A9L 2.3 turbo?

[MikeSVO]

In the A9L definition file there are parameters that seem to allow you to change the number of cylinders and displacement of the engine it's controlling. I've heard here and there about 6 cylinder cars running A9Ls, so why wouldn't it work on a 2.3?

Just is case you're wondering the 'Why?' part, it's because I'd like to run a mass air setup on the 2.3 turbo that's not conversion but with factory code. I think that would help with some issues that people doing draw-throughs have. I'm currently running a blow through setup, but the MAF seems to peg at about 24 psi, so we're looking to other options.

[QWKSNKE]

Interesting question and I have wondered this as well.

Please elaborate more on your setup and what tuner you are using.

[MikeSVO]

Here's a video!

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/32e31e5e-ea93-4d25-8486-98a90187917f.htm

In that video the setup was an EEC Tuner, 5.0 mass air sensor removed from the housing and put in the intercooler end tank (small NPR), 55 lb injectors, rotated intake, ported E6, some head cleanup I did at home.

We used a TwEECer to dial in the mass air, then put in the EEC Tuner with the same settings since the TwEECer wasn't mine. I'm getting one soon though, because it's so much nicer to be able to dump changes without having to turn the key off.

The problems with pegging the meter have only really come up since we've been tuning for the Big NPR I/C I just put in, though the logs from the track seemed to indicate that we were already getting very close to the limits of the mass air sensor. I just find it hard to believe that we're pegging that thing at about 260 (or whatever) whp, when 5.0 guys must have been making more power on the same sensor. I've never had a 5.0, so I don't know what they tune like. We're ready to try some of the workarounds for the pegging issue (and no, we never even tried to run the sensor in the housing. Maybe we should have...the main passage looked pretty restrictive though...)

I sent an e-mail to a guy about this, and he already got back to me. He told me which parameters to change to run the A9L, so now I guess I need an A9L...LOL.

[sailorbob]

I sent an e-mail to a guy about this, and he already got back to me. He told me which parameters to change to run the A9L, Can you post these changes? Be interesting to see what's suggested :)

[QWKSNKE]

Here's a video!

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/32e31e5e-ea93-4d25-8486-98a90187917f.htm

In that video the setup was an EEC Tuner, 5.0 mass air sensor removed from the housing and put in the intercooler end tank (small NPR), 55 lb injectors, rotated intake, ported E6, some head cleanup I did at home.

We used a TwEECer to dial in the mass air, then put in the EEC Tuner with the same settings since the TwEECer wasn't mine. I'm getting one soon though, because it's so much nicer to be able to dump changes without having to turn the key off.

The problems with pegging the meter have only really come up since we've been tuning for the Big NPR I/C I just put in, though the logs from the track seemed to indicate that we were already getting very close to the limits of the mass air sensor. I just find it hard to believe that we're pegging that thing at about 260 (or whatever) whp, when 5.0 guys must have been making more power on the same sensor. I've never had a 5.0, so I don't know what they tune like. We're ready to try some of the workarounds for the pegging issue (and no, we never even tried to run the sensor in the housing. Maybe we should have...the main passage looked pretty restrictive though...)

I sent an e-mail to a guy about this, and he already got back to me. He told me which parameters to change to run the A9L, so now I guess I need an A9L...LOL.

I can see where you are pegging the meter. Think about it, you have a meter originally calbrated for draw through and set it in a situation to where it will see more air rush by. The 5.0 meter was not calibrated for the amount of cfm you have tripping the sensor now

[coupe]

I can't help but think the positioning of that sensor in the end-tank is causing an issue.

[MikeSVO]

Can you post these changes? Be interesting to see what's suggested :)

Here it is.


"This is an email I sent to a guy making one in to a V6 car.

Here is how to change to make an A9L work with anything from a 1 to 8 cylinders.

