[TonyF]

Hi folks, I’m building a ‘65 Cobra replica -- 347, AFR heads, CompCam, 5sp, etc, etc., I'm new to tweecar and tuning. I have a computer and EFI from a 1995 Mustang, auto trans, that I'd like to use int the car. My question is does the AT computer have the same programming as the MT computer? I’ve read several articles that imply it does not, the AT computer does funny things to the timing, etc. If it does can it be corrected with a custom tune? Or do I need to source a MT computer?

Thanks, Tony

[2Shaker]

Tony,

Welcome aboard. Put the details of your planned drivetrain in your signature like the other users of this board and it will help us help you.

You need to tell us the strategy for the EEC you are going to use. There should be a label like T4MO, W4H0, J4J1 or U4P0. And yes they are different for automatics. If it is for an automatic car it is likely a W4H0 (or U4P0) which is what I have in my automatic 94 GT. It doesn't matter a whole lot because you can use your TwEECer to load a stick shift strategy. There is the Cobra version which is J4J1 and I think the T4M0 is for a stick GT. Either of these will fix you up but for your combo the J4J1 is probably the best choice.

[rockin_rick]

You need to tell us the strategy for the EEC you are going to use. There should be a label like T4MO, W4H0, J4J1 or U4P0.

For clairity (I believe Warren knows this): these are calibration codes (aka catch codes). They all fall under the strategy "CBAZA". The strategy is the combination of firmware and hardware that the EEC uses. The calibration codes are the data that the strategy uses in it's calculations. All 94-95 V8 mustangs use the CBAZA strategy.

And yes they are different for automatics. If it is for an automatic car it is likely a W4H0 (or U4P0) which is what I have in my automatic 94 GT. It doesn't matter a whole lot because you can use your TwEECer to load a stick shift strategy. There is the Cobra version which is J4J1 and I think the T4M0 is for a stick GT. Either of these will fix you up but for your combo the J4J1 is probably the best choice.

I've seen some with CBAZA and 347's start with the ZA0, which is the 95 cobra r calibration. J4J1 is also a good (best?) choice...

Rick

[TonyF]

Thanks guys for the replies! I think I heard yes, it can be reflashed to MT?

You guys are right on in that the computer is labeled "W4H0"

Apparently the programming that needs to be pulled out or adjusted is "4R70W" Can anyone verify this and does anyone know if the tweecar tuners can do this?

Honestly, I have no clue concerning the strategy I would use yet. I'm new to ECC (can ya tell?) You guys have given me some good recommendations.

I still have not decided to keep the computer and EFI or ditch it in favor of a carb set up. What you guys tell me will go a long way in making that decision. I really would like the EFI, but there is a pretty large price differential between the two when it comes to engine build up. At this point, I'm trying to learn what capabilities exist and not all of the intricate details -- yet.


Thanks

Tony

[2Shaker]

Tony,

Rick is right - I meant catch codes and you have W4H0.

There is no doubt a carb is easier, but I think you give up power and driveability. I've had a ton of fun messing with the TwEECer and it has probably yeilded a 1/2 second in the 1/4 mile. But who knows, perhaps a carb would have had me there to begin with.

Anyway I have an AODE and we got some of our improvement in ET just by changing the shift points. However there has been strong advice on this board not to change any of the other scalars (shift points OK), functions and/or tables associated with the electronically controlled automatics. And if you decide to use J4J1 you probably have to restore most of the transmission values to what you have in W4H0. I have given a lot of thought to using J4J1 myself but wanted to make sure I understood why the J4J1 and W4H0 differ here, but I have been busy sorting out a few other things first. And we might never do this because my son has me pretty well convinced we need to go to a stick so we might convert over the Winter. Right now we are running out of RPM in the lights because we turn off overdirve on each run. If you turn it on MPH falls way off because the AODE is real sloppy going 3rd to OD and I also heard you cannot firm this up without having transmission fail soon after.

Sorry for rambling and the confusion over the catch codes. Hope this has helped.

[rockin_rick]

Thanks guys for the replies! I think I heard yes, it can be reflashed to MT?

