• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Opinions on Ignition for EFI 427W

ilovemaui

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,651
Loc.
Pacific Moist West
I haven't heard much about the Pro M system, but they make nice MAF's. I'm running a Pro M 80 mm and love it. I'm sure their engine management system is a great setup.
 
OP
OP
airbur

airbur

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
2,763
Loc.
Castle Pines, CO
It's a redesigned A9L....


"Our A9L and Chip is awesome, it features a lot of extras like the removal of all the HEGO codes, electric fan control, adaptive learning and a lot more."
 

ilovemaui

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,651
Loc.
Pacific Moist West
It's a redesigned A9L....


"Our A9L and Chip is awesome, it features a lot of extras like the removal of all the HEGO codes, electric fan control, adaptive learning and a lot more."

Are you using a tuner? Tweecer or Quarterhorse?

I'm using the Quarterhorse. You can disable the fan control, adaptive learning, and bunch of all stuff. I don't see the advantage to disabling HEGO. The problem with any chip is not being able to make adjustments if you change components. For instance, if you decide to go to 60 lb injectors but the chip is set up 36 lb. You want flexibility.
 

ilovemaui

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,651
Loc.
Pacific Moist West
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Is there a reason you didn't go with the Tweecer?

I have no experience with Tweecer so I can't give an opinion on it. I went with the quarterhorse after doing a bit of research. QH appeared to provide the most flexibility to me, but at this point its the only system I know. Here is a bit of discussion on the two:

After working with the Quarterhorse, or QH for short, for a while and having some time to gather thoughts about all the various pros and cons of the QH vs the TwEECer RT, I've come to the following conclusions. For those that are looking to invest in a DIY tuning kit and just want to know simply which is the best, there's no doubt the QH is the superior hardware when compared to the TwEECer RT. But don't stop reading here. There are some issues with the QH that you need to be aware of before purchasing.

So without further adieu, here it is.

Pros of the QH
Price. You can buy a QH, licensed copy of BinaryEditor &EEC Analyzer software, and an LC-1 Controller with WB sensor costs about the same as the cost of just a new TwEECer RT.
Datalogging limits are much higher than the TwEECer. During beta tests, we never hit the limits on a GUFx (89-93 Mustang) EEC.
Datalogging speed is much greater
Engine is unaffected by tune/payload updates
Small form factor that resides mostly inside the EEC's case
Not as limited to the host EEC's strategy. As long as the host EEC can physically support the capabilities of the tune, the tune can be run on it via the QH.

For example, GUFB-based tunes (e.g. A9L) can be run on a GUF1 EEC (e.g. A9P). However a CBAZA-based (e.g. J4J1) tune cannot run on a GUFx EEC because CBAZA EECs require more RAM than the GUFx EECs have available.

Another example is a GURE-based tune requires a knock sensor by default and won't run correctly on a GUFB EEC because the hardware needed to read a knock sensor doesn't exist on the GUFx processors. Ford simply never stuffed the circuit board with those components. In fact, you can set a GURE and GUFx EEC side-by-side and see that the circuit board itself is identical, but some chip pads on the GUFx EEC are not populated, but are populated on the GURE.
EEC processor overhead for datalogging is much lower as compared to the TwEECer. This means more processor time is spent running the engine which will improve the max RPM the EEC will support.
The QH communication protocol is well documented by Moates to allow softwares like BinaryEditor to support all of the hardware's capabilities. The TwEECer communication protocol was reverse-engineered.
The Quarterhorse's memory is Static RAM vs Flash. This means the memory will never wear out no matter how many times you write to it.
Because the QH keeps a record of all writes to memory, BE has access to read out the entire KAMRF table. With the TwEECer, your datalogs must hit all possible RPM/Load conditions to get the KAMRF values. Also, datalog accounts of KAMRF values are not always reliable and up to date. A direct read of the memory values as they exist gives the most up-to-date info about what the Adaptive Learning strategy has learned.
Excellent seller support from Moates

Cons of the QH
Installation on older EECs can be intimidating for the average Joe. But it's not impossible by any means. There is a step-by-step installation guide in the FAQ section here to help with this.
The memory the tune is held in is battery-backed RAM vs Flash. That in-and-of itself is no big deal, but the battery is soldered to the QH and is not user-serviceable unless you have soldering skills. Typical life expectancy of lithium batteries on Static RAM is ~7-10 year range.
Supported EEC strategies are limited to those that BinaryEditor supports. I've heard that Paul Booth's EEC Editor has a growing selection as well. But I'm not familiar with his software or his definition offerings. The BinaryEditor supported list is growing, but unfortunately the list isn't nearly as extensive as the TwEECer. And some of the defs are independently licensed.