Change the following:
Number of HEGO Sensors:
Number of Cylinders:
Firing Order:
Fuel Injector HEGO Selection:


STOCK A9L 302:
Number of Hego Sensors: 2 ( 1 or 2)
Number of Cylinders: 8 (1 to 8, new processors to 10)
Firing Order: 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 (which is done sequentially left to right)
Injector EGO Selection Port: 0,0,0,0,2,2,2,2 (sequentially read left to right ie, for inj 1,3,7,2,6,5,4,8) where 0=EGO1 and 2=EGO2

To make this same A9L use one EGO1 only, set the entire bank of EGO selection port values to 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.
To make this A9L use EGO2, set them to 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2.
Note, you can change any 1 port to use either side, as long as the hego is on that injector side.
Note, if number of EGOs is set to 1, then EGO1 is used only and all data should be set to
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0. Note, that the eec uses the number of cylinders to loop through the firing order and ego selection port.
Keep in mind the selection port always contains 8 ports in the bin file, however depending on the number of cylinders programmed in
will say where the eec stops using ports. For example, for a V6:

V6 EXAMPLE (the xample you sent looks correct) for 2- O2 SENSORS:
Number of Hego Sensors: 2
Number of Cylinders: 6
Firing Order: 1 4 3 6 2 5 0 0
(NOTE! The eec does not care what is programmed in the last two slots, ie 0 is ok and will be ignored)
Injector EGO Selection Port: 0,0,0,,2,2,2, 2(not used), 2(not used)

V6 EXAMPLE (the xample you sent looks correct) for 1- O2 SENSOR:
Number of Hego Sensors: 1
Number of Cylinders: 6
Firing Order: 1 4 3 6 2 5 0 0
(NOTE! The eec does not care what is programmed in the last two slots, ie 0 is ok and will be ignored)
Injector EGO Selection Port: 0,0,0,0,0,0, 2(not used), 2(not used)

Let me know if you need more help. The DEF is attached to this email.



Paul B."


QCKSNKE - The sensor is a thermistor. The more the wire cools (by air going by it) the higher the output voltage is. So if you take it out of the sample tube and put it in a pipe with a smaller diameter, it'll max out very soon because the velocity inside the smaller pipe will be higher than if it was in a larger pipe in the same system. So, the seemingly logical conclusion was that the end tank of the intercooler is probably larger than the opening in the stock MAF housing by a good amount - IOW, the velocity will be lower, the MAF range *should* be higher. And it worked out great like that for the whole time that setup was on there. It's only when we changed I/Cs that the issue came up.

Coupe - as for the positioning, it wasn't arbitrary. What we did was drill the hole and put the sensor in with me holding it. We turned the car on and checked the data logger. We'd watch the MAF output voltage to see how smooth it was and then rotate the sensor a little bit to fine tune it. When we got a really nice output voltage, we fastened it down.

This setup worked out really, really well up to this point.

[SvoBrown]

Neat stuff. I am still in a holding patten on my maf but hope to get back up and tuning sometime soon. I have the 80mm cobra maf in mine and at 22 psi it shows 4.79 volts on datalog. 286 hp. More timing would help me out I know.
Will be watching for more information.

[QWKSNKE]

. I have the 80mm cobra maf in mine and at 22 psi it shows 4.79 volts on datalog. 286 hp. .

You, sir, are on the very edge of pegging that meter

[QWKSNKE]

Here it is.


[FONT=Courier New]QCKSNKE - The sensor is a thermistor. The more the wire cools (by air going by it) the higher the output voltage is.

True, but I was under the impression that the thermistor is different between certain models of MAFs especially between a draw thru and a blow thru setup.

In my opinion this very theory is what makes C&L meters junk. You do not see C&L's on many forced induction cars because they do not work well. From what i have seen, they don't even work that well on stock 5.0 engines. They use the factory thermistor pack and change the sample tube. PMAS/Pro-M used a thermistor more calibrated to the sample tube which in turn makes for a more effcient meter

[sailorbob]

There's some more things that require altering for a 4 cylinder conversion;

Engine_Displacement (aka SARCHG) perhaps I'm stating the obvious with this one.
Ignition_Degrees_Per_PIP (aka DEGPIP) - set to 180 degrees
PIPs_per_Rev (aka ENGCYL) - set to 2
Signature_PIP_Multiplier_Highest_Value (aka SIGKLU) - set to suit 30% dutycycle
Signature_PIP_Multiplier_Lowest_Value (aka SIGKLL) - set to suit 30% dutycycle

The following may also need altering to ensure the pulsewidth conversion factor still works;

Number_of_Injector_Output_Ports (aka NUMOUT)
Number_of_Pips_Between_Injector_Outputs (aka PIPOUT)

[MikeSVO]

That's great to know, Bob! I haven't gotten my hands on the A9L yet, so we haven't actually begun tearing into it. Still working with the LA3, but it looks like the blowthrough MAF setup may have it's days numbered.

I'll let you know how it goes.