Technically, your eec cannot be reflashed. If you mean that your eec can run a MT calibration via the tweecer, then yes. The calibration(s) loaded into the tweecer override the calibration in the eec.

Honestly, I have no clue concerning the strategy I would use yet.

Unless you get a different eec, you can't choose your strategy. Only the calibration (or catch code) can be changed, but only those calibrations that were originally used with your same strategy can be used. With your CBAZA strategy, Ford had 5 different calibrations. T4M0, WH40, U4P0, J4J1, and ZA0. Any of these can be run on your hardware (the eec).

If you want to change your strategy, you need to get a different eec with a different strategy. Then you could run any of the calibrations that are compatible with that strategy. You would most likely then need to do some rewiring... There really is no need to change strategys, though...

Rick

[TonyF]

Actually it has been recommended that I buy a 93' A9L computer and swap the system over to this computer, but I'd need a new distributor, wiring harness, etc. Apparently the 95 computer has some quirks that the older computers don't have and would also need more tweaking to make power.

(The Cobra replicas don't use a lot of the other stuff in the wiring harness and they are usually "dieted" to fit a particular application anyway.)

I'd like to keep the EFI and computer, if for no other reason than to tinker with it, but I'd hate to destroy an expensive engine by getting too carried away, or end up hating its performance.

Thanks

Tony

[2Shaker]

Tony,

But if you plan on keeping the 4R70W I don't think you can use an earlier strategy because the transmission is electronically controlled. To my knowledge earlier strategies don't support this. Alternatively, you could go to an earlier strategy and add a "Baumanator" (sp?) which is designed specifically to control these trannys. I looked into these before I bought my TwEECer and decided against it as the TwEECer offers some controls too.

[TonyF]

Tony,

But if you plan on keeping the 4R70W.....

Not planning on keeping the auto trans or its programming. That was the point of my original post, could I reprogram the auto trans unit to manual. The car will have one of Levy Racing Super Duty T5's in it. http://www.levyracing.com/performanceparts/index.html

I'm thinking now that its doable, keep the 95 auto trans computer and start off with the ZA0 or J4J1, comments?

Thanks
Tony

[rockin_rick]

That's what I would do.

Who was this that told you to swap to A9*? Was it a non-self tuner (AKA non tweecer user)? I don't think that CBAZA is harder, but a bit different. I believe that myth that CBAZA is harder is rooted from when it was not understood well and tried to tune like a A9*, when it is more like EEC-V. Either way, you are going to have to learn how to do it. This will require an investment of your time...

I'd start with either of those- J4J1 or ZA0. I've never messed with ZA0 much, but seen others use it.

Rick

[TonyF]

Thanks Rick. It actually was a fuel injection and computer guru who suggested swapping the computers. It was mentioned that my car won't need all of the extra stuff the new computer provides and the A9L is also a little smaller in size and easier to hide. Here is a reference document that describes some of the differences...http://fordfuelinjection.com/files/A9L_ ... owdown.pdf

Thanks for all of the help, you guys have been great!

Tony

[fireguy50]

That's what I would do.

Who was this that told you to swap to A9*? Was it a non-self tuner (AKA non tweecer user)?
Rick

I TOLD HIM :D

An A9L is cheaper than a TwEECer.

He won't be using much of the 1995 wiring anyway. So that will be replaced, or reworked by a profesional.

[TonyF]

Hey Ryan, was wondering when you would show up here :) As you can tell, I've still not made up my mind (or I've lost it) -- trying to get some more input.

Right now my plan is up until the time when I need to install the computer in the car, if I can score a A9L computer and harness cheap enough, I'll do so. Otherwise, it may be a winter project after I get the car on the road. I would actually like to try the 95 computer before swapping it out though.

I'll post this over on ffcobra too, it seems to me that many folks over there cringe at the word computer.

Tony

[TonyF]

Ryan, I noticed in your signature your running a smaller MAF than the throttle body, what's the reasoning behind that? I always thought it was the other way around, larger MAF than TB.

