A9L with Tweecer VS AEM EMS - Page 2

Dale McPeters · Post by **Dale McPeters** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:41 pm

Cougar5.0 wrote:Poor guy started a post about A9L vs. AEM and we are having a pissing contest about EEC V...

Yep...

Tim is a good guy as far as I know as he just happen to sell me a 12 tooth crank trigger wheel for my '93...

I sent him an email this afternoon...

Cougar5.0 · Post by **Cougar5.0** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:52 pm

As a technology person myself, I would never argue with a "technology is always advancing" statement. But looking at the bigger picture, the benefit of EFI over 80 year old carb technology was incremental - many still using carbs but many/most of the rest seeing the benefits of EFI. Taking the next step, some may find the "improvements" in newer ECU's to be just adding more complication with only incremental benefits that many performance driven tuners may or may not find beneficial. I will assume that these benefits will help the turbo tuner not ever having tuned one, by reading of many folks who have had issues using EEC IV. And now that's all I have to say on this topic - glad we could discuss this in a friendly enough manner though :D

Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:08 pm

Dale McPeters wrote:...
cgrey8 wrote: I've only gotten hints and glimpses of knowledge of what the latest EECs are capable of like the rumor about how newer cars will soon run Wideband HEGOs instead of Narrowbands so they can do a better job of response and learning.
I also heard this but I do not know that this is a true statement. Will believe
it when I see it..

I don't think Ford has implemented it yet.

Johny · Post by **Johny** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:25 am

Many guys nail well over 600 hp with 42's. This guys ran 610rwhp through an auto with turbos and ran high 9's at 142mph. www.tomak.net (the stock block car)

Interstingly for this thread... I talked to him about tuning my car, and he has run the SAME mph in that car with AEM, STOCK A9l and chipped A9L, though he says stock a9l drives the best.

sailorbob · Post by **sailorbob** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:25 am

I'm personally not too convinced that the later eec-v's and beyond get that much benefit from their extra processing power. There's an awful lot of emissions and OBD-II code that uses that processing time and the 'bare bones' side of providing spark and fuel in the eec-v hasn't moved on that far from the last of the eec-iv coding in what I've seen.

xr4x4ti · Post by **xr4x4ti** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:02 am

Wow, my thread has exploided:)

Well, I did find one problem with my AEM setup yesterday that could explain my lack of repeatability. The stock ACT in the intake seems to instantly heat soke and is useless. Basically after the car warms up it reads a constant 176ºF (I am running a 180ºF stat). That is not acceptable in a speed density system. First I will try putting a brand new plastic bodied sensor in the intake manifold. If that doesn’t work I will put a GM sensor in the tube between the turbo and TB.

I actually have been researching this in some detail and I agree the EEC-V is probably better. I just was concerned that it would be another case where I was making it more complicated then it had to be. I have actually talked to SCT a few times and they have been very helpful. If I go EEC-V, that is the software I would use. My local tuner shop that is AEM certified and has the SCT software also agrees, that if I go Ford, I should use an EEC-V.

SCT explained to me how it was quite easy to set the max load to 200% in the EEC-V's and a few other good things. They also mentioned that I could even get an EEC-V from a '96 F150 or Bronco with a 302 or 351 and I could use a TFI distributor! That is what Saleen did to make the S351 in the late 90's after Ford quit putting the small block in the mustangs. They did warn me that the older computers are not quite as powerful as the newer ones. I am not sure what that means. The newer computers require DIS and I am not sure if I can use a computer that came factory with a returnless fuel system. I actually picked up a computer from a '99 explorer 5.0 the other day, but when I found the wiring diagram I realized that it had the returnless fuel system. The wiring diagram for the '96 F-150 looks pretty simple and I have already found some cars in the local U-Pull-it with EEC-V connectors.

If I stay EEC-IV, what is better then an A9L? I don’t know all of the different codes, but would I be better off with a 94-95 Mustang, 93-95 Cobra? Are they more load based? Does the Tweecer fully support them?

Thanks in advance,
Tim
XR4X4Ti

xr4x4ti · Post by **xr4x4ti** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:44 pm

Well, I made a decision! I am going to give the EEC-IV a try. I ordered up a Tweecer last night and I will get a MAF ordered today or tomorrow.

I played around with BE last night and I finally figured out how to change the load values in the various table. I am 99% sure I am going with the CBAZA Strategy so that the AF and Timing are functions of load and not just RPM.

Wish me luck:)

Tim

Dale McPeters · Post by **Dale McPeters** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:49 pm

xr4x4ti wrote:Well, I made a decision! I am going to give the EEC-IV a try. I ordered up a Tweecer last night and I will get a MAF ordered today or tomorrow.

I played around with BE last night and I finally figured out how to change the load values in the various table. I am 99% sure I am going with the CBAZA Strategy so that the AF and Timing are functions of load and not just RPM.

Wish me luck:)

Tim

Good luck and drop me an email if you need any help.

Who is online