If you are encountering login problems please check here

Pre- tuned ECU's
#1

Are there any companies that sale pre-tuned ecu's for the 80's turbo 2.3?
Reply
#2

The Ford EEC-IV didn't really lend itself to "tuning". Even back in the 80s-90s, companies like Hypertech and Superchips weren't offering anything.

There's nothing "off-the-shelf" already tuned for Ford 2.3 Limas.

We Ford folks had to use devices that sort of tricked the stock computer, some cheap, some expensive (Crane Interceptor, Ford SVO RPM Extender). Or replace the EEC-IV with Haltech, TwEECer, F..A.S.T., etc. The Moates Quarterhorse permits keeping the stock EEC-IV but still requires the user do all the tuning.

The best current option is the PiMP from Shannon at Stinger.
'85.5 SVO
'84 Turbo RS Capri
Reply
#3

Cleven.

I am not sure who still do them but you can pick up chips every now and then they are rear to come by. One thing as you know is that the chip will be for a specific set of parameters and if need to be changed will need to get some one to do it. I have a chip on one of the XRs (this was programmed by SVO-JOHN a while back, not sure if he still does them) but on the primary XR I run a PIMP.

If you can get a used PIMP older version for a good price it will open up a lot of options for you.
88XR4TI:T67/T4 Turbo,85lb inj,PIMPV1.3,LS2-Coils,255LPH,3" exh, Stg4 Head, BoPort Header, Bob's Inline, Cus.body kit, 16" Rims, Supra 3.73 LSD, Rasp.PI3 dash
Reply
#4

I agree with all that was said about the pimp. Among others, it has an autotune feature with Tunerstudio that is self learning(if you want to call it that) and takes out most of the guess work for you and allows you to drive through all areas of the fuel map while autotune makes the needed adjustments by itself. Great product.
88 TC 2.5 5spd~money pit
Reply
#5

(12-04-2021, 05:45 PM)longbedGTs Wrote:  I agree with all that was said about the pimp. Among others, it has an autotune feature with Tunerstudio that is self learning(if you want to call it that) and takes out most of the guess work for you and allows you to drive through all areas of the fuel map while autotune makes the needed adjustments by itself. Great product.
Plus you just can't beat the great product support!
1986 SVO daily driver. PiMP v1.4/3" Stinger exhaust/FMIC/Schlodes Manifolds/Boport 2.1 and head/GM 3700 stall 200-4R auto trans
1963 2.3T Ranchero Project
Reply
#6

There are too many variables, boost psi, rpms, fuel pressure, duty cycle, injectors size, timing, etc.

I run a Pimp and I learned a lot setting it up and making small adjustment for more power. It's the best money I spent.
87 TC 5 speed at 205,000 miles, BoPort Stage 3 Head, 2.1 cam, 50 trim Turbo, Stinger Pimp, 3" exhaust, upper and lower ported manifolds, FMIC, 80lb injectors, 255 pump, 20 psi at 4K, 25 psi at 4.5k. Temp is 93c and IAT is 50c in West Texas Summer. Great freeway flyer on pump 93 gas.
Reply
#7

Although I obviously profit from the sale of what is recommended above, I think it is important to expound upon this particular aftermarket community, and how we got here.

The original 2.3t ecus, were actually fairly well done for the factory combo. Any power you can gain from "tuning" honestly is going to be minimal. The reality is the factory large VAMS were maxed out at factory boost levels by 4000 rpm. They actually worked ok a little above factory boost levels because they were designed to target rich AFR's.

As you either added airflow mods or boost, the ecu really has no way of knowing you need more fuel. Factory injectors are also done at this point as well.

In the past, many people managed to get good results by simply throwing more fuel pressure at them, and racing fuel can be safely ran to leaner AFR's. These results pushed the "culture" of this particular community to rely on factory engine management through relatively elevated levels. This same community also called the headgasket a fuse.....

Still, through a 300ish hp/250ish rwhp setup, fresh factory stuff with a little extra fuel pressure honestly worked pretty good.

As good/inexpensive aftermaket EFI became available, this began to shift. Users could easily run large injectors, and actually trust what they entered in the keyboard was kinda reality, and tends to be a more reliable way to hit these goals.

