had to be stopped. However with the advent of the hardware key, I don't know why this would be an issue. While I expect you still can't license BE/EA for a software license in a VM, I would expect it to work like it used to when pared with a hardware key. If it doesn't, that's something you could take up with Clint. I personally think it should, but I don't have a dog in the race since I neither need to run in a VM nor sell & support the product.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Hey, Chris. It's been a while...

I haven't tried the MS yet. The car is in pieces. I'm chomping at the bit to get things going. As for the tuning experience, yeah I've tuned my last 2 cars with TwEECer and finally with QH. I always got the WOT where I wnted it but never did do so well on the drivability aspects of things. I'm not much on the good avice. :)

_________________
'86 Mustang Coupe, MegaSquirt 2 extra, 2.3T w/ Holset HX35, T-5, 3.73 gears

'94 Ranger extended cab beater truck, 2.3T stock swap, T-5, Moates QH

sweet i just found out that megalog viewer supports be based datalogs.

_________________
62 falcon 4.6dohc czajl z4h0
85capri mild 347 ms3 low 13's 25mpg highway, mid 12's when not running 4 mufflers
83capri ms3 384w s475 e85 mid 9's
2000 malibu 3.4 swap
97 f150 4.6

i orderd be 2010, quarterhorse and sailorbobs definition for just under $400. just hope my laptop dont die before im done .

also i just bought a 97f150, i looked at the strategy list and it looks like there is no support for any of the fords for that year, will near similar startegys work like a hit and miss ?

_________________
62 falcon 4.6dohc czajl z4h0
85capri mild 347 ms3 low 13's 25mpg highway, mid 12's when not running 4 mufflers
83capri ms3 384w s475 e85 mid 9's
2000 malibu 3.4 swap
97 f150 4.6

98 f150 is cnab1 which sailorbob just about completely broke out in which i use frequently

97 and 98 mlps changed, it probably wouldn't be too hard to swap ecu's