A9l Bama Tune Into A9p Will There Be Any Issues?

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by ARZ 5.0, Jun 26, 2014.

  1. What's that list? I've had a bunch of setups, none ever computer tuned.
    These cars have been around long before chips or dyno tuning. What do you think they did back then?

    I've seen foxes crack 650rwhp without computer tuning.

    The right meter and injectors and they will run fine. If it doesn't, someone screwed up somewhere or a part is damaged.

    If you want to tune it when it's done and running right, that's fine and all, but it shouldn't need any tuning to run right. Many times pulling a mail order tune out yields better results than with it in.

    Modulars 96+ and foxes are nothing alike when it comes to computer tuning.
    #21 2000xp8, Jul 1, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2014
  2. That's my main issue is that the person that had it before changed the MAF and injectors but used the stock MAF sensor. So I believe that that is the problem. My thoughts are that if I'm going to pay the same for new MAF or a tune that I would get more performance out of the tune and adjust around the current sensor that would be my best bet.
    -Edelbrock Perf. Heads
    -E303 cam
    -Cobra upper & lower
    -Long tubes
    -Custom X pipe
    -24lb Injectors
    -75mm TB
    -76mm MAF
    -1.6 Roller Rockers
    -3.73 Gears
    -BBK CAI
  3. 76mm maf, probably tells most of the story, especially coupled with a BBK cold air.
    If you are right on the meter size, you have a C&L. They are notoriously bad, especially coupled with a cold air intake. It may even have the wrong sampling tube, makes a bad meter worse.

    Replace it with a pro M. A good meter is worth every cent.

    There isn't anything radical in your setup. Nothing that tuning is going to help.
  4. Sorry 73mm MAF but yes it is C&L. Thanks for the heads up I'll look into the pro-M
  5. Yeah I agree, buy the best meter you can. It will save the headaches later. C&l is too adjustable in my opinion. I bought a slot just because I have everything to dial it in perfectly tuning wise. It won't make more horsepower but I can fine tune it. A pro m is the best option without getting a tune though.
  6. I was just on diytuning.org looking around and I saw a post about using different strategies on different ecus. With a quarter horse, which is what I have, you can put any strategy on a9p,a9l, or the x32 (93 cobra). With a tweecer you have to use the strategy that matches your computer. So not sure about your issue. Is a bama tune just a chip? What is used to apply the chip to the ecu?
  7. Yes the Bama is just a chip and plugs into the opening of the ECU. I put it on and it ran a little better. Come to find out I changed my TFi module and finally able to get into the higher RPMs. New TPS sensor and 02's on the way.
  8. "A little better" Kinda feel like you wasted your money on that chip now don't ya? Come on there's no shame here, you can admit it.:)
  9. No I don't feel like I wasted my money! I think I was just looking in the wrong direction. Regardless the chip was paid for before I posted my comment. I can tell your one of those I told you so guys. Everyone one loves those guys!
  10. Honestly, it's not completely your fault. The internet myths about fox tuning have made the community tune happy. With a friend owning a mustang shop for like 30 years now, i see first hand, tunes just aren't necessary. Shops skilled in ford pushrod tech are slowly disappearing.
    I've seen some wild stuff run just fine without it.
  11. I was going to get the bama chip. So is it worth it or not. ? My 89 is well modded and starves on the top end. Trick flow heads, cam. 75mm throttle body, BBK SSI intake and cold air kit. The americanmusclecar thread about that chip makes it sound perfect for me?!?!? IDK.
  12. Starves? Like runs lean? Or runs out of power? I have never heard good things about the ssi intake, I have never personally used one though. What maf are you using?
  13. imo, i think you will be better served spending the money on a different intake than a chip. Not a big fan of the SSI.
  14. A chip has absolutely nothing to do with starving up to, regardless of what that actually means.

  15. Sure... with undersized injectors and an FMU pushing 90+ psi of fuel pressure.

    It's not a myth, it's a REAL LIVE method of tuning that works VERY WELL in the REAL LIVE world.

    For every Fox pushing 500 HP that's tuned by mechanical means, there's at least A THOUSAND that are tuned by electronic means.

    For the OP:

    I'm always very suspicious of canned tunes created by folks that have never seen or even looked at a data-log for a specific car. If you're going to get a tune then you should get one that is specific to your engine combination versus a sight unseen "best guess".
  16. We both know where each other stands on the tuning vs not. That's part of the reason i rarely (if ever) quote you on that topic. I've left it at i agree that we disagree. I put my opinion out there, they can take it or leave it. But the debate is pointless, clearly we are never going to see it the same way.

    The internet provides a very small sample of what is actually out there in the wild. Suggesting the 500hp computer tuned fox outnumber non tuned 1000 to 1 is a bit much. The way i see it, is exactly opposite.

    I also by no means suggest running 24lb injectors at 90psi with 500rwhp.

  17. This is true. I will also agree that there's more than one way to tune an engine combo and that digital tuning is not the ONLY way.

    To say that digital tuning or that the benefits are digital tuning are merely internet myth is flat out untrue. The program in the Mustang EEC was SPECIFICALLY written to run a specific combination of parts under a specific set of circumstances. Some small capability was also written to allow for tolerances. When that combination of parts falls outside of those tolerances then adjustments must be made. Those adjustments can be in the form of mechanical adjustments or digital or a combination of the two.

    Either way, aspiration and fuel demands are managed on computer controlled cars by means of a computer. It's pure fantasy that the program running within this computer can not be changed to make it a better match for the components that it was not initially designed with.

    I have personally used both mechanical and digital means to get better performance from several different engine combos. The method used is dictated by the circumstances, cost, and how well that it works. Generally, I tend to select components for an engine combination that will support the output that it is expected to make. If those components fall outside of the EEC's ability to properly regulate then the program itself is altered in order to meet the needs of those non-stock components.

    When I said 1000 to 1... It was a conservative estimate.
    f8tlfiveo likes this.

  18. These two things, I will definitely agree with. 24 lb injectors are not generally something that needs to be tuned for. Particularly, with this setup. I have run considerably more with a good meter and no additional tuning.
  19. I should have expected the bbkssi blowback it seemsit didnot sell a lot. I chose it over trick flow intake cause it looks fkin A cool. And its just a bunch of tubes how can that hurt anything? Only con is pita to install. The designer at bbk was very responsive and help full. Forgot to say I have pro-M MAF and bbk cold air kit. And 24lb injectors. Fargorulez.com for project pics. From new posts here still seems that this chip would help me.
  20. I'm gonna say I am a fan of digital tuning over mechanical. But a tune is not going to fix the issue. I wanted to make sure you didn't have a c&l maf..