That being said, the other reality is the newest factory turbo 2.3 EEC is now 32 years old. Capacitors leak. Stuff breaks down. The "reman" stuff from the parts store is at best an entity that managed to replace the one obviously failed component and clean it up. Something that has really suprised me with the PIMP sales recently is quite a few of them are MAF v8 guys that are just sick of trying to find a good factory computer every year, even if they were happy with the performance of their chipped (or skewed maf/injectors) eec.
86 Mazda RX7, 2.3 swap, t5, MS3 sequential, BW EFR 6758
"If you can't dazzle them with knowledge, baffle them with bull sh*t"
Reply
#8

(12-12-2021, 11:19 PM)Wessk Wrote:  Although I obviously profit from the sale of what is recommended above, I think it is important to expound upon this particular aftermarket community, and how we got here.

The original 2.3t ecus, were actually fairly well done for the factory combo.  Any power you can gain from "tuning" honestly is going to be minimal.  The reality is the factory  large VAMS were maxed out at factory boost levels by 4000 rpm.  They actually worked ok a little above factory boost levels because they were designed to target rich AFR's. 

As you either added airflow mods or boost, the ecu really has no way of knowing you need more fuel.  Factory injectors are also done at this point as well.

In the past, many people managed to get good results by simply throwing more fuel pressure at them, and racing fuel can be safely ran to leaner AFR's.  These results pushed the "culture" of this particular community to rely on factory engine management through relatively elevated levels.  This same community also called the headgasket a fuse.....

Still, through a 300ish hp/250ish rwhp setup, fresh factory stuff with a little extra fuel pressure honestly worked pretty good.

As good/inexpensive aftermaket EFI became available, this began to shift.  Users could easily run large injectors, and actually trust what they entered in the keyboard was kinda reality, and tends to be a more reliable way to hit these goals.

That being said, the other reality is the newest factory turbo 2.3 EEC is now 32 years old.  Capacitors leak.  Stuff breaks down.  The "reman" stuff from the parts store is at best an entity that managed to replace the one obviously failed component and clean it up.  Something that has really suprised me with the PIMP sales recently is quite a few of them are MAF v8 guys that are just sick of trying to find a good factory computer every year, even if they were happy with the performance of their chipped (or skewed maf/injectors) eec.

Wes thank you for the great reply.  This is something I'm going through with a MAF system (QH/T4M0), all kinds of problems that I can't identify.  Self tuning has my interest.  I think the sale of the two A9L's, and one of the CBAZA ecu's might offset a good chunk of a pimp.  Interesting.[/quote]
'93 Mustang 2.3T swapped. LA3, Stinger FMIC 3" down elbow and 3" exhaust.
Reply
#9

(12-12-2021, 11:19 PM)Wessk Wrote:  ...This same community also called the headgasket a fuse.....

Way too damn funny not to acknowledge with proper and emphatic...LOL!!   Wink
I'll keep my guns, money, and freedom. You keep the "change"
Reply
#10

(12-19-2021, 03:26 AM)Wessk Wrote:  The reality is the factory large VAMS were maxed out at factory boost levels by 4000 rpm.  
.
I'm gonna throw something out here that ~ while it seems obvious to me ~ has probably been hashed over and proven wrong hundreds of times in the past. BUT.......I've got nothing better to do right now than to bother those "in the know".

Soooo........hypothetically speaking/thinking, WHAT IF: One were to add an additional large "dummy" VAM (with NO electrical connection to the EEC) in parallel with the existing one, then double the injector size (to 70pph)? The dummy Vam would be installed simply to provide a secondary/equal-size passageway for incoming air into the turbo, while also presenting the same exact amount of flow resistance (same "door" and spring tension), thus making each VAM flow virtually equal amounts of air.

The EEC would still, however, only get a "flow report" from ONE of the two VAMS.....thus theoretically commanding only half the pulse width to an injector bank that could flow twice as much fuel. Of course, to take advantage of the alleged greater air and fuel delivery, a larger &/or more-efficient turbo would also be necessary (EFR, HX35, HY35, HE341, etc.?). Since the factory (EEC) turbo engine-management systems have been around for nearly 4 decades (1983 to 2022) ~ I'm sure that someone who's much smarter than me has tried and failed with this strategy! BUT.......I'm curious to know why such a ghetto "workaround" wouldn't operate satisfactorily, lol.  <shrug>

BTW ~ I'm definitely NOT suggesting that such a hacked system could possibly work as well as an aftermarket setup like PiMP or similar......rather, I'm just exercising my alleged brain in what may be a vain effort to avoid dementia/Alzheimer's.   Wink
Placerville, California
(former)  '78 2.3T Courier w/blow-thru Autolite 2bbl carb ~ (current)  '87 2.3T Ranger w/PiMP’d EFI
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)