302 Computer on a 408?

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by hoopty5.0, Mar 13, 2011.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FastDriver

    FastDriver Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,981
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    74
    They can be. My BS3 setup cost $4k. Then again, I got all the bells and whistles, too.

    Off this thread goes to 5.0 tuning.
    #41
  2. FastDriver

    FastDriver Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,981
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    74
    For the standalone vs. the stock EEC debate, I'd like to add a couple cents. First, I would stick with the stocker for an n/a 351W. There's no question that an EEC-IV is capable of running a 351W without significant tuning. There's also no question that any reasonable person with any EEC tuning knowledge can improve upon the factory tune, particularly when introducing major changes. I like someone's reference that the 351W is essentially just a big 302W. That's pretty accurate when it comes to tuning.

    Oh, and there are some very significant advantages to having a good standalone like tuning with wideband, running a crank trigger (perfect timing), simplicity in tuning - to me the EEC is a mess to tune in comparison with the BS3, but I'm still learning with both systems. I've replaced the dash cluster with a digital dash that can show me anything while I'm driving. The injector drivers on the BS3 are top-notch, which allows me to run 120lbs (or 160lbs) injectors without any adverse effects at idle.

    My system allows me to monitor timing, TPS, boost, A/F ratio, exhaust back pressure, fuel pressure, I also have additional ports to monitor things like EGT, IAT, etc... just by adding a sensor and some wiring. I don't remember what else it monitors, but I also have the ability to flick a switch and datalog everything.

    With a laptop, I can tune while I drive with relative ease, and monitor current load v. RPM condition. I think one of the best decisions I've ever made was to ditch the MAF and go back to speed density. My standalone allows me to measure the driveshaft speed in order to derive vehicle speed. Not really important to most guys, but I think it's a pretty nifty trick that means that I don't have to worry about chewing up any more speedo gears or cables. It's as simple as inputting the proper wheel/tire size and rear end gears and the computer does the rest. Is this worth $4k to most people? Hell no. To me, though, hell yes!

    That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Another cool thing I can do with this thing in the future is put it on any engine I ever choose to run - ford or Chevy. Though I don't see doing this, it's nice to know that the money isn't wasted should I choose to take a different path with the car.

    Just my .02,

    Chris
    #42
  3. FastDriver

    FastDriver Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,981
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    74
    You should post this in a new thread as I do not see how it relates to the topic of this thread.
    #43
  4. vristang

    vristang Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    69
    I'm coming in late, so I apologize to the OP... Normally I would catch this kind of thread early on...

    I grabbed a couple quotes as I was reading through this... I tried not to hit topics that had already been resolved, sorry if I missed anything...

    2000xp8,
    I have pulled a fair number of your comments out because you tend to make some generalizations and assumptions... and then post your beliefs (based on assumptions) as FACTS.
    I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I do feel some clarifications are needed for others who may be reading along and just getting started...

    Yes, it will run... but even the difference between 302 to 351 cubic inch introduces error into the tune.
    302 to 408w is even more of a difference.

    In the Fox computers, cubic inches is used in the calculation for engine LOAD... which is then used in determining timing and fueling.

    While I will agree that a 408w will run on a stock setting A9L/A9P/X3Z ecu.... I would also like to emphasize that it is NOT ideal.
    My 408w ran on a stock X3Z ecu using a 'calibrated' C&L MAF... but it wasn't ideal. Using the same MAF, I found great improvements by just tuning the ecu... but I'll go into that a little more later on...


    John, moving the injector wires to correct the cam firing order issue isn't recommended... as it leaves the O2's correcting a couple of wrong injectors due to injectors being swapped between banks. (O2's are used to correct their own bank only)
    If everything is good in the tune, then you probably wouldn't notice... but as soon as something gets out of whack, and the ecu starts correcting based on O2 feedback... fueling accuracy will rapidly degrade...
    For reference... Ford Fuel Injection ยป Injector Firing Order

    Exactly :nice:
    However, a 408w still will see benefit from a tune. The degree of the improvement will depend on injector size, cam, exhaust, etc...
    Yes, a 408w can and will run with a properly 'calibrated' MAF... but it leaves room for improvement.

    For guys that already have the tuning gear (Moats/Tweecer, laptop, wideband, etc.) then what sense does it make to buy a 'calibrated' MAF? Absolutely NONE!
    Also, a $500 dyno tune isn't always needed to run an LMAF, Seems like most guys these days are tuning themselves...

    The LMAF is Ford quality, reliable, and accurate.
    The LMAF is not only available used from Lightning owners who 'got something better' LOL
    The $100 dollar deals are on NEW meters... not some used POS as you are trying to imply.

    Would I call using an LMAF a 'mistake'?
    No... not at all.
    But I suppose if you don't know how to tune your own car, it would appear to be a 'mistake'.

    My opinion...
    The dbx is a major waste of money.
    Instead of investing your money in a programmable MAF, you could invest your money in a Tuning system like Moates/Tweecer/etc... and then have a programmable ecu.
    The power and capability of a tuning system will far surpass the power and capability of a programmable MAF.



    Amazing... in this single quote you have stated that you don't know the answer, you only know what some one else told you on the phone AND you then continue to criticize another for not 'knowing' the answer himself.

    How many MAF meters have YOU calibrated on a bench?
    How many cars have YOU tuned with each major brand of MAF?
    How many cars have YOU tuned with your precious DBX meter?
    YOU... not what some one told you over the phone.

    The way I see it, you are nothing more than copy&paste internet expert.
    Until you can post what YOU have learned first hand... stop telling people what the best meter is. Have something of your own to back it up... not what someone (who is in business to make sales btw) told you over the phone.



