tufgriz
I run A9L/A9L2 on a 8LD ECU but only with the QH. Haven’t burned a chip as yet. Only thing that the 8LD is limited by is fan control. Apparently the hardware does not exist in the 8LD to run fans.
Search found 34 matches
- 2025 Sep 15, 21:31
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: strategy swapping
- Replies: 5
- Views: 256
- 2025 Aug 29, 07:26
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
Awesome, thanks. This is the part I missed.
Checked out all the changes. Mostly makes sense. Looks like you’ve also done some rescaling since I’m N/A and maybe added a little spark.
I’ll give it a run and see how it looks.
Cheers
- 2025 Aug 28, 07:34
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
Still keen to know what all has been changed in the tune you posted, if you have a chance. Clearly I've missed something in the write up and it would be good to know what it was.
What's the best PID to monitor the fuel issue? LAMBSE1 v LAMBSE2? KAMRF? FE%? I'd like to make a few changes and compare.
- 2025 Aug 25, 07:19
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
Thanks so much for taking the time to have a look.
I noticed the differences in the fuelling and thought it might be a problem. Am running at 55psi, just under 50 with vacuum. Pump? Regulator? Injectors? HEGOs? LAMBSE1 appears to be typically 3-5% higher than LAMBSE2 but on occasion, it's the other way around and even more of a difference.
Not sure about copying over all the SP** values. I just followed the details on the A9L2 download page - obviously I've missed something. Where did all the extras come from in the tune you posted? I'll throw the updated tune in it and see how it goes.
I’ve used the TP_IMAF_IEGOs to get the average fuel error. Just thought it could be a problem if the error is dropping from 0.92 to 0.72 while holding the IMAF constant. I’ll repeat all this once I investigate the fuelling issue.
I noticed the differences in the fuelling and thought it might be a problem. Am running at 55psi, just under 50 with vacuum. Pump? Regulator? Injectors? HEGOs? LAMBSE1 appears to be typically 3-5% higher than LAMBSE2 but on occasion, it's the other way around and even more of a difference.
Not sure about copying over all the SP** values. I just followed the details on the A9L2 download page - obviously I've missed something. Where did all the extras come from in the tune you posted? I'll throw the updated tune in it and see how it goes.
I’ve used the TP_IMAF_IEGOs to get the average fuel error. Just thought it could be a problem if the error is dropping from 0.92 to 0.72 while holding the IMAF constant. I’ll repeat all this once I investigate the fuelling issue.
- 2025 Aug 24, 22:30
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
... anyone?
- 2025 Aug 22, 07:43
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
Finally managed to sort out the initial tune for my engine. I think the mistake I made in the original one I posted was assuming the SARCHG would remain at 302 while all the injector data was added. Updated initial tune below.
Managed to get the car up and running (with some throttle input for a couple of minutes berfore it settled) and driving and got a log trying to dial in the MAF and load (also below).
A couple of queries, if I may.
In the log there are a bunch of times I've held the IMAF to a point to check the FE%. E.g. at 0:53-1:01s in the log, IMAF is around 350 and the FE% is about 0.92. My uderstanding is that this is running 8% rich and the MAF curve at this point should be reduced accordingly.
However, when hitting IMAF 500 from 1:27-1:35s in the log, FE% drops consistently from 0.92-0.72. What should I do with the MAF curve at this point?
Similarly, at IMAF 550 (2:26-2:32s in the log), FE% drops from 0.83-0.75 but the holds at 0.75 towards the end. Does this mean it is actually a FE% of 0.75 at IMAF550?
Towards the end, I also did a half throttle run from 2250-5500rpm. The n_TP_LOAD_GUFX History Table reports 0.80-0.85 for these rpm values. What table needs to be adjusted for this - F035A? Is it a multiply or a direct copy and paste from the TP History Table?
Many thanks in advance
Managed to get the car up and running (with some throttle input for a couple of minutes berfore it settled) and driving and got a log trying to dial in the MAF and load (also below).
A couple of queries, if I may.
In the log there are a bunch of times I've held the IMAF to a point to check the FE%. E.g. at 0:53-1:01s in the log, IMAF is around 350 and the FE% is about 0.92. My uderstanding is that this is running 8% rich and the MAF curve at this point should be reduced accordingly.
However, when hitting IMAF 500 from 1:27-1:35s in the log, FE% drops consistently from 0.92-0.72. What should I do with the MAF curve at this point?
Similarly, at IMAF 550 (2:26-2:32s in the log), FE% drops from 0.83-0.75 but the holds at 0.75 towards the end. Does this mean it is actually a FE% of 0.75 at IMAF550?
Towards the end, I also did a half throttle run from 2250-5500rpm. The n_TP_LOAD_GUFX History Table reports 0.80-0.85 for these rpm values. What table needs to be adjusted for this - F035A? Is it a multiply or a direct copy and paste from the TP History Table?
Many thanks in advance
- 2025 Aug 11, 00:26
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
ATPCR
I have 24# Ford Performance Injectors: M-9593-AA302. Here is the spec sheet:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/parts ... -aa302.pdf
I'm back on deck now so will post a revised (hopefully useful) base tune shortly.
Cheers
I have 24# Ford Performance Injectors: M-9593-AA302. Here is the spec sheet:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/parts ... -aa302.pdf
I'm back on deck now so will post a revised (hopefully useful) base tune shortly.
Cheers
- 2025 Aug 04, 19:53
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
ATOCR
I have a return style fuel system with adjustable FPR. I run 95 or 98 octane pump fuel.
The tune I posted is corrupt (or more likely I messed something up) but the K constant in A9L2 should be 30.
I’ll have another go in the next week or so and see how I go.
I have a return style fuel system with adjustable FPR. I run 95 or 98 octane pump fuel.
The tune I posted is corrupt (or more likely I messed something up) but the K constant in A9L2 should be 30.
I’ll have another go in the next week or so and see how I go.
- 2025 Jul 29, 07:21
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
red5.0fogger
Thanks for the reference. I studied this all carefully and followed all the instructions … except for whatever it was that I made a mess of. I’ll have another attempt shortly and will be sure to double check the results.
ATPCR
Details should be in my signature. I can’t check as I’m on a mobile right now. Otherwise it is a 302 with 24# injectors and a massflow (now pro M) MAF, which I understand to be a GM product. Fuel pressure is 55psi in a return system.
Cheers all
Thanks for the reference. I studied this all carefully and followed all the instructions … except for whatever it was that I made a mess of. I’ll have another attempt shortly and will be sure to double check the results.
ATPCR
Details should be in my signature. I can’t check as I’m on a mobile right now. Otherwise it is a 302 with 24# injectors and a massflow (now pro M) MAF, which I understand to be a GM product. Fuel pressure is 55psi in a return system.
Cheers all
- 2025 Jul 26, 05:45
- Forum: GUFX - 89-93 Foxbody ECUs
- Topic: 5.0 HCI Tuning
- Replies: 28
- Views: 34492
Re: 5.0 HCI Tuning
Thanks so much for having a look at the tune.
I cannot overstate how many times I read through all the write ups before posting. But still I’ve obviously made a fundamental and monumental error somewhere. Unbelievable!
I’ll have another go, making sure to follow the order for the changes and double check once done.
Again, many thanks for taking the time.
I cannot overstate how many times I read through all the write ups before posting. But still I’ve obviously made a fundamental and monumental error somewhere. Unbelievable!
I’ll have another go, making sure to follow the order for the changes and double check once done.
Again, many thanks for taking the time.