[coupe]

:hmm: You guys are talking about doing an A9L (with MAF) on an SVO...

but what about trying this approach with a Speed Density system instead?? Just run a 2 or 3 bar MAP sensor and tune from there. :shrug: I would buy a chip and rewire an SVO anyday for this simple solution. Plus, those computers are dirt cheap.

[QWKSNKE]

:hmm: You guys are talking about doing an A9L (with MAF) on an SVO...

but what about trying this approach with a Speed Density system instead?? Just run a 2 or 3 bar MAP sensor and tune from there. :shrug: I would buy a chip and rewire an SVO anyday for this simple solution. Plus, those computers are dirt cheap.


Because SD is a lot more of a pain in the ass to tune.

[MikeSVO]

:hmm: You guys are talking about doing an A9L (with MAF) on an SVO...

but what about trying this approach with a Speed Density system instead?? Just run a 2 or 3 bar MAP sensor and tune from there. :shrug: I would buy a chip and rewire an SVO anyday for this simple solution. Plus, those computers are dirt cheap.


I haven't heard of anyone doing that, and it seems too simple of a solution to work. But I think we're going to have a run at that, too, just for the heck of it. The GM 3 bar map sensor seems to fit perfectly into the range we want. Weather or not it will work, I have no idea. I can think of reasons why it would work, and reasons why it won't. I mean, all the MAF sensor does is give the computer a voltage, and the MAP sensor will do the same. But since they're reporting the voltage as functions of different parameters, I'm not sure if it's going to do what we want.

People may have done wired one in and not made any other changes only to see that it didn't work. Well, we'll stick the data logger and wideband on it and see if we can make a transfer curve that will allow it to work.

I think that's not next up though. I think we're going to try some funky sampling tube ideas we have.

[coupe]

Agreed. My point is, the FAST, BigStuff3, SpeedPro, etc...all run a MAP sensor and Sequential on their best setups. Why not use a MAP-sensor-based Sequential capable computer on the SVO? :metal: It would be perfect for a boosted application. Perfect.

[coupe]

And a guy I know (And Kerry knows him) runs the Holley Commander 900 on his SVO. It's speed density and batch-fire! He makes big power and loves it.

[SvoBrown]

I still want to look at the holley but the bs3 is on my list of wants.
Would like to be more help on this but I can only read and guess on it.

[MikeSVO]

I have to look into it more. Since I'm not shopping around, I don't know what they all have to offer, really.

I think the main thing is that I can't think of a good reason to switch. I mean, the stock stuff works, but it's never been developed for this application so we're sort of making up some stuff as we go along. Some of it is way out there, and we don't even talk about some of it because A) we're tired of hearing that the stuff won't work, and B) we're so far off the beaten path that the info really won't help anyone else (when I say we, I mean myself and my friend Jon. We work on the car at his shop, and while it's my car by ownership, it's definately a joint effort).

Warning -tangent ahead!-

But I can't see how any other setup is better than the factory stuff. Yes, you have to tweak it to fit the application, but to me that's just part of what goes along with 'building' a car. When most people run into problems, they switch directions. They don't solve them, they just go around them. "What? The MAF sensor pegged? Well, get it recalibrated." -or- "Buy a new one." -or- "Get a standalone." Instead, we ask, "What happens when it pegs? Why did it peg? How can we keep it from pegging?"...etc. We begin to measure the different parameters that make the setup act and react the way it does. What you end up finding out is that these BIG problems aren't that big at all.

The factory computers have had tons and tons of Ford's time and money put into their development. There's a lot of stuff worth keeping in there, and yet people will scrap the WHOLE THING because ONE parameter (albeit probably the MOST vital one) gets maxed out - airflow. But have you ever wondered what actually is going on when an airflow sensor maxes out in an EEC system? Basically, the sensor goes above ~5 volts. That's it.

We just thought it would be easier to get the sensor to operate within the right range than to rip out all the factory stuff, spend a bunch of money on something new and THEN have to start from scratch with the tuning.

[QWKSNKE]

I. But have you ever wondered what actually is going on when an airflow sensor maxes out in an EEC system? Basically, the sensor goes above ~5 volts. That's it.

.

which causes you to go lean.

[Disney Lincoln]

And melt pistons. and sell your car and scrap the whole thing.

[sailorbob]

In addtition to what I posted before, here's another parameter that will need changing;

Signature_PIP_Difference_Value (aka MHPFD) - set to suit 30% dutycycle