    Ok,
    So you just discredited the knowledge and experience of everyone on this board with the exception of Rick.
    You do realize that you have just discredited yourself as well, right?

    Or are you more knowledgeable than everyone else because you 'exchange conversations' with knowledgeable people? :bs:

    From what you have posted, you don't have a dyno... you just talk to guys like Rick and other 'experts' then get on the internet to regurgitate what they said to make you look smarter than you are.

    This is the kind of posting activity that gets Myths and Rumors started.
    You don't have the experience or background information to take what some one else tells you over the phone, and make the blanket generalizations that you do.

    Anyone ever sit in a circle at school as a kid, and play the game where you tell the person on your right a story... then see how the story changed by the time it made it full circle?
    That is exactly how reliable information from 2000xp8 is :p

    I was here to start this section, and it started out as being something pretty cool.
    Posts like yours just dumb down the whole section though... If you don't have any of your own thoughts to share, then STFU :nice:
    #44
  5. vristang

    vristang Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    69
    Well, I started out not wanting to pick a fight... but I guess I just can't handle regurgitation being stated as fact... LOL
    #45
  6. vristang

    vristang Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    69
    When I first put the 408w in, I used a C&L MAF, X3Z, and 36Lb Injectors (I had relatively small heads).
    The car ran just fine with the cam I had picked out... a little bump at idle, no codes, accelerated pretty well, etc.

    Then I picked up the tweecer (I now use Moates QuarterHorse though), and starting dialing things in. Just changing the MAF Transfer and Injector settings made a significant difference in how the car drove on the street.
    However, when I started messing with the Injector Timing... everything started to come together.
    The very slight buck that was present when trying to drive under ~1500 rpm was gone, Idle was smoother too.

    When it was all said and done, I was able to break 20mpg on the 408w on some long cruises...
    In town stuff would get about 18mpg on a regular basis.

    I never put the car/engine on a dyno, so I can't comment there... except that I did feel acceleration improve with the tune.
    I only made global changes to the timing and afr settings... I didn't have a wideband yet, and just didn't get to the timing before a hg failed and damaged a bore.
    #46
  7. FastDriver

    FastDriver Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,981
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Vristang, you've made a lot of relevent points. I'm going to overlook the personal nature of your post as I did the personal nature of 2000xp's. You both got too personal in the points that you made, and that generally leads to the thread's digression.

    The only things I ask of both you and 2000xp are that you focus on the topic, discredit/disagree with what you disagree on, but do not attempt to discredit the individual. Posing a relevant counterpoint to incorrect information does that anyway.

    Chris
    #47
  8. vristang

    vristang Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    69
  9. 2000xp8

    2000xp8 Mustang Master

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,409
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    104
    While it's no secret you think the world of computer tuning on a fox and i think it's pretty much worthless for the average person, the FACT still remains that the original poster asked if it was necessary and it's not.
    It's been done for many years without it.

    I was under the impression the tweecer was born in 2001, i guess according your knowledge nobody put a 351 based engine in a fox body before that.


    You can try to discredit me all you like, but as far as i see you are no more qualified to make a suggestion than i am, but at least i took the initiative to call some that certainly is qualified to get an answer on the OP's behalf.

    Seems like you spend an awful lot of time preaching about these tuning devices and very little time driving the car you tuned with them.
    Dyno numbers or real proof would be nice when you are attempting to bring yourself up while putting someone else down.
    None of which seem to be on this site or the one in your link.

    I did a cobra swap, do you think i was giving advice on it before the car was even finished?
    Finish you car, dyno it up, then talk trash.
    #49
  10. vristang

    vristang Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,671
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    69
    Show me one instance where I said a 408w without a tune would NOT work...




    Again... I never said anything like that...


    If you would like to engage in a debate with me fine...
    But stop trying to put words in my mouth :notnice:


    I'm not qualified to make a suggestion about running a 408w with or without a tune?
    Even though I have first hand experience with a 408w on a stock ecu, as well as first hand experience with personally tuning a 408w?

    How does having direct first hand experience with doing something, make me less qualified to discuss it than you?
    Do you have first hand personal experience with a stock ecu on a 408w?
    How about with personally tuning a 408w?


    Here is some insight into how I feel on the matter...
    I know what suggestions I am qualified to make, and I don't regurgitate what others have told me in order to look cool on the interwebs.
    If YOU don't know the answer, don't talk about it.
    I just get tired of hearing people regurgitate the same information... without ALL the background info coming out. Without knowing ALL the details of the discussion that you had... how can anyone determine if those comments are applicable to their situation?
    Again, get a group of people sitting in a circle telling the 'same' story to the person on their right... By full circle the story will be different.


    What did I say that needs Dyno numbers to support it?
    What?
    What did I offer that needs to be backed up by a dyno?
    Answer the question... don't sidestep it... I will now keep asking until you respond or walk away from this thread.

    You have attacked me here, and I can understand why, but please don't throw some generalization out there in order to conclude that I have done nothing. You have no idea what I have done.

    Fact of the matter is, I offered my PERSONAL first hand experiences... and even tried to suggest what impacted my experiences.

    LOL,
    The difference is, I have already done everything I described.


    I don't really have an issue other than the constant regurgitation of other peoples information...
    I realize this is a stupid little ****ing match, but I get frustrated when I see the same guy constantly post what others have told him...
    #50
  11. FastDriver

    FastDriver Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,981
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    74
    I don't think anyone learned anything from the previous two posts... Game over.
    #51
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page