Pros of the TwEECer
Easy Installation
Free software to tune (CalEdit) and datalog (CalCon) with
TwEECer "supports" most Ford EEC strategies. I say "supports" very loosely.
Includes hardware to flip between 1 of 4 custom tunes and the stock tune on the fly. However the TwEECer cannot datalog with the stock tune.

Cons of the TwEECer
It is expensive for the quality of the software, support, and lack of continued innovation
The CalEdit/CalCon software package is rarely updated with new features and bug fixes
The CalEdit/CalCon software package and many of its definitions have bugs that still are not fixed
The CalEdit/CalCon software package does not do datalog analysis. Users of the TwEECer still find they need to purchase EEC Analyzer to make heads or tails of their logs.
The TwEECer sits outside the EEC and sometimes causes fitment issues where the EEC will not fit completely into the stock location.
Tune writes cause the EEC to execute the stock tune. If your application can't run on the stock tune, this means the engine will most likely die if you write a tune/payload update.
You cannot run a tune of a different strategy than the host EEC with the TwEECer. For example you cannot run a GUFB-based tune on a GUF1 EEC.
Support from the developer is hit-n-miss when you have problems that can't be solved on the forum. Some users report no response. Others claim decent response.
The TwEECer uses Flash memory which means there is a finite number of times the memory can be written to. In the TwEECer's defense, nobody has ever reported that their TwEECer's Flash memory "wore out". But it is technically possible.

There is a two day class at the quarterhorse facility in Baton Rogue next month. EFI Training Class.
 

KyleQ

Bronco Guru
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
5,480
I'm using a factory Ford coil I got form a guy for free, lol. My Pro Billet distributor has Ford replacement guts in it, so it looks fancy, but is basically a stock unit.

You are going to be close to that 500 mark, you have bigger heads, but I've got a bigger cam - going to be interesting to see how it plays out.


I'm going to run an A9P with my 42's, but the Pro-M 80mm MAF I've got it calibrated for 42's so it should run fine. I've got a buddy who is a professional Tweecer tuner, so I'll have him take a look at it to get all the potential out of the motor.


Good luck - that sure does look pretty!
 

ilovemaui

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,651
Loc.
Pacific Moist West
I'm going to run an A9P with my 42's, but the Pro-M 80mm MAF I've got it calibrated for 42's so it should run fine. I've got a buddy who is a professional Tweecer tuner, so I'll have him take a look at it to get all the potential out of the motor.

Even though it is calibrated for the 42's you'll still need to change the maf curve in the ecu. You'll need the hardware and software to make the changes.

Back the original thread.
 

ilovemaui

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,651
Loc.
Pacific Moist West
You can actually run any injectors you want with any MAF as long as you adjust the tune correctly.

That is correct to a point. You wouldn't want to run huge injectors with a tiny maf or vice versa. The issue is that the ECU's most of us are using do not allow you to make modifications to the stock "tune" without installing some other hardware and software that over rides the ecu programming. In most cases modifying the tune is not necesary if you're running a smaller maf and 24 lb or less injectors. A typical 302 HO swap would fall into that catagory. However, there are some of us that just can't seem to leave things alone or stock when it comes to engines and horsepower. ;D
 

5001craig

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
1,180
OP
OP
airbur

airbur

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
2,763
Loc.
Castle Pines, CO
While researching EFI for my engine I stumbled across airbur's thread on Pro-M EFI (yea...I know it's from 2013). Searched some and can't find much (at least recent) about this system.

It's expensive for sure but does anyone run this? Everything I saw was older posts but the company still seems to offer this. http://www.promracing.com/pro-m-efi-engine-management-systems/ford-complete-efi-systems/351-windsor-complete-mass-air-sequential-port-efi-system.html

Thanks in advance.

Craig

I can’t talk to that entire system but I can say I’ve been using the Pro-M MAF now for almost 5 years and it’s worked flawlessly.
 
Top