Tony

[fireguy50]

Ryan, I noticed in your signature your running a smaller MAF than the throttle body, what's the reasoning behind that? I always thought it was the other way around, larger MAF than TB.

Tony

I had a 60mm TB and 70mm MAF 2 years ago.....
.....I upgraded to a 75mm TB a few months ago.....
.....there is a 90mm MAF in the basement waiting for me to have free time.

[rockin_rick]

An A9L is cheaper than a TwEECer.

WELLLLL... I didn't realize that it was a choice between a A9L without a tweecer and CBAZA with tweecer.... But with a tweecer on either, and already having the CBAZA parts, then I would probably just stick with CBAZA. Maybe I am biased since I run CBAZA. I didn't really find it all that hard to get my setup tuned right. CBAZA also is a bit easier to run OL at idle if that's your thing. Not to say that A9L is bad choice...

I suppose that if I was building something like this and hadn't yet gotten parts, I'd probably choose A9L over CBAZA. I'd probably still want to run a tuning device (like a tweecer) on that A9L, as I do like driveability and would like to tune for power.

How would a tweecerless (AKA unmodded) A9L work on his setup? Does A9L really adapt that well?

Rick

[TonyF]

An A9L is cheaper than a TwEECer.

WELLLLL... I didn't realize that it was a choice between a A9L without a tweecer and CBAZA with tweecer....

Rick

I'm not sure how much of a choice it is, my plan was to eventually purchase one regardless of the computer. I assumed I could use it to remove the EGR sensor.

I guess now would be a good time to ask, :) I assume the tweecar is cable of disabling the EGR and smog air pump? Or, would I need a chip to do this?

Tony

[rockin_rick]

Yeah, the tweecer can do that.

Rick

[TonyF]

Thanks Rick, all of you guys have been a great help.

Tony

[TonyF]

I noticed the A9Ps seem to be a little less expensive and more available; so what if I scored an A9P computer for an automatic? If I'm understanding this correctly, the A9L binaries can be downloaded to the A9P. Any gotchas with the A9 series in this respect? Or am I off base again?

Thanks

Tony

[JuiceSC]

I'm running an A9P with a stick now. No problems.

[Dale McPeters]

IMHO, get the A9L if you plan on using the TwEECer.

You will get a lot more support with the A9L from the general public than any other Ford EEC that I know of...

If you do decide to get the A9P I would suggest not running the A9L binary with it as some of the data addresses are at different locations in the binary.

One other point if one is just starting out learning how to tune with the TwEECer or similar device the A9L is going to be a lot easier to learn with than anything else.

Note this is just MHO, YMMV.

[JuiceSC]

Yea, Dale is right on the strategy. While the A9L does work on the A9P, its not right. I use A9M strat on the A9P eec with great success.

[86GT]

I don't know how it would work. I just updated the A9P def file for the PCMX explorer last night and the physical memory addresses are different. All of the tables are shifted by a few bytes.

I agree, it may run but not correctley.

[JuiceSC]

That was my first hurdle to overcome when I started tweecing. (using A9L strat) While I was able to enter the changes, and run the car, it was definitely acting 'funny'. And I couldn't make any progress with the tune. Once I switched to using A9M, the pieces started to fall in place.

[86GT]

By using the A9L strat the tables would be off by these few bytes. The car would most likley run but when you hit the area in the tables that were bumped then it might act funny. Just as you described.

I have not gotten to the functions yet, but I added 6 tables.

http://webpages.charter.net/eecanalyzer/IMG/A9P.gif

[Dale McPeters]

Looking good Clint.....
Do you want to finish up all the rest of mine?...

[86GT]

I have the A9L finished, well can I ever say finished? It has a mess load more than CalEdit.

I am trying to get the A9M-P to be at the same level.

[TonyF]

Thanks guys, this is all good info, it is helping me immensely. How do I obtain the A9M binaries?

Tony

[JuiceSC]

Thanks guys, this is all good info, it is helping me immensely. How do I obtain the A9M binaries?

Tony

You don't need to. Just select A9M strategy in caledit and do a "read eec". Save that file and thats your starting point. Now you can begin pulling your hair out, errrrr, tuning.